k
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan
Publication Draft
Consultation Statement
June 2014
If you have any queries or questions relating to this document please get in touch using the details shown below:
Torridge District Council North Devon Council Riverbank House Civic Centre Bideford Barnstaple EX39 2QG EX31 1EA
[email protected] [email protected]
01237 428748 01271 388392 Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. The Purpose of this Report 2
3. Achieved Engagement - Draft 4 Local Plan
4. Summary of Responses 7
5. Appendix 1: Feedback Report 9 Local Plan Consultation Draft Chapter 1: Introduction 9 Chapter 2: Spatial Planning Vision 14 Policy ST01: Presumption in Favour of 24 Sustainable Development Policy ST02: Principles of Sustainable 26 Development Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change 28 Policy ST04: Improving the Quality of 33 Development Policy ST05: Sustainable Construction and 38 Buildings Policy ST06: Spatial Development Strategy 43 for Northern Devon Policy ST07: Scale and Distribution of New 48 Development in Northern Devon ST08: Rural Area Strategy 59 Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy 63 Policy ST10: Transport Strategy 71 Chapter 5 : A World Class Environment 79 (introduction) Policy ST11: Enhancing Environmental 82 Assets Policy ST12: Conserving Heritage Assets 89 Policy ST13: Delivering Renewable Energy 90 and Heat Chapter 6: Enabling a Vibrant Economy 96 (introduction) Policy ST14: Delivering Employment and 100 Economic Development ST15: Town, District and Village Centres 104 Policy ST16: Sustainable Tourism 107 Chapter 7: Delivering a Balanced Local 109 Housing Market (introduction) Policy ST17: A Balanced Housing Market 112
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Contents
Policy ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing 121 Policy ST19: Providing Homes for the 140 Travelling Communities Policy ST20: Managing the Delivery of 142 Housing Policy ST21: Community Services and 146 Facilities Policy ST22: Infrastructure 149 Policy ST23: Neighbourhood Planning 151 Town Strategies: Barnstaple 154 Town Strategies: Bideford 220 Town Strategies: Braunton and Wrafton 254 Town Strategies: Fremington and Yelland 268 Town Strategies: Great Torrington 279 Town Strategies: Holsworthy 299 Town Strategies: Ilfracombe 311 Town Strategies: Northam 326 Town Strategies: South Molton 357 Chapter 11: Monitoring Framework 378 Chapter 12: Development Management 379 Policies
6. Appendix 2: Feedback Report Local Plan Part 3 - Rural 438 Strategies
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Introduction 1
1 Introduction
1 North Devon and Torridge District 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 adds to the North Devon and Torridge Core Strategy Issue and Options Feedback Report (2009) and the North Devon and Torridge Core Strategy Pre-publication Feedback Report (2011). These studies together demonstrate North Devon and Torridge District Councils are compliant with requirements set out in the Statement of Community Involvement and local planning regulations.
1 Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) England 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 during the draft Local Plan consultation (parts one and two of the local plan) in early 2013 and focused consultation with Parish Councils on the Rural Strategies (part three of the Local Plan) during 2013; and thirdly it sets out the consequent outcomes and alterations 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, adopted by North Devon in August 2006 and Torridge in December 2006. In particular the statement 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; iii. the procedure for making representations; and iv. a summary of main issues raised as a result of the representations received.
5 The Consultation Statement is also intended to summarise the results of the consultation, including the main points raised by those participating in and contributing towards the consultation. In doing this, the Councils will be 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 will play an important role in supporting the development of 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. The below table 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 2005 This is an ongoing process of gathering information that will Gathering help inform preparation of the Local Plan (previously known as the Core Strategy). It involves technical work and early consultation with early consultation and key agencies and other stakeholders.
Issues and November- The Councils consulted widely to understand the key issues Options December facing northern Devon and the options that could be adopted 2007 to address 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
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
place over a twelve week period of public consultation: 8 November 2007 to 21 January 2008.
Pre-Publication January The outcomes from the Issues and Options Report supported -March 2010 by key stakeholder engagement and a Sustainability Appraisal informed 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 2013 March 2013 as a consequence the Government's revocation of Regional 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 (Pre-Submission) August 2014 how the plan area should develop. There will be a formal six week period of public consultation on the Publication Local Plan.
Submission January The Local Plan will be submitted to the Secretary of State version 2014 alongside representations received in response to pre-submission consultation.
Public Spring 2015 The examination will allow a Planning Inspector to consider Examination how “sound” the Local Plan is. Those who commented on the Publication version may be invited to appear at the Examination.
Adoption of the Summer The Councils will adopt the Local Plan as its development plan Core Strategy 2015 following receipt of the Inspector's Report of Public Examination.
Table 2.1
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 3 3 Achieved Engagement - Draft Local Plan
3 Achieved Engagement - 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 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.
8 The purpose of the 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 in strategic terms, including how to meet housing and employment requirements identified by new locally determined evidence. It also provided an opportunity to consult on the proposed changes to the Local Development Framework and its change from a suite of Development Plan Documents to one Local Plan document.
9 The formal consultation was accompanied by a Sustainability Appraisal and a range of supporting documents, including sustainability assessments of housing distribution scenarios and housing site options.
Draft Local Plan (parts one and two) consultation
10 Formal consultation on the draft Local Plan (parts one and two) was undertaken over an six week period, during 31 January to 15 March 2013. Engagement in the consultation process was encouraged as follows:
advanced notification of the consultation was provided directly to all town and parish councils and the winter edition of Torridge News gave notice of the Local Plan consultation and invited interests to register to received notification of the documents issue;
in advance of the formal consultation exercise 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;
a suite of Local Plan leaflets were provided to district and parish councillors, exhibitions, public libraries and the District Council's offices across North Devon and Torridge. The leaflets became the subject of multiple page articles in the local press. The leaflets highlighted key issues including proposed growth levels and how to get involved in the consultation process;
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 1,600 statutory and non-statutory organisations, representative groups and individuals were informed in this manner;
during the week of consultation 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;
4 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Achieved Engagement - Draft Local Plan 3
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 exhibitions held across northern Devon and permanent exhibitions were in place in the Councils' main offices for the duration of the consultation period;
news items on the Councils' website with links to a dedicated webpage on the Local Plan which provided information necessary to support interests in accessing the document and how to make comment on the document;
a dedicated online planning portal allowed people to submit representations 24 hours a day during the six week consultation period;
officer attendance at a range of meetings: Town and Parish Councils, North Devon+, Agents Forum and the Senior Council for North Devon, to discuss and encourage comment on the Local Plan; and
a reminder notice was issued through the press two weeks before the close of the consultation period to remind interests that the Local Plan was still available for comment.
Draft Local Plan (Part three - Rural Strategies) consultation
11 North Devon and Torridge District Councils have been working with parish councils to achieve a neighbourhood planning approach to the rural strategies part of the Local Plan (Part 3). Extensive engagement was undertaken (January - September 2013) to enable the parish councils to identify a local vision and development strategy that reflected local growth aspirations. The resultant village plans (which relate to identified Local Plans and Villages) now form Part three of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan and will guide development in the rural areas up to 2031. The results of this engagement feed directly into the Publication Local Plan.
12 The consultation process was encouraged as follows:
advanced notification of the consultation was provided directly to all parish councils via email and letter;
North Devon and Torridge Councils prepared a rural planning toolkit to assist parish councils and their communities to create a new plan for their villages. It included a planning guidance (national and local)note, the information provided to the parish councils was also made available through the Councils' websites to ensure a transparency of process.
officers held several meetings and attended Parish Forums and a Rural Seminar during March 2013, to introduce Part three of the Local Plan to Parish Council Clerks/Chairmen and present the 'rural planning tookit'.
officers attended exhibitions and formal meetings, during 2013 and early 2014, organised by Parish Councils to provide guidance and help explain the purpose of the exercise;
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 5 3 Achieved Engagement - Draft Local Plan
news items on the Councils' website with links to a dedicated webpage on the Local Plan which provided information necessary to support interests in accessing the 'rural planning toolkit' and how to make comment on the document; and
officers supported parish councils to identify deliverable land and alternative sites through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment process;
6 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Summary of Responses 4
4 Summary of Responses
Draft Local Plan (Parts one and two) consultation
13 Consultation undertaken on the draft Local Plan generated 4,023 representations from 829 distinct individuals and organisations. The representations can be split as follows:
Type of representation Number of representations
Support 696 (17.3%)
Support subject to amendments 627 (15.6%)
Objections 1,736 (43.2%)
General comments 964 (24.0%)
Table 4.1 Representations
14 During the consultation period just over 4,000 comments were submitted and accepted as duly made. The comments were provided by 829 unique consultees (statutory consultees, organisations, representative groups and individuals) and 40 agents. The level of response represented an increase of 29% on respondents from the previous Issues and Options Stage. In providing responses, an increasing number of respondents also utilised the Council’s online consultation portal: 20% provided web based comments; 53% by email and; 27% by letter.
15 The level of response and the number of persons attending exhibitions, workshops and public meetings suggests a positive outcome in respect of delivering an effective programme of accessible engagement.
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. A summary of all responses received and the Councils' response to each comment has been prepared to form part of the report of public consultation and can be viewed on the Councils' websites at: http://www.torridge.gov.uk/localplan and http://www.northdevon.gov.uk/localplan.
17 Analysis, in Appendix 1, has been undertaken by officers to provide an overview of the consultation comments received by the Councils. The analysis is structured on the format of the draft Local Plan. The number of individual responses made to each specific chapter or policy area is recorded along with the nature of each response. The analysis does not attempt to cover all points raised by respondents and the exclusion of any point or issue does not imply it has any lesser importance. The analysis must therefore be read alongside the electronic consultation data base on the Councils' websites referred to above.
Draft Local Plan (Part three - Rural Strategies) consultation
18 Direct and extensive engagement was undertaken with all parish councils which contained Local Plan identified Local Centres or Villages. The District Councils sought clear guidance from the Parish Councils on the form, scale and location of growth they sought to meet locally defined aspirations. All Parish Councils that contained defined settlements responded to this request, from which the rural
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 7 4 Summary of Responses
strategies element of the Local Pan was prepared. Appendix 2 indicates some key responses to this exercise in relation to the settlement hierarchy and the application of development boundaries. Additional detailed direction was also provided in respect of allocations for a range of uses and sites.
19 In preparing the rural strategy chapters, the District Councils sought to follow the wishes of the Parish Councils where a sound planning approach could be achieved to deliver the objectives of the Local Plan.
20 Engagement activities in respect of the draft Local Plan are considered to be appropriate and to have extended opportunities beyond those previously provided and required through the Councils’ respective Statements of Community Involvement and local planning regulations.
8 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Chapter 1: Introduction
Total number of responses 99
Total number of responses in support 22
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 6
Total number of responses in objection 28
Total number of responses providing a general comment 43
Table 5.1 Responses to Chapter 1
Officer Comments and Recommendations
21 This report has sought to categorise comments in to general topics and themes due to the wide range of comments attributed to the chapter.
Procedural Matters
22 The local plan should be written using simple language. Chapter one should focus on the growth agenda and is currently too negative focusing too heavily on constraints. It is also requested that a detailed timetable for completion of all local plan documents and evidence be provided to make the process more transparent.
23 The level of consultation has been high, when compared to previous rounds of consultation on the Core Strategy. Where practically possible the two Councils have sought to use the media, parish and town councils and local ward, district and county councilors to advertise the Local Plan consultation. It is not considered the Local Plan has failed in its duty to consult local communities and key statutory consultees. Suggestions ranged from the need to hold events at weekends to ensure every local resident can attend; as well as the need to consult with all residents across northern Devon.
24 A single comment stated that the plan is late and has failed to meet Government deadlines placing Northern Devon at risk of hostile planning applications. Provisions found in the NPPF, where by it gives a local planning authority up to 1 April 2013 to give full weight to Local Plan policies adopted since 2004 (NPPF paragraph 214), does not apply to the North Devon or Torridge District. Neither Plan was examined/adopted under the provisions found in the Planning and Compulsory Act 2004. Instead paragraph 215 applies, where due weight should be given to relevant saved policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.
25 Someone seeks to understand the process that ensures the most suitable sites are allocated for development and whether this has been influenced by lobbying. It is also suggested that allocations in line with developers’ applications suggest that the process has been ‘tainted’ by developer ambitions rather than public need. The availability and suitability of potential development sites was assessed through the SHLAA to determine which were developable. Selection of the most suitable sites was informed by an sustainability appraisal of alternative site options and consideration of their contribution to wider strategic objectives and infrastructure delivery.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 9 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
26 The phrase ‘key stakeholder’ caused some confusion. It is generally considered to be a statutory organisations, who are required to guide the delivery of the Local Plan, albeit this can include other organisations where specific issues require their involvement. It is recommended that the term “Key Stakeholder” be included with the glossary along with a succinct definition.
Evidence
27 Several respondents are concerned the draft policies and strategies were not based on up to date and sound evidence. It is argued that the absence of evidence impedes the ability to provide constructive representations. Evidence is unavoidably twin tracked alongside the production of the local plan, albeit certain evidence is required ahead of other studies to inform the plan production.
28 A comment questions what opportunities exist for communities to be involved in preparation of evidence base for the plan. This will be dependent on the type of evidence, for example the Green Infrastructure study heavily involves local town and parish councils and local communities in the collation and analysis of data, however studies such as the Strategic Housing Market Assessment is a more technical document that is generally prepared by local authority officers or external consultants. Whilst the preparation of some evidence studies might not include direct community involvement, studies (where available) form part of the suite of documents for comment during each round of public consultation.
29 It recognised that opportunities should be provided to make evidence more accessible to local communities. This could include providing an evidence document list at the publication (regulation 19) consultation which will state where the document is publicly available, e.g. libraries or online. Studies completed during 2013 will need to be published online ready for the publication (regulation 19) consultation in January 2014.
Localism Act and Neighbourhood Planning
30 The Local Plan states that it is guide to developers and decision makers however there is no mention of the needs and wishes of the community. It is accepted the introduction should state that the plan has been influenced by community aspirations where this has helped to direct the future location and type of development in their community.
31 Respondents questioned the local plan’s commitment to the Localism Act that aims to make the planning system more democratic and more effective, when the plan is seeking to deliver so much development. It is recognised there is conflict between the requirements found in the NPPF and the powers found in the Localism Act to decentralise planning to local communities. The NPPF provides centralised guidance to local planning authorities and it seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing. It also requires local planning authorities to objectively assess future needs (i.e. evidence) and ensure that the Local Plan meets these in full.
32 In response to general concerns about available evidence, it is accepted that evidence is still being prepared and collated to demonstrate how the Local Plan has and will carry out its duty to co-operate with neighbouring authorities, as prescribed by the Localism Act.
33 The Local Plan, through Policy ST23: Neighbourhood Planning, supports parishes to prepare Neighbourhood Plans. The two Councils have made a commitment to support rural communities and have worked closely with the Parish Councils towards preparing roughly 60 Village plans across northern Devon. Where possible the Local Plan incorporates the aspirations, and the types, levels and locations of development the local community wish to see built.
10 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
34 It is clear there is some confusion as to the purpose of a Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) and how it fits/works with the Local Plan. For clarity the plan should refer to Neighbourhood Plans rather than the NDP. Furthermore a short sentence should be included to refer the reader to the relevant policy/chapter explaining how neighbourhood planning works alongside the local plan. The working group may recall an agreed recommendation to Policy ST23 to be clearer on the purpose and role of neighbourhood planning. It is felt these recommendations will provide greater clarity.
Sustainability
35 There is some concern the NPPF’s presumption in favor of sustainable development will override all other planning considerations. In terms of the Local Plan, the NPPF explains this means positively seeking opportunities to meet the objectively assessed development needs of the area, unless of course any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or where specific policies (SSSI, AONB, protected species, etc) indicate development should be restricted. This caveat is crucial and allows the two Councils and their respective planning committees to refuse development where it can demonstrate significant impact to other objectives found in the NPPF and the adopted Local Plan.
36 Several comments question the fundamental measures of sustainability used. The NPPF guides local planning authorities to have regard to the United Nations General Assembly definition of sustainable development (resolution 42/187) and the UK Sustainable Development Strategy Securing the Future (five guiding principles). NPPF policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system.
37 Furthermore an integral part of the local plan preparation process is the sustainability appraisal. The appraisal considers all the likely significant effects the local plan will have on the environment, economy and local communities. Since 2001 sustainability appraisals have had to be in conformity with the European Directive on strategic environmental assessment. It is considered these processes provide a sound and measurable commitment to the principles of achieving sustainable development, and will shape the plan as a whole to become more sustainable.
Jobs and Employment
38 Several respondents are concerned that housing development is not sustainable without the provision of new jobs and general employment growth. It is also said that there is little or no evidence that employment growth will be delivered.
39 In the context of planning and its ability to influence economic growth, the local plan assesses the local economy through a review of existing employment land supply and future supply based on modelling future econometric and policy-on forecasts. This evidence can be found in the North Devon and Torridge Employment Land Review, which identifies potential job growth of around 7,500 new full time equivalent jobs and establishes the amount of land required achieve this growth.
40 Outside of land use planning, strategies such as the North Devon and Torridge Economic Strategy, Devon County Council’s Economic Strategy and the Heart of the Southwest Local Enterprise Partnership, work alongside the local plan to promote and support inward investment in to the area. An example includes the recent pinch point funding awarded to improve the A39/Roundswell roundabout.
41 For information the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership is currently writing three documents, which will form its strategy and the basis for making funding decisions for the area. The three are:
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 11 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
EU Strategic Structural and Investment Framework (draft to be submitted to Government by 7 Oct 2013). Plymouth City Deal (Negotiation and finalisation October / November 2013). HotSW LEP Strategic Economic Plan (submit draft to Government in December 2014, final).
42 The role of the local plan is to manage the release of land and its subsequent development. The extent to which the local plan can influence job creation can only go so far and is inescapably influenced by non-planning national and local strategies and policies that seek to influence the economy, either directly or indirectly. It is imperative that the local plan supports and is supported by, economic strategies to help deliver sustainable economic growth.
Landscape and wind turbines
43 Respondents stated the plan is unable to protect the landscape due to intensity and proliferation of wind turbines already present in the area. Impact on landscape and amenities is already addressed by Policy ST13(5) and can be considered against other policies protecting residential amenities, environmental and heritage assets. These issues are discussed in great depth within the ST13 paper, in particular paragraphs (2) and (3).
44 It has also been suggested that the plan should request a health impact assessment of wind turbines, where policy will block any wind turbine where there would be more than 10 homes within 1.4km of the site of a wind turbine above 50m. DCLG guidance (Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy) states local planning authorities should not rule out otherwise acceptable renewable energy developments through inflexible rules on buffer zones or separation distances. For this reason this recommendation cannot form part of the emerging local plan.
Design
45 It has been requested that policy limits size, density, height and type of development to that already in the area. The local plan is clear that proposed developments consider the impact on the neighbouring occupier amenity and the character of the surrounding area. Where it is demonstrated there is significant harm, development will be refused consent. There area already policies controlling and influencing design (ST04) and amenity considerations (DM01).
46 It is however accepted that design policies could be made clearer especially in relation for need to respect the local character / built form of the area, as per recommendations made in the recent Development Management policy summary paper. No further recommendations are made in this paper.
Housing
47 The draft local plan shows a significant change to housing numbers compared to those in the pre-publication Core Strategy. Respondents feel the local plan does not adequately explain this transition or the more fundament housing need and demand. It is accepted the local plan could make improvements and it is recommended that the evidence (i.e. ELR, SHMA, SHLAA, etc) could be included with the Glossary with a short definition. For example the Strategic Housing Market Assessment could include a short definition to explain its role in defining future housing need and demand.
48 Prior to submission to the Secretary of State in 2014, it is expected a suite of papers on topics such as housing, employment, environment and infrastructure will provide further insight and narrative on such topics.
12 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Agreed Actions
1. Amend the Glossary by defining the following terms: Employment Land Review (ELR), Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA);
2. Amend the Glossary by defining ‘key stakeholder’ or alternatively amend paragraph 1.12 to describe organisations critical to the delivery of the local plan in ‘plain English’ terms;
3. Amend and update the local plan delivery programme in paragraph 1.13;
4. Amend paragraph 1.14 to delete the outstanding evidential requirements, although recognising the Gypsy and Traveller Assessment is currently being prepared;
5. Draft an evidence document list ready for the publication (regulation 19) consultation;
6. Published all completed evidence studies online; and
7. Amend paragraph 1.4 from ‘Neighbourhood Development Plans’ to Neighbourhood Plans or Planning.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 13 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Chapter 2: Spatial Planning Vision
Total number of responses 211
Total number of responses in support 29
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 33
Total number of responses in objection 60
Total number of responses providing a general comment 89
Table 5.2
49 Comments made in response to the Spatial Planning Vision and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal.
Other Key Issues identified
The UK National Ecosystem Assessment (work-packages WP9 and WP10)[1] has developed a suite of tools that enable decision-makers to value ecosystems and to use this intelligence more effectively in the decision- and policy-making processes. The NEA has used this draft Local Plan as a case study to demonstrate how best to embed the value of the ecosystem approach and its attendant ecosystem services. As part of this case study it is recommended that a more detail explanation of ecosystem services is required. Recommendations from the Environmental Assets (ST11) summary paper identify:
the need to consider improvements to water quality in rivers, estuaries and other water bodies when reviewing strategic objectives in Aim 1; and reviewing strategic objectives in aim 1 to recognise the value of all countryside assets and to clarify the different design objectives for mitigating impacts of climate change and adapting to the effects of climate change.
Engagement with Devon County Council’s Public Health team has identified they are looking to provide guidance on a range of matters including how we integrate health issues more explicitly into the Plan's overriding objectives. They are also providing:
Resources to update the Plan's health impact assessment; Assistance with our duty to cooperate requirement with the Clinical Commissioning Group Assistance with the infrastructure delivery plan, including any new or expanded surgeries required; and Assistance with the interpretation of the draft green infrastructure strategy and assessment to identify opportunities for ‘healthy living’.
On 31 July 2013, the Government launched a first stage consultation on updating the Assisted Areas Map for 2014 to 2020. Assisted Areas are those areas where regional aid can be offered to undertakings, typically businesses, under state aid rules. A second stage consultation is currently seeking views on the draft Assisted Areas Map, taking into consideration the
14 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Government’s response to the first stage consultation, and the need to comply with the Commission’s regional aid guidelines. The draft map includes the following wards: Appledore, Bideford East, Bideford North, Bideford South, Clovelly Bay, Hartland and Bradworthy, Kenwith, Monkleigh and Littleham, Northam, Orchard Hill, Torrington, Westward Ho! (TDC) Fremington and Instow (NDC)
Officer Comments and Recommendations
50 Over 200 comments are attributed to the spatial planning vision chapter. There are broadly an equal number of comments supporting (inc. subject to amendments) and objecting and further 89 comments making general comments to chapter two. Due to the high number comments the summary paper has sought to theme comments to aid analysis and report writing. The issues are set out to reflect the order of the the paragraphs in the draft local plan.
51 The vision is at the heart of the local plan and many of the issues raised in this chapter have also been raised elsewhere in other strategies and polices. This is the final chapter to be summarised and as such this paper does not seek to repeat analysis already available in other summary papers. Where ever possible comments will be signposted to other summary papers and the individual policies.
General comments (including Spatial Portrait)
52 Several comments question the fundamental measures of sustainability used. The NPPF (paragraph 6) guides local planning authorities to have regard to the United Nations General Assembly definition of sustainable development (resolution 42/187) and the UK Sustainable Development Strategy Securing the Future (five guiding principles). NPPF policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system. The issues relating directly to sustainable development are set out in the summary papers for Policies ST02 and ST03.
53 Several comments identify errors with Table 2.1, which are accepted and corrections will be made. There is a wide level of support for the Biosphere Reserve, however there are concerns the Plan is preoccupied with the Biosphere to the disadvantage of other ecological sites. The Chapter makes clear its intentions to conserve and protect national and local natural and heritage assets, including the setting of Exmoor National Park, which conforms with the approach set out in the World Class Environment chapter.
54 North Devon Plus (ND+) contend supporting the Biosphere Reserve reinforces the perception of the environment having precedence over economic activity rather than a balanced approach to sustainable development. ND+ raise this point a number of times throughout chapter two and more in depth commentary can be found in the following paragraphs. They request paragraph 2.2 be strengthened to say, “The overarching principle supporting this Plan is to achieve sustainable development using a defined model to measure our progress. We must grow the local economy but in doing so ensure that we minimise adverse cultural, political and environmental impacts.” Similarly another respondent requests the following underlined words be included within paragraph 2.2: “The overarching principle supporting this Local Plan in northern Devon is to conserve and enhance the landscape and heritage assets and to achieve sustainable development with economic growth for the benefit of all current and future residents and visitors to northern Devon.” It is accepted that improvements should be made to paragraph 2.2 to benefit from including reference to measurable objectives for the Local Plan (e.g. principles of ‘plan, manage, monitor’).
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 15 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
55 A commentator questions the variance in approach in respect of addressing need in Torridge and growth for North Devon. This point is accepted and it should be made clearer. The main difference is because North Devon is proposing to exceed the minimum housing requirement identified by the recent update to the Strategic Housing Market Assessment.
56 It has been suggested that we build a new canal network to provide a low carbon alternative mode of transport. It is suggested this can also provide flood defence and irrigation systems. These benefits are understandable however a new canal system in northern Devon would be extremely expensive, its purpose is questionable and deliverability is uncertain, let alone any issues that arise from route selection. It is anticipated that any cost benefit analysis from such a scheme would identify the need to focus new investment to the existing road, rail, cycle and footpath infrastructure rather than a new canal system.
57 Paragraph 2.9 provides a succinct overview of northern Devon’s geography. DCC request the paragraph include references to the landscape character area types, whereas another respondent requests inclusion of references to Rivers Carey and Wolfe. This paragraph is intended to be succinct and it is neither necessary nor suitable to include further detail. References to landscape character area types can be found in the environment chapter and the main rivers (Taw, Torridge and Tamar) are already referenced.
58 Paragraph 2.10 provides a succinct overview of northern Devon’s economy. It is appropriate to update this paragraph to reflect the findings found in the recently completed Employment Land Review and Housing and Employment study. This update will take into account respondents’ questions such as where is the evidence to support the supposition that northern Devon is experiencing a ‘growing green economy’ and the rural areas have ‘displayed some economic diversification’. Another respondent seeks to ensure the paragraph highlights the imperative to protect the environment for the benefit of the local economy, in particular the tourism.
59 The Assisted Area status is expected to cover the coastal wards of Torridge together with Fremington and Westeligh wards south of the Taw estuary. It offers enhanced levels of assistance within these disadvantaged areas. The Assisted Area status covers the period to 2020, which should be recognised in the spatial portrait, as well as in the supporting text for the Coast and Estuary Strategy (ST09).
60 Paragraphs 2.11 and 2.12 provides a succinct overview of northern Devon’s projected demographic change and housing needs. A number of respondents request a better explanation of the projections and in particular the reference to ‘11% growth’. The inclusion of footnotes and links to evidence studies should aid the reader. There is much discussion on the impacts of migration and an ageing population. Comments range from the need to stop all in-migration, only to plan for local generated housing needs, to prevent the increase in pensioners and provide suitable accommodation, facilities and services to cater for ageing population.
61 It is questioned why the ageing population does not feature more prominently elsewhere in the plan. It is argued this is one of the biggest issues facing the area yet the Plan and its policies remain relatively silent and offer little intervention to manage this demographic change. To some extent this point is accepted and improvements will be made to the housing chapter to demonstrate its policies and strategies are responding to the demographic challenges identified in chapter two. This issue is debated further by other respondents, who argue the types of houses developers are building (or seeking to get consent for) are unsuitable (too large) for the future housing needs of an ageing population thus compounding the issue further; Larkbear being a recent example.
16 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
62 Some of these requests and comments, such as preventing in-migration in to the area, are beyond the control of the planning system. The NPPF is clear that future population projections must take into account migration when establishing the housing needs across the housing market area. Further discussion on housing can be found in the housing chapter (Policies ST17 to ST20) summary paper. It is recommended that the first sentence of paragraph 2.12 be corrected from its current reference to the ‘housing market’ to ‘existing housing stock’.
63 Paragraph 2.13 provides a succinct overview of northern Devon’s shortage of available affordable homes. A considerable number of representations are attributed to this paragraph and provide a wide range of commentary including the need to provide more shelter/care homes rather than affordable homes; comments on the types of people living in social housing; there is no evidence of a shortage; important shortage does not stifle overall housing provision (viability); access should be prioritised for local people; site target provision should be 30% not 25%; and reduce/stop second home ownership to improve affordability. Many of these issues are discussed in greater detail later in this summary paper or can be found in the Housing Chapter (ST17 to ST20) summary paper.
64 Paragraph 2.14 provides a succinct overview of northern Devon’s social and economic challenges. One respondent seek to understand what the Plan means when it states “In respect of business productivity…”; it is recommended that a better phrase be used as its meaning is too vague. It is also recommended that a reference be included within this chapter to emphasise Torridge District’s lowest position in the English (LPA) earnings league.
Key Challenges
65 There is broad support for the identified challenges; in particular NHS North Devon supports the recognition of the stated challenges, especially those that can result in poor health outcomes and social isolation. Other comments have sought to identify and reinforce key challenges as well including: the need to ensure employment comes before housing; the most sustainable locations should be delivered first; lack of education attainment resulting in a low wage economy; access to affordable housing; and limited modern infrastructure not encouraging employment or inward investment. These issues are discussed in greater detail later in other summary papers.
66 Representations ask that the key challenges (paragraph 2.15) be written in plain English and identify and publish the evidence supporting the challenges. Both of these issues have been similarly raised in chapter one (introduction), where officer recommendations seek to improve the accessibility of information contained within the plan and evidence documents accordingly. The pre-submission local plan (reg 19) will update the introduction to identify the legislation, guidance, evidence and strategies that have influenced the local plan.
67 Comments have also sought to question the soundness of the plan to ensure development around the towns (Barnstaple in particular) are based on the limitations of available infrastructure to ensure conditions are not made worse. Developments proposed by the Local Plan in the town strategies have sought to ensure infrastructural and environmental capacities are key considerations. An Infrastructure Delivery Plan and a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will support the Plan and will seek to ensure the impact of new development contributes to the existing infrastructure network.
68 Respondents have sought to understand the level of employment that will be created alongside the housing growth and request that employment growth comes before housing. These issues are very similar to comments that appear in the introduction (chapter one), economic development (Policies ST14 and ST15) and scale and distribution of new development (Policy ST07) summary papers. The recent housing and employment study outlines the appropriate balance between the housing and employment growth.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 17 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
69 Key challenge a) – Is generally accepted as being accurate, in particular housing delivery. It has been highlighted that the Plan should only allocate those sites that have a real prospect of delivering houses regardless of negative views of development; rectifying housing shortages is a fundamental issue. The Plan conforms to the NPPF where it requires local plans to significantly boost the supply of housing albeit in a manner that does not impact development viability. The Plan also considers the environmental capacity and impact of development on the environment and has sought to ensure only those areas that are the most suitable are selected for allocation in the Plan. More detailed debate on the sustainability of the plan and the support sustainability appraisal can be found in the Introduction (chapter one) summary paper.
70 Two comments identified the need for the Plan to deliver affordable housing and stated that access to the housing should be based on strict local connection qualifications and where possible this should be delivered on brownfield sites and through the reuse of empty homes. Similar issues have been raised and debated in the housing summary paper.
71 Key challenge b) – Concerns are raised that developers will not provide adequate infrastructure and that such can only be successfully delivered through cooperation with the appropriate bodies. Another respondent suggests the plan should define infrastructure. The Plan uses a broad definition of infrastructure when speaking in generalities, and is defined in the Glossary. However the Plan is supported by an Infrastructure Delivery Plan that identifies specific infrastructural requirements.
72 Key challenge c) – it is requested that the Plan provides for social housing and affordable housing. The term ‘affordable housing’ includes social housing.
73 Key challenge d) – one comment in agreement.
74 Key challenge e) – General support for development in villages to deliver balanced housing and employment opportunities.
75 Key challenge f) – Support a comprehensive expansion of broadband to encourage business. Specific mention to broadband should be made. The recommendation is generally supported.
76 Key challenge g) – Essential that the Plan provides for growth in the rural areas and there is general support for policies that seek to retain important rural services.
77 Key challenge h) – It is requested that greater reference be made to the fundamental role of the environment when seeking to achieve sustainable development. The environment is already recognised as a high quality asset.
78 Key challenge i) – Generally supported. It is requested the Plan explain what a Biosphere Reserve is and justify how it will act as a catalyst. These recommendations are generally accepted and further clarification will be provided in the next version of the Plan. It is also requested the Plan applies a moratorium on industrial sized wind turbines – 2km from dwellings in interests of health. This issue has been raised a number of times elsewhere in the plan and officer commentary can be found in the introduction (chapter one) and Renewable Energy and Heat (Policy ST13) summary papers.
79 No additional key challenges were identified.
Spatial Planning Vision
18 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
80 There is a healthy debate on the Vision. Many respondents felt the vision is fluffy, not place specific, does not reflect corporate priorities and does not make reference to growth and sustainable development. If considered valid, these issues would need to be addressed. A number of commentators did not agree with the optimistic approach. There is also a healthy debate on the merits of “low carbon communities” with some agreeing with the phrase and others considering it meaningless. Several respondents felt perplexed by the reference to paragraph 2.17 that states: “Our proximity to the M5 provides us with an advantage…”. Respondents fell this is simply not true and in fact the distance from the M5 is a significant challenge to economic growth.
81 Several respondents felt the Plan does not adequately identify how the vision will be delivered. In isolation, the vision is unavoidably idyllic and aspirational. The mechanisms and detail on how this will be achieved are found elsewhere in the Plan’s strategic objectives, strategies, policies and evidence. Delivery mechanisms are also found outside of the Plan, providing non-planning strategies such as the Councils’ economic strategies and the North Devon Coasts AONB Management Plan that will help to deliver the Plan’s vision. These complementary strategies can be coordinated through the duty to cooperate.
82 A number of commentators do not believe the Plan will have an impact on employment or wage levels and are not clear how the Plan will encourage job creation. Commentators state employment and jobs should be delivered first before the housing, whilst others recognise that an ageing demographic need is likely to impact the amount of land and jobs that will need be created.
83 Challenges and plan interventions relating to employment and housing have been raised and discussed in other summary papers, in particular, the Development Distribution (Policy ST07), the Economic Development (policies ST14 and ST15) and the Housing (Policies ST17 to ST20) summary papers.
84 It is requested that the vision includes more explicit references to the consequences of development on the character of northern Devon and its environment. Other commentators have gone further and request the vision includes specific references to ecosystem services and biodiversity.
85 Representors indicate that the Plan does not have the ability to ensure the delivery of major infrastructure schemes, such as hospitals and highways. The Local Plan will be supported by an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), prepared by North Devon and Torridge District Councils engaging with a wide range of key stakeholders involved in delivering infrastructure associated with the strategic aims and objectives of the Local Plan.
86 The IDP is required to demonstrate that the policies in the Plan will be delivered in a sustainable way. The IDP focuses on those infrastructure items that will require capital expenditure, i.e. largely in the form of physical works. The IDP helps to identify types and costs of infrastructure; delivery timetable; gaps in funding; and critical pieces of local and strategic infrastructure. The IDP will also help ensure delivery of the Plan by:
co-ordinating coherent and timely delivery with key partners; recognising funding opportunities and providing the baseline for identifying investment through subsequent work; identifying responsible delivery agents, delivery mechanisms and overcoming barriers to successful delivery; and measuring how well the vision, aims and objectives are being implemented.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 19 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
87 In addition, the IDP is used as an evidence base for the infrastructure requirements used to inform the development of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule. To this end Devon County Council request that their role be highlighted in the delivery of the IDP and subsequent infrastructure during the plan period. This matter has been addressed in the summary paper for the monitoring framework (chapter 11).
88 North Devon Plus state there is an absence of evidence to support the paragraphs 2.16 to 2.22. The statements made in these paragraphs reflect evidence found in a number of studies and they are considered accurate. It is accepted that wherever possible facts and statements are supported with a footnote to the relevant source. It is interesting to note that North Devon Plus use a PESTLE (Political, Environmental, Social, Technological, Legal and Economic) methodology to identify the key challenges. This appears to be an effective tool and could help to provide the reader with a quick oversight of the key issues facing the area. It is noted the provided PESTLE analysis identifies the planning process to be slow, which consequently directly impacts the delivery of economic development. Unfortunately North Devon Plus does not signpost the reader to the evidence or supporting evidence behind its PESTLE challenges.
89 There is a significant level of support for paragraph 2.19, however this is prefaced with the need to protect the environment from renewable energy development. Some respondents state the Councils’ decisions are inconsistent with paragraph 2.19, especially in relation to wind turbines. It is argued by some that wind turbines are unsightly, inappropriate and inefficient and directly impact the tranquillity and remoteness of the countryside, which are key tourist assets. Further discussion on local plan intervention on renewable energy can be found in the Environmental Assets (Policy ST11) and the Renewable Energy and Heat (Policy ST13) summary papers. The strategic objective’s aspiration to protect the natural environment remains valid.
90 A number of representors stated that North Devon and Torridge have one of the highest rates of unemployment in the Country. The Office for National Statistics, through their NOMIS website, show the Great Britain rate for unemployment is currently at 7.8% of the adult population. This compares to 5.8% in the South West, 4.5% in North Devon and 5.5% in Torridge District(4). It is clear that the two districts are performing better than the regional and national averages, albeit there is a significant difference between North Devon and Torridge. Beyond these headline figures there are pockets of higher unemployment levels concentrated in deprived wards, particularly central parts of Ilfracombe, Bideford and Barnstaple. In addition, there is a significant difference between summer and winter levels of unemployment, due to the seasonal nature of employment within the tourism industry, and to a lesser degree within agriculture. Many jobs within these two sectors are also part time in nature. Taking this debate further, there are concerns that housing development is not sustainable without the provision of new jobs and general employment growth. It is also suggested that there is little or no evidence that employment growth will be delivered. The Housing and Employment study indicates that 11,200 new homes are required across North Devon and Torridge over the plan period to maintain the current number of jobs by virtue of anticipated demographic changes.
91 In the context of planning and its ability to influence economic growth, the Local Plan assesses the local economy through a review of existing employment land supply and future supply based on modelling future econometric and policy-on forecasts. This evidence can be found in the North Devon and Torridge Employment Land Review, which identifies potential job growth of around 7,500 new full time equivalent jobs and establishes the amount of land required achieve this growth.
4 Employment and unemployment (Jul 2012-Jun 2013)
20 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
92 Outside of land use planning, strategies such as the North Devon and Torridge Economic Strategy, Devon County Council’s Economic Strategy and the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), work alongside the Local Plan to promote and support inward investment in to the area. An example includes the recent pinch point funding awarded to improve the A39/Roundswell roundabout.
93 For information the Heart of the South West LEP is currently writing three documents, which will form its strategy and the basis for making funding decisions for the area. The LEP is committed to delivering significant economic benefits across northern Devon. These benefits will range from large infrastructural projects to micro-scale projects such as supporting young local people to access apprenticeships at local businesses.
94 The role of the Local Plan is to manage the release of land and its subsequent development. The extent to which the Local Plan can influence job creation is limited and is inescapably influenced by non-planning national and local strategies and policies that seek to influence the economy, either directly or indirectly, and of course market conditions. It is imperative that the local plan supports and is supported by economic strategies to help deliver sustainable economic growth. Further discussion on policy / public sector interventions can be found with the Spatial Distribution and Economic Development summary papers.
95 Consultees seek clarification on the delivery of affordable housing and in particular the qualifying criteria. In terms of provision and delivery Policy ST18 provides the framework. The Group previously agreed that Policies ST17: Balanced Local Housing Market and ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing will be combined. However with regards to qualifying criteria, it is recognised the Plan is currently silent. It is recommended that further consideration be given to include explicit references to qualification criteria provided by Devon Homes Choice. A further issue might be the inclusion more detailed qualification criteria for the delivery of affordable housing on rural exception sites.
96 Several commentators request that the Plan provide for sufficient housing and land for employment in the rural areas and smaller rural communities. It is recognised that Part 3 of the Local Plan was not available for consultation but subsequent work during spring and summer 2013 has sought to address this. Part 3 will form part of the pre-submission consultation in 2014.
97 The type of houses required over the plan period is a topic that has been raised by a number of respondents. In particular developers should provide smaller dwellings to meet the Plan’s objectively assessed needs. It is argued that further predominantly executive and large homes will not address the housing needs identified by the SHMA.
98 There is a good level of support for the use of local trades and many seek to make the use of local building materials mandatory. There is however recognition that this might be difficult to achieve unless the Councils actively monitor supply chains, especially on the larger housing sites that invariably attract national and regional developers who are likely to import their workforce.
99 Many responses disagree with paragraph 2.23 that encourages the use of renewable energy production of all types, where it will not damage the environment in which it sits. Some feel that it is not the Councils’ role to encourage renewable energy, although the NPPF requires the plan to maximise renewable energy development. Several respondents want greater assurances the Council will protect rural communities and landscape from renewable energy development. These issues are addressed in the Renewable Energy and Heat (Policy ST13) summary paper.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 21 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
100 There is a fear that national building companies with have no regard to the local context, resulting in the loss if local features and the loss of the sense of place. The Plan cannot control the type of developer seeking to build houses however high quality and appropriate design is key to making places successful. The Plan recognises this and includes both strategic and development management design policies to direct, guide and manage development.
Strategic Aims and Objectives
101 There is broad support for what are generally considered ambitious strategic aims and objectives. Several commentators are concerned at the level of proposed homes and the presumption in favour of sustainable development (NPPF), from which it is suggested will have a direct impact on the aims to preserve the environment and agriculture.
102 North Devon Plus is concerned that the order of objectives implies the environment (aim 1) is more important than the economy (aim 2). This is not true. Unlike ND+’s remit (an economic focus), the Plan must consider all aspects of sustainability (e.g. economy, social and environment). A growing economy is reliant on multiple factors including the preservation and enhancement of the environment, especially in industries such as tourism and leisure. A simple solution is to reorder the aims to place the economy first; this is similar to the recommendation to reorder of the general chapters. It should be noted this change makes no difference to the Plan’s content and its legal commitment to achieving sustainable development.
103 One respondent seeks to understand the origin of the aims and objectives; this is recognised and it is recommended that the Plan explain where and how they were identified.
Aim 1 – Environment
104 Generally supportive comments with ND+ restating previous comments that the environment is overly protected by the Plan to the detriment of the economy. There is some confusion as to what ‘countryside assets’ and ‘protected landscapes’ are and clarification is recommended. It also recommended by DCC that the references to landscapes should be in line with the NPPF and its references to “distinctive character and special qualities of the landscape”. These recommendations are generally accepted with clarification being provided.
105 Two commentators seek assurances that objective (e) does not discriminate against rural areas. Part 3 village plans, to be incorporated in to the next iteration of the Local Plan will further demonstrate the Plan’s commitment to supporting rural communities.
Aim 2 – Economy
106 ND+ are concerned about the order of the aims. The need to reorder the strategic aims 1 and 2 for the Environment and Economy is supported to reflect the previous agreement to move the Economy chapter before the Environment chapter. Need to ensure alignment with the recently adopted northern Devon economic strategy aim, where it states: “A diverse and resilient economy that can adapt to challenges and maximise opportunities, underpinned by an appropriately skilled workforce and effective infrastructure”.
107 ND+ and Exmoor National Park are not clear what the phrase ‘low carbon growth’ actually means. The purpose and meaning of this objective should be clarified.
108 ND+ also state the objectives are aspirational rather than measurable. The Plan is built on the principles of Plan, Manage and Monitor. The submission version of the Plan will need to include measurable indicators to monitor the effectiveness and deliver of the Plan’s strategies and policies.
22 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
109 There is a comment promoting the merits of development to the west of South Molton. This land is already identified within Sotuh Molton’s spatial strategy (Policy SM01). Further discussion can be found in the South Molton Strategy summary paper.
Aim 3 – Housing
110 Overall comments are generally supportive. Two sites (Instow and South Molton) have been promoted against this aim. The Instow site will be assessed as part of the emerging village plan (Part 3). Discussion on South Molton can be found in the South Molton Strategy summary paper.
111 DCC state that the most sustainable locations in the rural areas will be close to essential services or economically sustainable transport links. Whilst this is accepted, this assumes any local community without these essential facilities and services are unsustainable and thus unsuitable for development. The Plan does seek to direct development to the most sustainable development as evidenced in Policy ST06. However, the Plan is mindful not to exclude those rural communities that want to achieve appropriate development for their immediate and future needs.
112 It is not considered possible for the Plan to deliver ‘sufficient’ levels of affordable housing as identified by the SHMA, 2012 update. The Housing chapter summary paper identified a need for 8,656 additional affordable houses across northern Devon over the plan period, which equates to approximately 58% of the 14,520 houses or 51% of 16,000 homes. This proportion of delivery as affordable housing is unviable. It is recommended that objective (b) be altered to state “a range of affordable housing tenures appropriate to meet local needs”. This alteration is generally accepted.
Aim 4 – Mixed Communities
113 Mostly supportive, with Exmoor National Park Authority, Natural England and the Highways Agency particularly supportive. The North Devon UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Partnership request the Plan include “access to environmental assets to support collective and individual wellbeing”. This is generally supported and amendment could accommodate the proposed alteration.
Agreed Actions
1. Reassure North Devon Plus about the plan’s aims and objectives. 2. Clarify the principles of achieving sustainable development and the role of the local plan 3. Include measurable indicators within the plan. 4. Redraft the chapter, including the Spatial Planning Vision, to make it more place specific and relevant to the issues of North Devon and Torridge. 5. When quoting facts and figures include footnotes to evidence studies. 6. Clarify and justify the Councils’ different approaches towards addressing housing needs. 7. Include specific references to affordable housing qualification criteria in the Housing chapter (policies ST17 to ST20). 8. Explain what a Biosphere Reserve is within the spatial portrait, its spatial implications and how it can act as a catalyst. 9. Add reference to the Assisted Area Status in the spatial portrait and the reasoned justification for ST09. 10. Integrate healthcare issues and healthy living more explicitly within the strategic objectives and the key challenges. 11. Update paragraphs 2.10 to 2.15 to reflect recent findings in the Employment Land Review and the Housing and Employment Study. 12. Update and correct figures in Table 2.1. 13. Amend first sentence of paragraph 2.12 to read ‘existing housing stock’ in northern Devon.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 23 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
14. Amend paragraph 2.14 to clarify what its meant by ‘business productivity’ or use an alternative phrase. 15. Refer to broadband in key challenge (f). 16. Explain and integrate ecosystem services within the Plan. 17. Explain the origin of the aims and objectives. 18. Reorder the Strategic Aims to place the economy first. 19. Amend Aim 1 to define or clarify ‘countryside assets’ and ‘protected landscapes’ and so references to landscapes recognise the distinctive character and special qualities of those landscapes. 20. Amend objective (d) of Aim 1 to read clarify the differing objectives of mitigating the impacts and adapting to the effects of climate change. 21. Add water quality improvements as a new environmental objective for Aim 1. 22. Ensure alignment of Aim 2 with the Councils’ economic strategy’s aims. 23. Amend objective (b) of Aim 3 to read “a range of affordable housing tenures appropriate to meet local needs”. 24. Include a new objective for Aim 4 to improve public access to environmental assets to support collective and individual wellbeing.
Policy ST01: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development
Total number of responses 27
Total number of responses in support 6
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Total number of responses in objection 8
Total number of responses providing a general comment 11
Table 5.3
114 Comments made in response to policy ST01 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
Summary of the Key Issues
Comments made in response to Policy ST01, including supporting text:
Support the presumption in favour of sustainable development (x6) Support the local plan being aligned with the NPPF (x5) Support proactive approach to working with applicants (x3) Support nimbyism being prevented from unreasonably and unfairly affecting policies and proposals Define the term ‘sustainable development’ to avoid ambiguity (x6) Sustainable development is defined in NPPF so why re-invent it by giving it an environmental bent Incorporate requirement to expedite decisions facilitating the delivery of appropriate development Make a positive contribution to self-sufficiency as well as sustainability Policy should be identified as strategic to conform with NPPF (paragraph 12) (English Heritage) Any development that included some environmental improvements would be enabled, even if it caused considerable environmental damage on other fronts
24 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Development can have a permanent detrimental impact on landscape and protected species Is this enough to ensure the best design in appearance, layout and environmental standards? Include a policy reference to the importance of respecting environmental limits (CPRE) It should include reference to landscape and heritage issues The plan does not show any improvements to the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area, apart from meeting local housing needs Sustainability must not be misused to push through policies that would otherwise be unacceptable (x2) Need to work with the local community as well as with developers (x4) It reads like a developers’ charter – how does this fit with the Localism Act? (x2) Should ask whether community want a particular area developed before ensuring development is sustainable To be truly sustainable, development must not be delivered in a piecemeal way in order to facilitate provision of necessary infrastructure What constitutes an out-of-date policy?
Other Key Issues identified
Development should be improving the economic, social and environmental capital (rather than conditions) in the area to emphasise the benefits of long term investment over the plan period
Officer Comments and Recommendations
115 There is broad support for a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which underpins the NPPF. Sustainable development is already defined in the local plan’s glossary as well as through the NPPF, and the principles of sustainable development are set out in Policy ST02. A further definition is unnecessary. The approval of development that is sustainable without delay is already set out in the NPPF (paragraph 15), so is implicit and does not need to be stated explicitly
116 Paragraph 8 of the NPPF indicates that economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously. The policy should not prioritise between them and does not need to highlight environmental issues in greater detail, which is set out elsewhere in the plan. However, there may be merit in improving the overall economic, social and environmental conditions in the area to reinforce how they should be balanced as a whole.
117 There are inherent conflicts between the NPPF and the objectives of the Localism Act, so a proactive approach to working with developers could be balanced with engaging local communities. This is not reflected in the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF, so it would be more appropriate to add it to the reasoned justification.
Agreed Actions
1. Clarify in Introduction (chapter 1) that all Part 1 policies are strategic whilst Part 2 and 3 policies are not. 2. Balance engaging local communities with the proactive approach to working with developers.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 25 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Policy ST02: Principles of Sustainable Development
Total number of responses 59
Total number of responses in support 7
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 9
Total number of responses in objection 24
Total number of responses providing a general comment 19
Table 5.4
118 Comments made in response to Policy ST02 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
Summary of the Key Issues
119 Comments made in response to Policy ST02, including supporting text and evidence:
Support the principles in this policy (x7 including ENPA, CPRE, English Heritage) Support reducing pressure on water resources and increasing reuse through sustainable water management (x2 including ENPA) Support achieving energy efficiency, reducing waste, reuse and recycling Support development taking place in sustainable locations Support creating balanced mix of uses in sustainable locations, reducing the need to travel by car and take up of sustainable transport modes (Highways Agency) Support the flexibility provided by establishing ambitions to be achieved rather than obligations to be met Development should be prioritised on brownfield sites (x7) Clarify that development should be delivered in the most sustainable locations Principles of sustainable development are wider than environmental sustainability e.g. social sustainability (BR Partnership) Consider the social and economic dimensions of sustainable development, not just environmental which is given disproportionate weight (x2) Balance sustainability objectives by maximising contributions towards jobs and growth (ND+) Housing needs to be balanced by new jobs Minimise the environmental footprint by smaller sites in preference to large bolt-on estates Define town centres as socially and economically sustainable locations Make a positive contribution to self-sufficiency of rural settlements as well as sustainability The whole historic environment needs to be protected: water, archaeology, historic structures and buildings Clarify that water and archaeology are separate assets (DCC) The concept of ecosystem services needs further clarification (ND+) There are serious doubts about the cause of global warming Delete all references to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change (x5) How will greenhouse gases be reduced when more housing, roads and industrial premises are being built? (x3) Add cross reference to adapting to impact of climate change in ST03 (EA)
26 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Recognise the pressing needs of the wider rural community if basing the policy on the need to reduce greenhouse gases Delete promotion of opportunities for renewable and low-carbon energy generation It is a very rural area and car ownership is a necessity which must be recognised (x2) Recognise the limitations of non-car modes of transport in Devon’s rural areas particularly for an ageing population (x2) Reduce the need to travel by relating development close to communities with alternative means of transport and/or developments of a scale to support addition of new public transport services Rural settlements should not be left to stagnate The policy sounds good but it is not enforceable and is over-optimistic (x3) Add flexibility to reflect economic viability in achieving sustainable development Any proposed growth plan must show that it is capable of stand alone funding The Councils’ intentions are difficult to believe when so much land will be covered in glass and skyline development Lime mortar is not a modern construction technique Local materials is encouraged only where it is economic and practical (ND+) Use of local materials is unduly restrictive and will harm viability without benefiting the economy (ND Homes) Enhance existing habitats rather than creating new ones Seek no net loss of biodiversity through development to strengthen rather than ‘conserve and enhance’ Northam should not be classified in the same spatial development category as Barnstaple and Bideford Policy should be identified as strategic to conform with NPPF (paragraph 12) (English Heritage)
Other Key Issues identified
Refer to enhancing rather than protecting the area’s biodiversity etc (criterion 1b) Amend artificial measures with ‘a greater carbon footprint’ to ‘greater financial costs and associated carbon footprint’ (paragraph 3.8) Refer to an ‘ecosystems approach’ rather than an ‘ecosystem services approach’ Distinguish between an ecosystem approach and an ecosystem services framework
Officer Comments and Recommendations
120 Sustainable development consists of social, economic and environmental dimensions (NPPF paragraph 7), which could be made more explicit. The historic environment is already recognised (criterion b). Reuse of previously developed land is a key aspect of delivering sustainable development, but is not explicitly recognised as a policy objective, which should be addressed.
121 Several responses dispute whether global warming is taking place. The NPPF (paragraph 94) specifies that local authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change in line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008. It is not for the Councils to dispute whether climate change is happening or whom is to blame. Resisting all residential and economic development is not a realistic solution to addressing climate change.
122 The need for car ownership is recognised in a rural area such as northern Devon. Reducing the need to travel and promoting sustainable transport modes is a requirement of the NPPF (paragraph 29). However, reducing the need to travel can still be achieved in urban areas and by making rural communities more self-sufficient as set out in the rural strategy (Policy ST08).
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 27 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
123 Although the principle of this policy is broadly supported, including by statutory consultees, its deliverability has been questioned. Viability is a key issue but this policy identifies key principles and delivery is addressed through more detailed strategic policies elsewhere in the plan. The benefits from locally sourced materials (paragraph 3.7) are appropriate but could be clarified to indicate where they are economic and practical.
124 It is accepted that reference to Northam in paragraph 3.4 alongside Barnstaple and Bideford is misleading since its proposed level of growth in Policy ST07 is similar to that for other area centres especially for Ilfracombe and South Molton.
125 Conserving and enhancing the area’s biodiversity is an appropriate key principle of sustainable development. Policy ST11 already requires a net gain in biodiversity so more consistent wording and a cross-reference in the reasoned justification would reinforce this policy objective. Paragraph 3.8 should refer to enhancing existing habitats rather than creating new ones.
126 The concept of ecosystem services needs clarification, either here or elsewhere in the plan. It should distinguish between an ecosystem approach and an ecosystem services framework so ecosystem services are not identified too narrowly as environmental.
Agreed Actions
1. Amend the policy to include the principle for reusing previously developed land. 2. Include the social and economic dimensions of sustainable development. 3. Clarify that locally sourced materials are supported where they represent a viable option. 4. Clarify that all Part 1 policies are strategic whilst Part 2 and 3 policies are not in Introduction (chapter 1). 5. Delete specific reference to Northam in paragraph 3.4. 6. Amend the policy to require a net gain in biodiversity and add a cross-reference to Policy ST11. 7. Amend paragraph 3.8 to enhance existing habitats rather than creating new ones. 8. Clarify the concept of an ecosystem approach and the ecosystem services framework somewhere in the plan.
Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change
Total number of responses 58
Total number of responses in support 9
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 10
Total number of responses in objection 18
Total number of responses providing a general comment 21
Table 5.5
127 Comments made in response to Policy ST03 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
28 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Summary of the Key Issues
128 Comments made in response to Policy ST03, including supporting text and evidence:
Supports the policy in principle (x9 including EA, ENPA, CPRE) Strong support for criterion (i) Support development being located to minimise flood risk Agree that improving access to natural and managed green space is essential as we need to facilitate outside play for young people Support the paragraph on adaptation (Biosphere Reserve Partnership) Support paragraphs 3.21 and 3.23 (EA) Policy could be revised to ‘Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience’ – there is still doubt that climate change alone is responsible for the issues within this policy (g) is nonsense and should be deleted Views of climatologist will continue to change – accepting any particular view is unnecessary and potential out-of-date We do not know how climate will change (x2) Amend potential climate changes from ‘will happen’ to ‘could happen’ The statement from the UK Climate Impacts Programme is a political handbook and totally unproven (x2) Climate change has regularly been used as an excuse to impose environmentally destructive and visually intrusive infrastructure, which is not sustainable Delete paragraph 3.19 Paragraph 3.12 duplicates paragraph 3.13 (x5 including EA, ND+) Torridge don’t appear to have carried out a strategic flood assessment Refer to level 2 SFRAs for Barnstaple, Bideford, Westward Ho! and Appledore (EA) Refer to SFRAs as live documents and need to check latest flood risk maps A sea lock / barrage would negate the need to raise flood defences and could be funded with the same money – it would need to be designed to avoid silting up and allow fish to pass freely and preserve existing habitats Numerous flood defences need to be upgraded and funding will need to be delivered through partnership funding and inclusion in CIL and through s106 agreements (EA) Does not include any provision for raising flood defences around Barnstaple Land at risk of flooding should not be zoned for development unless proven defences are provided (x2) Policy does not reflect the reasoned justification that infrastructure and development could be placed within flood risk areas where necessary and mitigation can be applied [wording suggested] Critical Drainage Areas are areas with low standard culverts, defences or known surface water flooding issues that require higher standards than normal by redevelopment and improvement of this infrastructure to avoid flooding getting worse (EA) Don’t build on marshy areas or culvert streams Create wetland areas to absorb run off, use reed beds and alternative sewage systems Let land and highway drainage be a world class exemplar Flood plains and bordering areas should remain undeveloped (x2 including BTCM) There is no mention of flood zones which are already prone to flooding Need to recognise varying degrees of flood risk and certain types of development can take place in such areas or will not be at risk of flooding Question re-establishing functional floodplains which should not be a priority objective (x3) Re-establishing functional floodplains needs caveating in relation to existing settlements (ND+)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 29 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Amend to say current and future coastal erosion (EA) There is no provision for new reservoirs or water storage tanks which may be needed by 2020 or 2031 SUDS are essential for all new development and should reduce existing runoff Retro-fit SUDS on houses and estates where recent provision of hardstandings and driveways draining directly into drainage systems have contributed to urban flooding There won’t be any green space left to manage in the future Preserve small green spaces, avoid clear-felling and build around trees and hedgerows Reduce use of tarmac and concrete by using plastic gridding over grass Plant hedgerows for wildlife corridors and to prevent runoff Refer to ‘catchment sensitive farming’ before SUDS Community renewable energy schemes to be supported and encouraged Be more aware of the Biosphere Reserve transition zone covering the majority of northern Devon when considering the cumulative effect of large wind turbines and solar arrays All development should be ‘very low energy’ or ‘zero carbon’ as the rising cost of energy will push the balance towards very energy efficient design Use rather than reuse rainwater Restrictions on water use duplicate and go beyond national policy which is discouraged by the NPPF (x2 including ND+) Explain the promotion natural environmental systems and more sustainable use of the environment and whether it prohibits industrial development in the countryside There seems to be an obsession with trees in the establishment of naturally wet areas (h) One person’s enhancement of landscape and green infrastructure is another person’s desecration Principles of integrated land use should create green infrastructure to minimise environmental impact Include reference to cross boundary linkages in terms of facilitating migration of wildlife by improving connectivity of habitats (ENPA) Policy should be identified as strategic to conform with NPPF (paragraph 12) (English Heritage) Current proposed corridors and habitats around Lake are for too narrow and need to be extended to at least 150 metres The pebble ridge should be protected for the foreseeable future provided it is affordable and practical (x2)
Other Key Issues identified
The EA has identified Critical Drainage Areas that require higher defence standards than normal by redeveloping and improving existing infrastructure to avoid flooding getting worse In future DEFRA will be requiring catchment management plans for each catchment management unit, for which the Biosphere Reserve area [Taw, Torridge, Hartland streams and North Devon streams] is identified as unit 48. Catchment management plans will incorporate a range of topics including catchment flood risk management, fisheries, conservation, geomorphology and water quality replacing previously separate plans The Government has still not authorised signing off the Shoreline Management Plan Review (SMP2) from Hartland Point to Anchor Head (Somerset) drafted in 2009 – a realistic estimate when this is likely to occur cannot be found
30 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Officer Comments and Recommendations
129 There is broad support for the principles set out in Policy ST03, although a range of specific issues have been raised. One suggestion was to amend the policy title to ‘Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience’ because there is still doubt that climate change alone is responsible for the issues within this policy. Resilience to change forms a key part of this policy and could be expressed more explicitly within this policy’s heading.
130 Criterion (g) seeks to minimise pollutants from climate change to promote health and safety. An objection seeks to delete this paragraph but without adequate justification. It is accepted that we do not know exactly how climate will change, and the implications of climate change are complex and uncertain. However, the Plan needs to address the most likely impacts from expected changes that ‘could happen’ rather than what ‘will happen’. This could result in an indirect increase in air and land pollutants so it is considered appropriate to retain criterion (g).
131 Flood risks are identified as a significant implication of expected climate change. Paragraph 3.12 is duplicated within paragraph 3.13. The text states that North Devon and Torridge have undertaken a joint level 1 strategic flood risk assessment (SFRA) so it is unclear why representations perceive Torridge appear not to have undertaken an assessment. It is accepted that references could be added to level 2 SFRAs for Barnstaple, Bideford, Westward Ho! and Appledore. As the policy refers to all land that is or will be at risk off flooding so there is no benefit to referring explicitly to individual flood zones.
132 Land at risk of flooding has only been identified for development within the local plan where adequate flood defences are provided (eg BAR12 Anchorwood Bank) or for water compatible uses only (eg FRE02 Yelland Quay). It is accepted that policy ST03 does not recognise varying degrees of flood risk and that certain types of development could take place in such areas. Criterion (a) could be amended to reflect this.
133 It is accepted that numerous flood defences need to be upgraded and the policy should recognise this. Delivery would need to be funded through the CIL unless strategic sites can deliver upgraded defences onsite. The policy already directs development to areas minimising flood risk. The EA has requested that criterion (d) be amended to refer to risks from current and future coastal erosion. This amendment is supported.
134 The proposed creation of additional wetland areas to absorb run off complements the ecosystems services approach identified by criterion (j). Several representations do not perceive re-establishing functional floodplains as a priority and should only relate to existing settlements to offset flood risks there. However, flood risks could be offset in a settlement by re-establishing functional flood plains either upstream or downstream. This could help to facilitate development at lower cost, with lower impact or in areas otherwise unacceptable. Re-establishing functional floodplains is not prioritised over other developments or policies but can potentially mitigate flood risk at relatively low cost to enable town centre sites to be regenerated. The reasoned justification does indicate ‘in appropriate locations’ (paragraph 3.15). Retaining undeveloped areas as flood plains is implicit in criterion (a) by not locating development on land that is or will be at risk of flooding.
135 The proposed delivery of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) was broadly supported, although the need to retain green spaces and hedgerows to manage runoff was recognised. Retro-fitting SUDS on existing houses would be supported by Policy ST03 in principle, but is unlikely to require planning permission. A cross-reference could be added to paragraph 3.18 to link ‘catchment sensitive farming’ to SUDS within paragraph 4.54 within the context of the Torridge Nature Improvement Area (NIA) and Taw River Improvement Project (TRIP).
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 31 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
136 The identification of Critical Drainage Areas by the EA requires an amendment to the policy and supporting text to reduce current rainfall runoff rates by redeveloping and improving existing drainage infrastructure to avoid flooding getting worse within these critical catchment areas.
137 Policy ST13 covers most representations regarding renewable energy, although criterion (f) of Policy ST03 also refers to making effective use of renewable resources and passive heating and cooling. One representation supports community renewable energy schemes, although the cumulative impact of large wind turbines and solar arrays remains a concern. These issues are considered more fully alongside representations to Policy ST13.
138 The rising cost of energy may push the balance towards very energy efficient design, which would support more sustainable development, but sustainable design and construction standards are covered by Policy ST05 and are not a direct policy requirement of adapting to climate change.
139 Effective water management is important in adapting to climate change especially with more frequent and prolonged periods of drought expected. Concerns that restrictions on water use go against the principles in the NPPF are noted, however these are required by the Environment Agency within the Roadford water zone to accommodate proposed growth levels. Previous discussions with South West Water have indicated that there is no need for any new reservoirs to serve the area during the period to 2031. It is accepted that criterion (e) should refer to use rather than reuse of rainwater.
140 The concept of ecosystem services needs clarification and explanation, either here or elsewhere in the plan with appropriate cross-references in the supporting text. It should clarify that ecosystem services do not prohibit development but potentially recognise the range of services that the environment provides could make development more sustainable. The establishment of wetland areas helps to increase flood storage capacity and reduce flood risks elsewhere. The integration of green infrastructure will be progressively more important for movement of wildlife and people.
141 The principle within the policy (criterion h) is to conserve and enhance the landscape and green infrastructure. Whether individual proposals enhance or desecrate the landscape is a matter of assessment for individual applications and proposals. The need to facilitate cross boundary linkages within green infrastructure networks for migration of people and wildlife by improving connectivity of habitats is accepted. Criterion (h) of Policy ST03 and reasoned justification in paragraph 3.21 should be amended to reflect this.
142 It is recognised that the Local Plan could be clearer about its strategy for delivery of green infrastructure (GI), which is reiterated in representations to other policies including ST21: Community Services and Facilities. A joint GI assessment is currently being prepared to inform the local plan, which will inform a future GI strategy and a draft Devon GI strategy was published in October 2011 but is yet to be adopted. The reasoned justification should clarify how GI will be delivered, including through a future GI strategy and the infrastructure delivery plan. Cross-references to GI need to be improved within the plan as a whole.
143 Several representations to ST03 refer to specific sites. The pebble ridge at Westward Ho! will be allowed to adapt naturally to rising sea levels by managed realignment, whilst the former landfill site will continue to be protected. Any proposals would need to be accordance with the forthcoming Shoreline Management Plan Review (SMP2).
144 Policy BAR02 provides the historic character and setting of Lake and strategic green infrastructure is required through and around the site. The adequacy of this buffer is addressed through representations to Policy BAR02 (Larkbear Strategic Extension). Policy ST03 already supports the principle of networks of habitats including green infrastructure within developments and no further changes are considered necessary here.
32 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Agreed Actions
1. Amend the policy heading to ‘Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience’. 2. Amend criterion (c) to refer to ‘Catchment Management Plans’ rather than Catchment Flood Risk Management Plans. 3. Delete paragraph 3.12 (which duplicates paragraph 3.13). 4. Add reference to level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRA) for Barnstaple, Bideford and Northam in paragraph 3.13. 5. Amend criterion (a) to recognise varying degrees of flood risk and that certain types of development can take place in such areas. 6. Amend criterion (d) to avoid risks from current and future coastal erosion. 7. Add criterion to policy that requires development within identified ‘critical drainage areas’ to help reduce current rainfall runoff rates 8. Amend reasoned justification to explain implications and requirements of the Environment Agency’s new ‘critical drainage areas’. 9. Add criterion to policy that recognises the need for upgraded flood defences and clarify how these will be delivered within reasoned justification. 10. Add a reference in paragraph 3.18 to refer to SUDS and ‘catchment sensitive farming’ in the context of the Biosphere Reserve, the Torridge Nature Improvement Area (NIA) and Taw River Improvement Project (TRIP) within paragraph 4.54. 11. Amend criterion (e) to ‘use’ rather than ‘reuse’ of rainwater. 12. Clarify the concept of an ecosystem approach and the ecosystem services framework somewhere in the plan. 13. Amend criterion (h) and paragraph 3.21 to facilitate cross boundary linkages within green infrastructure networks. 14. Amend paragraph 3.21 to clarify how green infrastructure will be delivered, including through a future GI strategy and the infrastructure delivery plan. 15. Improve cross-referencing to GI within the plan as a whole, directing towards paragraph 3.21 and Policy ST03. 16. Clarify that all Part 1 policies are strategic whilst Part 2 and 3 policies are not in Introduction (chapter 1). Policy ST04: Improving the Quality of Development
Total number of responses 51
Total number of responses in support 6
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 15
Total number of responses in objection 17
Total number of responses providing a general comment 12
Table 5.6
145 Comments made in response to Policy ST04 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 33 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Summary of Key Issues
146 Comments made in response to Policy ST04, including supporting text and evidence:
Support
General support (x2) Strongly support clause 1 Strongly support clause 4 (x3) CPRE – policy is important in respecting the character of small rural settlements and when adding significant numbers of houses to any settlement North Devon UNESCO BR Partnership – pleased the Biosphere Reserve is used as a driver for good quality development. Might be useful to state “A green economy is one that provides improved human well-being and social equity, while significant reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities” Support paragraph 3.30 (x2)
Support subject to amendment
Set out an approach to density ENP support policy. However clause 3 would mean smaller affordable housing developments in rural villages would fail to benefit from this standard that could help to meet the needs of older people or those with limited mobility. ENP encourage a lowering of the threshold from 10 dwellings (x2) Lifetime homes standards should not affect the viability and delivery of affordable housing (x3) Viability should not be jeopardised by the application of these standards (x2) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 173 states that pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan making and decision taking Criterion 2 (Bioshere Reserve Transition Zone) principles are unobjectionable, however the impact of standards on development viability is a key consideration Clause 3 overly prescriptive more flexibility required to protect development viability. Amend policy to state that this requirement will be subject to development viability (x4) Clause 3 should be complaint with NPPF paragraph 174 which states ”the cumulative impact of these standards should not put implementation of the plan at serious risk, and should facilitate development throughout the economic cycle” The policy must include an element of flexibility in the way requirements are cast English Heritage – Policy ST04 should be identified as strategic, to conform to the NPPF (para 12) and to ensure it is not overridden by neighbourhood plan policies English Heritage – The role of the historic environment should be explicitly referenced English Heritage – Express the importance of the existing character of a place and how it functions DCC – This policy could be enhanced by including reference to the use of locally distinctive building materials. DCCs emerging Minerals Plan is seeking to enhance the availability of a wider range of local building stones to ensure that they are available for repair of historic buildings and for new development DCC – Policy or supporting text refer to Manual for Streets and other national design guidance Provide additional text should be provided on how design and access statements can be more effective Concerned about the effectiveness of Clause 3. The bench marking may become outdated following recommendations in the Local Housing Delivery Group 2012
Objection
34 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Abolish requirement for lifetime homes on major development Potential impact on viability of the requirement for lifetime homes is not fully recognised. Expecting more out of development will have unintended consequences Duplicates national policy and building regulations and viability assessment of the plan has been undertaken The plan is seeking to apply standards that are governed by building regulations and other legislation. Guidance is clear that plans should not duplicate where an issue is covered by other legislation Planning Agents Association – The cost implications are prohibitive; increase the building footprint, impact on density and increase development cost which could not be recovered; viability will be affected Home Builders Federation – not appropriate for the Councils to be setting voluntary guidelines as mandatory policy obligations, such as the requirements relating to Lifetime Homes in clause (3) which will impact the viability of development North Devon Plus – Not supportive and question impact of the requiring high standards (which they support) on the viability of development. No recommendations provided LEP and Planning Agents Association – clause 3 duplicates national policies and building regulations and no assessment of the impact of these policies on the deliverability Quality of housing should be improved BR Transition Zone covers a large area and development should not be so restrictive. Lifetime Homes should not be included. Policy does not comply with NPPF paragraphs 173 and 174 Add zero carbon standards Passivhaus and similar design should be standard throughout developments to minimize energy use and energy bills Good design is vital to give a sense of place and identity. It would help if the LPA establishes detailed guidance on all this Inappropriate and unviable for housing to be developed at current national code for sustainable homes standards (code 4 from 2013 and code 6 from 2016)
General Comments
Relate principles of Garden Cities – high standard of development and low density to all Greenfield allocations Sports England – encourage developers to design future proposals in line with the ‘Active Design’ principles New build properties should be eco-friendly, environmentally sustainable and well designed Council urged to ensure sympathetic / traditional deigns and sustainable materials No evidence available to suggest local standards should be more stringent than national standards Do not consider there is a robust evidence base which supports or justifies this requirement, or assesses the deliverability of the requirements. It is wholly inappropriate to assume that Lifetime Homes represents the best or the only means for responding to a changing demographic context; Housing supply and will be will be affected High density new build housing will impact existing lower density communities Provision of public toilets into new developments seems a waste of money when most are being closed Single storey dwellings may be desirable for many of the elderly, but the provision of them on a large scale is ultimately inimical to the environment. Where ever possible dwellings for the elderly should be part of co-housing solutions
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 35 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
“The expectation is that the majority of units would be of 2 bedrooms or more” seems to be at odds (CPRE state illogical) with statements made elsewhere that implies that smaller units are required to reflect changing demographics Para 3.30 is a step too far. It is unreasonable, unmanageable and unenforceable. The housing industry cannot be responsible for the actions of individual purchases Provide evidence that lifetime homes are more marketable
Other Key Issues identified
DCLG Housing Standards Review, August 2013
Officer Comments and Recommendations
147 There is a mixed level of support and objection to this policy. The focus of many objectors is the perceived impact on development viability and the duplication of Building Regulations.
148 It is clear from the consultation that organisations and businesses directly involved in the delivery of development and investment are generally opposed to this policy, whereas members of the public, government organisations and non-governmental organisations are more supportive of the aims and interventions to improve the quality of development.
149 Criterion 3 is the focus for a significant number of representations. References were made to the NPPF para 173 and 174, were it states the cumulative impact of … standards should not put implementation of the plan at serious risk, and should facilitate development throughout the economic cycle. A number of other representations stated that the plan is seeking to apply standards that are governed by Building Regulations. The NPPF is clear that local plans should not duplicate policy where covered by other legislation and guidance.
150 There are several requests to remove the requirement for lifetime homes (5) found in criterion 3. It is timely that the Government has recently (August 2013) undertaken a review of national housing standards, and of particular importance to this debate the Government seeks to ascertain “How many levels of accessibility are needed?”
151 The Government recognise that there is a broad consensus that wheelchair accessible housing standards impose significant additional requirements that would be disproportionate in widespread application and would go far beyond the needs of most older or disabled households. However the Government accepts that these requirements are entirely necessary to ensure that a wheelchair user is not disadvantaged by the resultant design.
152 Through the Housing Standards Review, the Government takes the view that introducing all aspects of the Lifetime Homes Standard as a requirement for all new housing through regulation is too onerous, given the likely cost of the standards and the level of predicted need. However, it also accepts that adopting only some of the lifetime home requirements would create a significant gap in provision between Building Regulations and wheelchair housing, which would probably result in increasing demand for wheelchair housing. An intermediate accessibility standard such as Lifetime Homes could therefore remain important in bridging the gap, in a cost effective manner, between minimum Building Regulations standards and wheelchair accessible standards.
5 The Lifetime Homes Standard is generally higher than that required by Part M of the Building Regulations (which deals with accessibility), although some elements of Part M are equal to the Lifetime Homes requirements or need relatively minor changes to comply. (http://www.lifetimehomes.org.uk)
36 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
153 Interestingly, the Government recognises higher accessibility standards are needed for a proportion of the population but the proportion needing wheelchair accessibility housing (for example) will vary considerably depending on local demographics. To put this in to a local perspective the recent SHMA 2012 update finds that the population in both districts is older than for the SW region and nationally, especially for the proportion aged 65 and above. Of particular significance the study states there will be a proportionally greater requirement for housing which meet the requirements of older households.
154 It is clear there is a need to ensure a higher accessibility standard (such as Lifetime Home), however the Local Plan is required to demonstrate this standard (along with other local and national standards) do not make the local plan undeliverable. This is demonstrated through a study that Tests the viability of the Local Plan. This piece of evidence will be vital at Examination to demonstrate the local plan, its policies and the future housing supply is deliverable. The economic viability assessment being undertaken by Adams Integra assesses viability of affordable housing and CIL having considered the policy requirements of the draft local plan as a whole. Additional work is required to evaluate the viability impact of alternative policy options.
155 DCC make the case to include references to the use of locally distinctive building materials, which could enhance this policy. Reference should be made to the emerging Minerals Plan where it is seeking to enhance the availability of a wider range of local building stones, with a cross-reference to Policy ST12: Conserving Heritage Assets. Similarly DCC make the case to include reference to the Manual for Streets guidance and other national design guidance. This recommendation is supported and further supports the policy’s objectives.
156 English Heritage seeks to ensure the policy refers to the historic environment as well ensuring development supports and enhances the existing character of a place and how it functions. It is accepted that the policy should cross-refer to the historic environment policy and recognise the role the historic environment and its contribution to the local character of the area.
157 Sport England request that the policy make explicit reference to its ‘Active Design’ principles(6). The guidance promotes sport and activity through three principles 1) improving accessibility, 2) enhancing amenity and 3) increasing awareness. These principles have been developed into a criteria based approach to be used at the master planning stage of major developments to help create environments that maximise opportunities for participation in sport and physical activity. Sport England state the criteria can be used both as a guide during the planning process, or as a critic for developments that have already been designed.
158 A copy of the criteria and design matrix are attached to the report. This guidance supports the principles of sustainable development and can act as a useful checklist when master planning our larger strategic sites. There is however an element of caution as this document has not been updated to reflect the NPPF. It is recommended that reference be made to Active Design in the reasoned justification text especially in relation to strategic sites.
159 CPRE request that the policy remove the final sentence “the expectation is that the majority of units would be of two bedroom units” from paragraph 3.30. It is accepted that issues relating to housing types and tenures could be left to the housing chapter.
160 ENP support policy, however they consider clause 3 could impact smaller affordable housing developments in rural villages. It is argued the rural areas would fail to benefit from this standard that could help to meet the needs of older people or those with limited mobility. ENP encourage a lowering
6 Active Design is a set of design guidelines to promote opportunities for sport and physical activity in the design and layout of development. (www.sportengland.org)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 37 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
of the threshold from 10 dwellings. This request could be considered too onerous as it might impact the delivery of small development sites; where small sites provide a significant level of housing supply in the rural area. It is expected that the viability testing of the local plan will help establish the most suitable threshold and percentage requirements.
161 It has been suggested the policy should provide additional text on how design and access statements (DAS) can be made more effective. This is generally supported, however the policy requirements need to reflect recent government changes cancel DAS for a significant number of planning applications. From 25 June 2013 statements will only be needed for major developments (buildings more than 1,000m² and housing projects of 10 dwellings or more) and for listed building consents.
162 It is accepted that good design is a result of good designing, not good design statements. However what is useful to officers, members and importantly local communities is to ensure information submitted as part of the application provides a simple narrative of a scheme, which is often difficult to gather from architect drawings. The level of detail in a DAS should be proportionate to the complexity of the application and above should be succinct.
Agreed Actions
1. Undertake additional work required to evaluate the viability implications of alternative policy options, such as the Lifetime Homes standard; 2. Following the publication of the Home Standards Review this policy may require further revision to reflect government guidance, especially in relation to Lifetime Homes; 3. Amend policy to state the Lifetime Homes requirement will be subject to development viability; 4. Make reference to Sport England’s Active Design principles in the reasoned justification text; 5. Make reference to Manual for Street guidance in the reasoned justification text; 6. Add a cross-reference in the reasoned justification text to Policy ST12; 7. Remove reference to “The expectation is that the majority of units would be of two bedroom units” at the end of paragraph 3.30; and 8. Provide additional supporting text on how design and access statements can be made more effective.
Policy ST05: Sustainable Construction and Buildings
Total number of responses 49
Total number of responses in support 5
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 18
Total number of responses in objection 21
Total number of responses providing a general comment 5
Table 5.7
163 Comments made in response to Policy ST05 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
38 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Summary of Key Issues
164 Comments made in response to Policy ST05, including supporting text and evidence:
Support
Support links to policies ST02 and ST04 (ENPA) Support for the flexibility of the policy in relation to development being financially unviable if the higher standards are applied Support for the policy minimising carbon emissions resulting from the construction and operation of new buildings Support for paragraph 3.44 with regard to the use of SUDS (EA)
Support subject to amendment
Support in accordance with paragraph 97 of NPPF Micro-renewables should be better promoted by a modified version of Policy ST13 Feasibility and viability should be referred to directly in Policy ST05 Technical feasibility and financial viability must be taken into account in all elements of the policy Policy should be identified as strategic to ensure it is not overridden by neighborhood plan policies & to comply with paragraph 12 of the NPPF (EH) Where ‘primary’ (i.e. non-recycled) materials are used, they should be locally sourced where feasible (DCC) Support subject to the tests for technical and financial feasibility being robust. Suggest including the concept of allowable measure that can ensure good performance from development by strict measures or offsets (BR Partnership) The criteria are too subjective; new development should meet Building For Life as a prerequisite for planning permission New homes should meet the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3, rising to Level 4 across the plan period to run alongside changes in Building Regulations Paragraph 3.35 should state that carbon emission issues will be tackled Developers must be in no doubt that they will be expected to commit to extended periods of post-occupancy evaluation, and that suitable penalties will be in place should they not be able to demonstrate this (x2) Words such as ‘expected’ and ‘should’ are open to interpretation and misuse. These stipulations should be a condition of planning approval
Objection
Development will be stifled and made unviable due to cost implications Questions why the Council is trying to impose a standard higher than that required (in 5b) while elsewhere in the Plan it merely aims to ‘comply’ (x2) Avoid setting standards so high that viability is affected Objects to the introduction of sustainable construction standards as part of the planning process The requirement in ST05(2) is unnecessary and is adequately dealt with in the proposed changes to Building Regs. Issue would be better covered through Supplementary Planning Guidance Objects that the policy’s requirements are out of synch with latest timetable for revisions to Building Regulations and that viability must also be taken into account The policy exceeds and duplicates building requirements. Limited supply of suitable recycling materials locally and no mention of Passivhaus design approach (PAA)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 39 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Code for Sustainable Homes should be met through Building Control not the Local Plan. Criterion (3) is unrealistically demanding Criterion (2) is considered contrary to the provisions of the NPPF which state that such local requirements should be consistent with nationally described standards (HBF) Inappropriate for the Council to be setting voluntary guidelines as mandatory policy obligations, namely criterion (3) of ST05 (HBF) Objects to policy on basis of reduced viability Policy is in conflict with paragraph 95 of the NPPF in regard to considering viability and costs in plan-making Requirement (5) appears to be an arbitrary standard in excess of national standards, which could stifle growth & employment (ND+) In the context of the uncertainties surrounding the future Code for Sustainable Homes & BREEAM, policy ST05 is unsound and not supported by the NPPF Policies should be subject to viability testing, in accordance with the NPPF The requirement for code 4 and 6 duplicates national policies and Building Regulations (x2 LEP, PAA) No assessment on the policy impact on the deliverability of the plan has been undertaken Building standards through Building Regulation requirements are adequate and more regularly updated There are few recycled materials in the area Delete all reference to ‘low carbon’, ‘zero carbon’ and ‘carbon emissions’ etc in the policy and the following text Objection to the rationale and cost analysis of extended periods of post occupancy evaluation and commissioning by developers (PAA) Delete ‘unless not feasible’ from ST05 (1)
General Comments
‘Fabric First’ approach is often more effective than on-site renewables Passivhaus design approach should be incorporated The Council should accurately predict the housing need in order to provide the correct balance of housing provision Concern regarding additional officer time and training requirements to apply these criteria and higher BREEAM standards This appears to be clear evidence that we need a culture change regarding attitudes towards wind turbines The council should provide examples of failure to achieve carbon reduction through misuse rather than fundamental design if they are to make this seemingly spurious claim In the long term, the construction of zero carbon buildings will benefit everyone so they should be encouraged as soon as possible The rejected options for ST05 should be made clearer, as it is difficult to differentiate between the approach taken and those rejected options.
Other Key Issues identified
In 2010 the Government formed the Local Housing Delivery Group and began the Housing Standards Review. Following consultation (Oct 2013) the outcomes of the review will be implemented through a set of nationally described standards or through integrating the standards proposed into Building Regulations. The review is not proposing to stop industry or other bodies bringing their own standards to the market for developers to utilise on a voluntary basis. Following
40 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
the outcome of this consultation, the government proposes to wind down the role of the Code for Sustainable Homes (7) 2013 Part L set between Code levels 3 and 4 are likely to be implemented by April 2014, with outcome of the above consultation defining the approach to reach 2016 zero carbon (Code 5) standards. The Government considers that the right approach is that carbon and energy targets are only set in national Building Regulations and that no interim standard is needed. The scope of the Allowable Solutions consultation (Oct 2013) is to set out and gather further evidence on the key principles, price cap and processes for delivery. This is the carbon offsetting process that house builders may support to achieve the off site mitigation measures required to meet zero carbon homes standard from 2016. The Government intends as far as possible to design Allowable Solutions to ensure that they can be delivered through the legislative framework of the Buildings Act 1984 and related secondary legislation such as the Building Regulations 2010 (the ‘Building Regulations’). The County Council’s emerging Devon Waste Plan is expected to include a policy requirement for major developments to provide a site waste management plan or a waste audit statement. The Devon Waste Plan will form part of the development plan alongside the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
Officer Comments and Recommendations
165 The technical feasibility and financial viability of certain measures form the main issue that has been questioned, although the principles of this policy received a mixed response. Viability is a key issue but this policy identifies key principles and delivery is addressed through more detailed strategic policies elsewhere in the plan. Paragraphs 173 and 174 of NPPF require plans to be deliverable and not to threaten the viability of development. The economic viability assessment being undertaken by Adams Integra assesses viability of affordable housing and CIL having considered the policy requirements of the draft local plan as a whole. Additional work is required to evaluate the viability impact of alternative policy options.
166 There is concern regarding the cost of proposed standards and the subsequent implications for delivery of new housing. There is also concern that there is significant duplication and some conflict between the existing policies and the latest timetable for Building Regulation reviews. The conclusions of consultation on the Housing Standards Review are awaited, so although Policy ST05 and supporting text need updating, the future for Code for Sustainable Homes & BREEAM and the future baseline for Building Regulations are currently unclear. Challenging targets within future Building Regulations may not justify or facilitate introduction of higher local standards, but relatively low Building Regulations standards may provide opportunities for Local Plan policies to raise standards without threatening viability. In the absence of the results of the Government’s consultation, and the Biosphere Reserve’s strategy for demonstrating innovative approaches as an exemplar for sustainable development, it is considered appropriate to retain local standards subject to being able to demonstrate that they do not undermine viability of development.
167 There is some support for a more regulatory approach with specific policy requirements and monitored closely post-occupation. However, the cost of evaluation post-occupation would need to be minimised and monitoring is not a policy requirement. If the Code for Sustainable Homes is to be wound down, as proposed, then paragraph 2 of the policy should be deleted.
7 (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/230250/1-_Housing_Standards_Review_-_Consultation_Document.pdf)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 41 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
168 The benefits from sourcing recycling materials are appropriate to deliver sustainable development and complement the principles within Policy ST02. However, the policy and supporting text should include reference to both locally sourced and recycled materials. The potential shortage of recycled materials in the area is noted, so criterion 5(d) may need to clarify ‘where available’ and locally sourced materials should be included within criterion 5(d).
169 Several responses highlight that PassivHaus should be considered as an appropriate design approach. Alternative construction standards that support more sustainable construction should be supported and may become more regular as Building Regulations are tightened to reduce carbon emissions. Such approaches should be supported and encouraged in reasoned justification, but there is inadequate justification to require it through policy, especially prior to the results of the Government’s consultation.
170 If the Housing Standards Review introduces a regulatory approach to sustainable design standards, then there will be neither flexibility nor opportunities to assess feasibility of achieving it. If a more flexible approach is introduced then the need to consider technical feasibility and financial viability in ST05(1) will remain relevant.
171 The need for reducing construction waste fits with this policy and complements Policy ST02(1e) which seeks to reduce, reuse and recycle resources including construction materials. It is considered appropriate to add a cross reference to the Devon Waste Plan’s requirement for site waste management plan’s for major developments.
172 Policy ST13: Delivering Renewable Energy and Heat (paragraph 3) currently refers to a strategy for ‘allowable solutions’ which provide a means of achieving higher levels of the Code for Sustainable Homes. The Housing Standards Review may incorporate ‘allowable solutions’ within future Building Regulations in which case there is no need for a separate policy reference. Sustainable construction in excess of Building Regulations can still be supported, albeit not required, in which case requests for ‘allowable solutions’ on top of Building Regulations may need to be considered. Whilst paragraph 5.20 cross refers to Policy ST05, it is considered more appropriate for any policy relating to ‘allowable solutions’ to be incorporated within Policy ST05.
173 If the Housing Standards Review does not remove the Code for Sustainable Homes then it would be appropriate to include detailed guidance on sustainable design within Policy DM05: Design Principles. It could clarify the level and type of information required for a pre-assessment estimator to enable a proposal to be assessed against code levels prior to its construction.
174 The Government defines ‘zero carbon’ and the concept is likely to be introduced through Building Regulations in future years. It is considered inappropriate to delete all reference to ‘zero carbon’ in paragraphs 3.36 and 3.39.
Agreed Actions
1. Clarify that all Part 1 policies are strategic whilst Part 2 and 3 policies are not in Introduction (chapter 1). 2. Amend ST05(5d) to encourage use of locally sourced and/or recycled materials where they are available and represent a viable option. 3. Amend paragraph 3.43 to clarify that use of locally sourced and/or recycled materials are supported where they represent a viable option. 4. Amend paragraph 3.43 to cross-refer to the draft Devon Waste Plan’s requirement for site waste management plan’s for major developments.
42 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
5. Amend paragraph 3.38 to support and encourage alternative construction standards, such as PassivHaus, that can deliver more sustainable design beyond the requirements of Buildings Regulations. 6. Add a criterion to Policy ST05 to support any ‘allowable solutions’ for carbon reductions beyond Building Regulations, and amend reasoned justification accordingly. 7. Remove criterion (3) from Policy ST13. 8. Make amendments to Policy and supporting justification in line with the Housing Standards Review final recommendations, once they have been published, including (potentially) deleting ST05(2). 9. Undertake additional work required to evaluate the viability implications of alternative policy options, such as Code for Sustainable Homes and Buildings for Life. Policy ST06: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon
Total number of responses 130
Total number of responses in support 43
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 22
Total number of responses in objection 52
Total number of responses providing a general comment 13
Table 5.8
175 Comments made in response to Policy ST06 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
Summary of Key Issues
176 Comments made in response to Policy ST06, including supporting text, Figure 4.1 and the Evidence(8):
Support the hierarchical principles of this policy (x10 including DCC, NE, ENPA) Support most development in urban centres (x2) Support Barnstaple as focus for growth rather than dispersed distribution (x3) Support development located near employment centres and other uses serviced by a choice of transport modes and accessible to the communities they serve (x2) Support strategy that would reduce commuting between settlements (HA) Support recognition that growth sustains and enhances the area creating self-supporting communities to meet the area’s increasing needs (x6 including ENPA) Support restricting development in the countryside (x4 including CPRE) Support this hierarchy rather than a new settlement (x2) Build a new settlement closer to the road/rail network Investigate a new settlement (x2) Build between Barnstaple and Bideford where access to services is good rather than within villages (x2) Unduly restrictive of development outside identified villages (x5)
8 Please note this section does not include responses to Part 3 of the draft Local Plan, this can be found in Appendix 2
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 43 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Support a strategy of encouraging sustainable rural communities through a balance of housing and employment land provision, but constraining business development beyond named villages is unduly restrictive (ND+) Restricting development in the countryside is inconsistent with the NPPF in supporting a prosperous rural economy (ND+) Non-listed settlements outside the National Park (Brayford, Molland, East Anstey) where parishes are split by the boundary may be constrained in becoming more self-sustainable if classified as countryside (ENPA) Make villages more self-supporting by provision of housing and jobs that support existing and promote additional social and community facilities notwithstanding a lack of transport Rural villages and settlements may be seriously disenfranchised unless this distinction is reconsidered Make policies more flexible to enable development to come forward in the countryside (x3) Villages protected from development have become increasingly exclusive communities and unaffordable Reconsider a more dispersed and sustainable distribution of development Due to budgetary cuts, public transport is becoming less sustainable in smaller settlements (DCC) How can self-supporting villages be achieved when shops and post offices have closed? Existing services may not last so development may be unsustainable in ten years time Allow growth in settlements not listed which would improve their sustainability rather than on an exceptional basis (CPRE) Self-containment is a key issue for rural areas that are distant from major higher order settlements (HA) There needs to be an acceptance by local communities that growth must take place Clarify what the exceptional circumstances are for development in the countryside (x2 including CPRE) Tourism businesses and innovative knowledge intensive businesses actively prefer countryside locations, so development should not be restricted to an exceptional basis only (ND+) Clarify the types of development (i.e. housing and employment) that this policy will facilitate to meet community needs and aspirations The countryside is too general a classification for rural areas (x4) Countryside prevents development in all unnamed settlements that wish to grow over the next 20 years with rural employment and housing opportunities Allow development in what is termed the open countryside (x3) A more pragmatic approach is necessary to avoid perceived conflicts between policy ST06(1) and policy ST08(1) & (5) Add an intermediate category between Village and countryside for communities that are in transition by adding services to become more sustainable and identify their needs (x10) There is no need to identify settlements between villages and countryside Define ‘appropriate’ levels of growth and scales of development Sections 4 and 5 of hierarchy need to be more definitive There is no need to differentiate between local centres, villages and countryside when considering sustainability Encourage more employment in smaller towns to minimising journeys to work Locate housing in larger towns as rural settlements without facilities cannot support new housing Why is development to be focused on Barnstaple and Bideford, when South Molton is closer to the M5? Employment led growth is appropriate for South Molton (DCC)
44 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
As a strategic centre, Bideford needs to grow to fulfil its role as the primary centre for Torridge Be more explicit about the need for growth in Bideford (ND+) Does Northam refer to Westward Ho! and Appledore as well as Northam? Refer toNortham (including Appledore and Westward Ho!) on Figure 4.1 Development at Northam to meet the settlement’s own needs contradicts the spatial strategy’s significant growth (DCC) Can the scale of development at Ilfracombe be defined as employment led, with a relatively small amount of employment land at Mullacott? (DCC) Key villages in Torridge closely associated with tourism should be treated and maintained in the same way as counterparts in North Devon North Devon has tourist accommodation whilst Torridge has man-made attractions Support Barnstaple as a sub-regional centre (x7) Support Bideford as a strategic centre (x2) Ilfracombe performs the function of a Strategic Centre and should be identified as such Support identification as Main Centres: Appledore, Braunton/Wrafton, Holsworthy, Northam (x3), South Molton (x2) Fremington/Yelland should be included with Barnstaple as part of the sub-regional centre Northam (including Appledore and Westward Ho!) should not be identified as a main centre – infrastructure cannot cope and want to retain separate identities for these settlements Braunton is a main centre (ST06) but a town centre (ST15); Northam, Appledore and Westward Ho! are a main centre (ST06) but district centres (ST15) Inconsistent hierarchy of centres between ST06 and ST15 (x2 including DCC) Support identification as Local Centres: Buckland Brewer, Chulmleigh, Dolton (x2), Fremington/Yelland, Instow, Shebbear (x2), Witheridge Appledore should be reclassified as a Local Centre rather than being included within Northam and Westward Ho! as part of a Main Centre Appledore and Westward Ho! should not lose their own identities by merging with Northam – reclassify as Villages Bratton Fleming should be a Village rather than a Local Centre and expansion would jeopardise community spirit Dolton should not be a Local Centre due to poor highway network and lack of employment Fremington/Yelland should not be a Local Centre Landkey should be a Local Centre like Fremington/Yelland – it has good public transport links suitable for more growth than a Village entails Explain why Buckland Brewer and Dolton are Local Centres whilst Parkham and Beaford are not Support identification as Villages: Bishops Tawton, Bridgerule, Burrington, Clawton, Filleigh, Knowle, Little Torrington, Merton, Rackenford, Shirwell (x2), West Down Include the following settlements as Villages: Ashford, Broadwoodwidger, East Anstey, Petrockstowe, Weare Gifford, Westleigh (some of which were previously identified in previous local plans) Include Marwood, Milltown & Muddiford as a Village How has Milton Damerel/Venn Green become a defined village when the parish has several "hamlets" of equivalent size and sustainability - does this mean all the other "hamlets" are categorised as The Countryside? All villages should be listed to allow modest growth (x4) Add as Small Villages/Hamlets: Frithelstock, George Nympton, Knowstone, St Giles in the Wood, West Anstey
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 45 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Support their designation within the countryside with only exceptional development: East Down, Romansleigh Development in Hartland, Woolacombe and Combe Martin may have an adverse effect on the AONB and Heritage Coast – the capacity of these settlements to accommodate growth should be tested (NE) Welcome an ecosystems approach to the development proposals which should be reflected in Policy ST06 (NE) Additional wording should ensure development will not impact on the integrity of internationally designated sites and landscapes AONB and Heritage Coast (NE) The plan needs to be supported with robust evidence so why has a habitat assessment not been completed?
Other Key Issues identified
Engagement with Parish Councils on Part 3 of the local plan was undertaken separately. A summary of the responses received to the position of settlements within the settlement hierarchy is set out in Appendix 1 – these have not be included within the summary of responses to Policy ST06 (above) The schedule of services and facilities within individual settlements has been updated as a result of Parish Council responses; the key implication is that East Anstey should now be identified as Village Although no formal representation was received, Heanton Punchardon Parish Council have requested that Wrafton be reclassified as a separate settlement from Braunton
Amend Figure 4.1 by relabelling Braunton as ‘Braunton & Wrafton’ Amend Figure 4.1 by renumbering Sutcombe as 38 The joint local plan working group meeting (25 June) supported the principle of introducing a category of ‘small villages’ to be defined by criteria rather than being listed individually
Officer Comments and Recommendations
177 There is broad support for the principle of a settlement hierarchy with growth being focused in the urban centres because this is where employment opportunities and services are most accessible. Several responses proposed that a new settlement, potentially between Barnstaple and Bideford, be added to the hierarchy but this option was rejected previously as it would not be achieved within the plan period and would not support delivery of a five year land supply.
178 The most contentious aspect of Policy ST06 is the restrictive approach to development in the countryside outside identified villages, especially towards supporting a prosperous rural economy. This is contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 28), however other responses supported this restrictive approach to development in the countryside. Restricting development in rural areas could harm social and economic sustainability of rural settlements, so development that enables these communities to become more sustainable should be supported.
179 This policy is strategic in nature and terms such as ‘appropriate’ levels of growth and scales of development are explained elsewhere in the plan, including ST08 (Rural Area Strategy) and DM04 (New Development within Local Centres and the Countryside).
180 Clarification has been sought of the ‘exceptional basis’ on which development would be allowed in the countryside outside identified villages. The countryside was considered too general as a classification for rural areas as a whole, since there is a clear difference between existing settlements and the wider open countryside. A number of responses (primarily from rural parish councils) requested
46 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
an intermediate category between Villages and the countryside to enable rural communities to grow where it would meet their needs and make them more sustainable. This coincides with the joint local plan working group’s previous recommendation, although one response disagreed and several supported restricting development in the countryside.
181 Besides the identified need for an additional category of rural settlement in the proposed settlement hierarchy, there was broad support for the distribution of settlements within the hierarchy. It was informed by evidence against the agreed qualifying criteria for each category of settlement, although this could be outlined more explicitly. As such, there is no justification for Ilfracombe to be a strategic centre, nor for Bratton Fleming, Dolton and Fremington/Yelland to be downgraded from Local Centres, nor for Beaford, Landkey and Parkham to be upgraded to Local Centres. Fremington/Yelland is a separate settlement with its own range of facilities and issues, so there is also no justification for it to be incorporated within the sub-regional centre of Barnstaple.
182 The need for Bideford to grow to fulfil its role as the primary centre for Torridge is already recognised and the spatial strategy for the town is set out further under the town strategies. It does not need to be made more explicit. South Molton is already proposed for significant growth and its proximity to the M5 does not justify lower levels of development at Barnstaple and Bideford and the two most strategic centres. It is accepted that lfracombe should be defined as regeneration-led growth rather than employment-led growth.
183 Several representations questioned whether Northam, Appledore and Westward Ho! should be classified as separate settlements. Also whether Northam (including Appledore and Westward Ho!) should be downgraded from a Main Centre and whether Figure 4.1 should refer to Northam (including Appledore and Westward Ho!). Whilst their differences are recognised, these 3 centres provide a range of services and should continue to be considered together.
184 Apparent contradictions between the settlement hierarchy (ST06) and retail hierarchy (ST15) are because the Main Centres have been split between Town Centres and District Centres. This reflects their different roles with Northam, Appledore and Westward Ho! forming distinct district retail centres. The reasoned justification could explain this better.
185 Several Parish Councils proposed additional settlements being identified as villages, although East Anstey is the only one to meet the agreed qualifying criteria. Several responses also proposed to extend the list to include all villages, although this was in the context of development only being allowed on an exceptional basis outside identified villages. Introducing a category of ‘small villages’ that allows limited development to meet their social and economic needs and make these rural communities more sustainable is expected to overcome these objections. Several settlements had anticipated this and requested to be identified as small villages/hamlets, whilst others were satisfied being designated as countryside.
186 Whilst Hartland, Woolacombe and Combe Martin are all identified as Local Centres, this does not require a particular level of development. Part 3 of the local plan will determine an appropriate level of growth for each village based on the availability of sites and community aspirations. It is not considered appropriate to refer to landscape designations or the ecosystems approach within ST06, although these are addressed elsewhere in the plan, including ST09 (Coast and Estuary Strategy) and ST11 (Enhancing Environmental Assets). A Habitats Regulations Assessment was undertaken for the draft local plan and was published alongside the document.
Agreed Actions
1. Provide more flexible approach to development in countryside; 2. Add new tier in hierarchy to meet identified needs;
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 47 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
3. Explain that the settlement hierarchy is underpinned by the settlement matrix of community facilities; 4. Amend Figure 4.1 for accuracy and consistency and to include East Anstey; 5. Define growth at Ilfracombe as regeneration-led rather than employment-led in paragraph 4.5; and 6. Clarify why Main Centres have been split between Town Centres and District Centres in Policy ST15. Policy ST07: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon
Total number of responses 179
Total number of responses in support 22
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 25
Total number of responses in objection 87
Total number of responses providing a general comment 45
Table 5.9
187 Comments made in response to Policy ST07 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
Summary of Key Issues
The North Devon and Torridge Housing and Employment Study and Employment Land Review is available as a final draft report, emerging findings: A “Policy-On” approach, which seeks to deliver beyond historically achieved levels of economic growth, provides for employment growth of 7,500 FTE; which represents an aspirational growth target based on stronger growth in key sectors as supported by the Councils’ emerging Economic Strategy. While recognising that future growth will require a range of delivery sites, the employment land requirement for BI, B2 and B8 uses would be in the range of 47-60 hectares across Northern Devon. It is worth noting that this requirement does take into account all the “economic development” uses enabled by the NPPF definition and on which basis the majority of allocations will be provided for in the North Devon and Torridge. Based on analysis within the Housing and Employment Study it is concluded that it would be reasonable to plan for between 16,000 and17,000 homes over the period, with economic evidence indicating a potential for provision of around 16,800. It is worth noting that to maintain existing employment levels, i.e. zero employment growth, a housing requirement of about 11,200 dwellings would be required. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (December 2012) identified a requirement, based on assessed needs and demands and taking into account the highest priority needs within existing backlog of affordable need, 6,656 additional homes in North Devon and 7,864 additional homes in Torridge. Exmoor National Park, West Somerset, North Devon, Torridge and North Cornwall formed the Northern Peninsula Strategic Housing Market Area on which basis the 2008 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) was undertaken. Separately from Torridge and North Devon, Exmoor National Park and West Somerset completed SHMA Updates in 2013. The Updates for all former SHMA partner authorities, other than North Cornwall (now part of Cornwall County)
48 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
were derived from the same methodology and prepared by the same consultants (Housing Vision). Further discussion with Cornwall County are being undertaken under the duty to cooperate to secure a demonstration that the strategic housing market area’s housing needs will be appropriately meet. In response to comments on Policy ST06 a recommended outcome is to add a further tier of settlement. A Rural Settlement classification is recommended to be added to allow modest development in qualifying villages to meet locally generated needs. At the Village level, two additional villages, Tetcott and East Anstey are recommended to be defined within the settlement hierarchy. Housing land and dwelling completion information now available with a 1st April 2013 base date will be incorporated into the Local Plan. The Land Availability accounts have been interrogated to ensure the contained information is accurate as at 1st April 2013.
Officer Comments and Recommendations
188 A significant number of comments have been received in response to the Distribution Strategy section of the draft Local Plan.
189 The majority of comments which objected to or provided a general comment relate to: the overall scale of planned housing and employment development both in respect of too much and too little; the levels of development proposed for each of the towns, the absence of a programme of phased land release and opportunities for development within the rural area. Issues relating to the supporting evidence base and the accuracy of presented information were also raised.
190 In addition to comments in objection, 22 comments in support and 25 comments in support subejct to amendment were received. The supporting comments relate to: overall and town levels of planned growth; the distribution strategy with regard to the settlement hierarchy, the absence of phasing on site release and the extent to which the strategy provides a significant urban focus. All comments have been noted, including those where the subject matter principally relates to another policy area.
191 A plan wide viability assessment is recognised as being absent as a published document to support the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan - Consultation Draft (January 2013). The Viability Assessment(9) is now finalised and published; it has been used to inform policy preparation, most significantly in respect of the delivery of affordable housing. Comment on the general availability of evidence is noted; evidential material has and will be been published when finalised, including an Appropriate Assessment relating to the Hares Down, Knowstone and Rackenford Moors part of the Culm grassland SAC as sought by Natural England.
192 Comment on the adequacy of the Sustainability Appraisal is also noted; the Pre-submission version of the Local Plan will be accompanied by a Sustainability Appraisal that is fully compliant with the SA/SEA Directive.
193 Comment on consistency between Policy ST07 and ST06: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon is noted. Recommended reformatting of both policies, including distinguishing between North Devon and Torridge elements will add clarity. It is also recommended that Fremington and Yelland are removed from Policy ST07; addressing an inconsistency with regard to its Local Centre status. Policy ST07 relates to Sub-regional, Strategic and Main Centres only, in respect of specifying
9 Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge(Adams Integra September 2013)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 49 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
levels of development to be achieved by settlement. It was previously included due to growth levels proposed for Fremington and Yelland, but it is recommended that the Vision and development proposals for Fremington and Yelland are relocated within Part 3 of the Local Plan.
194 A respondent suggests that there should be an opportunity to transfer settlement defined housing targets if a shortfall in delivery starts to arise. Local targets are however considered to be an important contributor to securing the local vision through an established development strategy which is reflective of local circumstances and aspirations. It is not though appropriate or necessary to enable housing targets transfers between settlements. The Councils aim to work positively to ensure appropriate housing provision is enabled and that such is achieved across the plan area. Policy ST20: Managing the Delivery of Housing sets out the “plan monitor and manage” approach that will be undertaken to minimise any shortfall in delivery. It is worth noting that the settlement targets should be viewed as a minimum.
195 A number of comments relate to the provision of infrastructure, which will be addressed through the Strategic and Development Management policies of the Local Plan.
196 The comment that development should be located close to the motorway network is noted. The motorway network does not however extend into North Devon but significant development is proposed with good accessibility to A39/A361, significantly at South Molton, Barnstaple and Bideford. It is worth noting that support is provided by the Highways Agency in respect of the growth focus provided by the Local Plan towards Barnstaple and Bideford and to increase self-containment in other market towns.
Housing Numbers
197 A range of comments, including conflicting statements on the overall scale of housing provision are made. Policy ST07 provides for housing growth “for 16,000” dwellings.
198 In response to comments on the precursor to the housing number, it is accepted that the stated provision should be referenced on an “at least” basis. Having regard to National Planning Policy requirements(10) the stated level is viewed as a minimum which must be demonstrated as developable.
199 With regard to the overall scale of housing development such is derived from the required Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update(11). The draft Local Plan is predicated on the premise of meeting or exceeding this evidenced scale of housing growth over the plan period. It is recognised that the scale of housing growth planned for delivery within Torridge will need to increase from the figure of 7,600 identified within the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan - Consultation Draft (January 2013) to 7,864 to reflect the housing requirements of the final SHMA(12). The level of growth planned for North Devon, is based on a growth beyond needs strategy focused on community driven aspirations, significantly at South Molton and Ilfracombe. It is worth noting that the level of planned development for North Devon exceeds the Strategic Housing Market requirement by 26%.
200 Respondents have raised concerns regarding the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, with an emphasis on the variance between its determination of need and demands against the level set out in the draft Revised Regional Spatial Strategy. The draft Revised Regional Spatial Strategy
10 Paragraph 47, National Planning Policy Framework (Department for Communities and Local Government, March 2012) 11 Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012) 12 Figures within the consultation draft were based upon the emerging findings of the SHMA which indicated a requirement of approximately 7,600 dwellings for Torridge
50 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
provided for housing growth of 10, 900 in North Devon and 10,700 in Torridge, 2006-2026. It is not accepted that the scale of the revised housing requirement is a basis for challenging the robustness of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, which as required by the NPPF(13) is based on current and future projected demographic market trends. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment utilises 2010 ONS population estimates and population projections, consolidated with 2011 Census material available at the time of completion. In comparison the draft Revised Regional Spatial Strategy, was based on now historic 2004 ONS data sources. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment is considered to provide a sound basis for defining northern Devon’s housing requirements, being based on CLG SHMA Practice Guidance and utilising the most up to date data available at the time of completion.
201 The figure of 16,000 dwellings is not considered to represent a suppression of growth, having regard to the needs and demand based assessment provided by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and other evidence(14) that presents a position on housing numbers over the plan period. It is worth noting that while the Local Plan plans for the delivery of 16,000 dwellings, the flexible approach to development within the rural area and absence of a land supply contribution from windfall sites (previously developed sites which unexpectedly come forward for development) provides an opportunity for housing beyond 16,000 dwellings to be delivered. The flexibility of supply, including the absence of a phased approach to land release supports the delivery of a five year land supply, which the Local Plan seeks to maintain and will be subject to monitoring to maintain compliance with national planning guidance(15). To demonstrate delivery of the land supply it is recommended that a housing trajectory is added to the Local Plan in support of Policy ST07.
202 In addition to commentators advocating an increase in the overall land supply target, increases at other settlement levels within the hierarchy (Main Centres) are proposed. The appropriate levels of growth for individual settlements have been shaped by community engagement, including earlier stages of formal consultation and engagement through stakeholder workshops and further informed by a range of other matters such as evidence of land availability, housing need and demand and physical or infrastructure constraints. The Northern Devon and Housing Employment Study(16)and the Torridge District Urban Housing Needs Assessment(17) additionally provide evidence to inform the distribution strategy.
203 The housing and employment targets set out in Policy ST07, taking the referenced factors into account, is considered to deliver the distribution strategy provided for through Policy ST06. Some change to the settlements’ housing and employment targets are however required as a result of detailed discussions relating to individual town chapters.
204 In contrast to interests who seek to increase the scale of housing planned for northern Devon, counter comments are pursuing a reduction in the quantum of proposed development. It is suggested that the housing numbers are too high; the delivery of which would be detrimental to northern Devon and providing homes on a “locals only” is suggested as a housing delivery position. The considered absence of employment growth is also presented in resistance to the planned level of housing growth. The Local Plan must however, as a minimum provide to meet its assessed housing needs and demands, which is pursued for Torridge and extended beyond in North Devon. Planning for growth
13 Paragraph 159, National Planning Policy Framework (Department for Communities and Local Government, March 2012) 14 Torridge District Council 2012 Urban Housing Needs Assessment (JG Consulting 2012) and Northern Devon Housing and Employment Study (GL Hearn Final Draft Report October 2013) 15 Paragraph 47, National Planning Policy Framework (Department for Communities and Local Government, March 2012) 16 Final Draft Report: Northern Devon Housing and Employments Study (GL Hearn, October 2013) 17 Torridge District Council 2012 Urban Housing Needs Assessment (JG Consulting August 2012)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 51 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
in North Devon is considered to be soundly based on locally established aspirations and is encouraged through national planning policy in respect of positive planning. For clarity, it is recommended that the North Devon and Torridge assessed needs and demands defined through the Strategic Housing Market Update 2012 are referenced in the supporting text to Policy ST07.
205 With regard to the impacts of development, it is inevitable that greenfield sites will be required to accommodate growth and that infrastructure capacity improvements will be required. The Local Plan, while planning to meet identified needs and demands also aims to minimise environmental impacts and ensure necessary infrastructure is delivered with development, such matters will be managed though the Strategic and Development Management policies of the Local Plan. The comment in respect of employment is noted. Housing growth is however not only a main contributor to employment sectors based on population growth but is required to a level of 11,199 dwellings to support a zero economic growth position. The Local Plan is predicated on securing economic growth beyond historic levels, which requires further housing growth to support an expanded workforce.
206 In considering the validity of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, it is recognised that such should be undertaken having regard to the strategic housing market area, which for North Devon and Torridge was provided through the 2008 Northern Peninsula Strategic Housing Market Assessment(18). All partners, except North Cornwall District Council (now Cornwall Council) have undertaken an update to the 2008 Assessment based on a common methodology and by a single service provider (Housing Vision). Dialogue with Cornwall Council has commenced to ensure a position for the housing market area can be demonstrated with regard to meeting the area’s housing needs. Duty to cooperate discussions have and are being undertaking with partner and neighbouring authorities to ensure housing needs are being planned for. A consequence of this requirement has resulted in North Devon accepting the need to accommodate the housing supply for the North Devon part of Exmoor National Park identified through the North Devon and Torridge Strategic Housing Market outside the Exmoor National Park. The SHMA Update calculated that the projected housing requirement for the Exmoor and Downland Fringe, which includes areas outside the National Park for the period 2011-2031, is 612 of which 372 are affordable /intermediate and 276 older households (market and affordable). The identified need for 6,656 dwellings within the whole of North Devon includes future population-led housing needs arising from that part of Exmoor National Park in North Devon with all of this housing to be delivered outside the National Park boundary.
207 It is suggested that the housing figures are not robust, that densities are not defined and are inflexibly applied. In progressing the draft Local Plan a thorough review and update of housing commitments has taken place to ensure accuracy of baseline information. The densities applied to allocated sites reflect the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, which were agreed by the related Panel, and provides for a range on a net density basis of 50 dph in town centres, 40 dph in sub-urban locations, 35 dph in strategic extensions and 30 dph in rural settlements. The site areas are also discounted up to 70% on sites over 2 hectares to accommodate non-housing uses. Regard is also given to the character of the area in which the allocation is located to ensure the expected yield is appropriate to the locality. In instances where higher densities are identified in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, planning permission will have been achieved to establish an acceptable level of development. The means by which densities have been applied to allocated and other sites is regarded as appropriate and transparent. National planning guidance(19) requires local planning authorities to “set out their own approach to densities to reflect local circumstances” and this is provided by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment with regard to site potential. The design
18 Strategic Housing Market Assessment for the Northern Peninsula (December 2008 Housing Vision) 19 Paragraph 47, National Planning Policy Framework (Department for Communities and Local Government, March 2012)
52 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
policy of the Local Plan (DM05) identifies density as one of a range of factors that will deliver good design. It is not considered necessary to define standards, as yields will vary across sites to achieve deliverability and good design outcomes.
208 The observation that there is an error in the percentage figures provided in paragraph 4.13 is noted. The overall and component development levels for housing and employment are subject to a range of recommended changes, as discussed the relevant town chapters. It is recognised that in recalculating the proportion of development planned for each of the named settlements accuracy is required.
Employment
209 The employment related comments are noted. It is recognised that up to date evidence did not support the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan - Consultation Draft (January 2013). A Housing and Employment Study and Employment Land Review(20) has been prepared and used to inform the scale and location of maintained employment allocations. The review has resulted in a recommended reduction in the level of allocated employment sites. The proposed level of employment development while recommended to be reduced from that contained in the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan - Consultation Draft (January 2013) will continue to exceed the requirement advocated in the Housing and Employment Study.
210 It is worth noting that the evidenced outcomes relate only to B1, B2 and B8 uses. The allocations in the draft Local Plan are recommended to relate to “economic development” as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework. Apply a flexibility of use on allocated sites together with stated(21) ambitions for employment related growth affords support to be given to the allocation of sites above evidenced levels.
211 Comment on the need to secure business growth before the delivery of additional housing and the scale of housing to employment provision is noted. As evidenced by the Housing and Employment Study, significant housing growth is required to maintain even existing levels of economic activity as a consequence of the area’s ageing population. The District Councils are however pursuing a growth agenda to improve the quality and quantity of local employment opportunities through the Local Plan and Economic Development Strategy. If employment growth beyond historically achieved rates is to be achieved, such will be required to be supported by the proposed level of housing development.
212 Having regard to the quantum of allocated sites and the flexibility the Local Plan affords to support employment generating development there is no justification to support additional land allocation for economic development. The Housing and Employment Study in addition to identifying the scale of required allocations is clear in its advice that economic growth is not reliant on industrial estate and business park development.
213 It is suggested that there is an inconsistency between the settlement hierarchy and the level of employment allocations in Northam, Bideford and Ilfracombe, the consequence of which will be to increase commuting to Barnstaple. Barnstaple is a sub-regional centre which provides significant employment opportunities both on and beyond industrial estates and business parks, which will attract commuting and it is appropriate that future growth is supported by continued economic expansion. The draft Local Plan also provides for economic growth in the other centres on the basis of allocations and general policy provision. As indicated above, there is no justification for additional employment allocations in Northam, Bideford and Ilfracombe.
20 Northern Devon Housing and Employment Study and Northern Devon Employment Land Review (draft final report GL Hearn October 2013) 21 Draft Northern Devon Economic Growth Strategy (NDC/TDC 2012)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 53 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
214 The aspiration of securing well paid jobs is discounted in a comment from Great Torrington Town Council. Employment growth, through an expanded and improved economic base that is supported by an increasingly skilled and well paid workforce is the strategic priority for both North Devon and Torridge District Councils. Through the Housing and Employment Study it is recognised that to move from the current low skill, wage and productivity position presents a structural economic challenge. Nevertheless, the Councils have clear economic growth ambitions in this respect, as set out in the Economic Development Strategy which is appropriately supported in the emerging Local Plan.
215 With regard to the rural area, employment allocations will be defined in Part 3 of the Local Plan where such are: locally supported and of an appropriate scale and location. Economic development in the rural area is not however reliant on allocated sites, as provided for by the Strategic and Development Management Policies of the Local Plan.
216 The suggestion that an audit of existing resources should be undertaken is noted. The Employment Land Review provides an assessment of existing and proposed employment land in both urban and rural locations. It has informed a review of employment allocations, as required in response to the recognised over allocation of sites, and will be used in considering future proposals on established industrial estates and business parks.
Strategic and Main Centres
217 Support for growth at Great Torrington, South Molton and Northam is noted. The scale of planned development is considered to be reflective of local needs and aspirations taking into account site development opportunities, derived from such matters as availability, suitability, infrastructure capacity and landscape and site delivery constraints. Developments increasing levels of self-containment are sought in the interests of minimising the need to travel.
Barnstaple
218 Comments relating to Barnstaple are noted, which provide a range of comments relating to the scale of planned growth. The matter of the appropriate scale of planned growth for housing and individual site allocations for Barnstaple is considered in detail in response to the representations received in relation to relevant town chapter within the Local Plan. Notwithstanding the detailed discussion, the level of planned growth at Barnstaple has been shaped by community engagement and based on matters such as evidence of land availability, housing need and demand and physical, environmental or infrastructure constraints. The level of planned growth at Barnstaple is considered appropriate with regard to its sub-regional role and capacity to accommodate sustainable growth to achieve the vision for area. The table within Policy ST07 will however, require amendment to reflect recommended revisions to employment and housing allocations and new commitments since April 2012.
219 The suggestion that the Local Plan is biased towards Barnstaple is not accepted. The distribution and development strategy for the northern Devon settlements is guided by the role and function of each and their capacity to appropriately accommodate growth to achieve place-specific visions. Barnstaple is the principal centre in northern Devon, which has a capacity to accommodate significant levels housing and employment growth as the sub-regional centre. This position is considered supportive rather than detrimental to other centres which themselves are planned for to either meet or exceed evidenced needs.
Bideford
54 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
220 The range of comments relating to Bideford are noted, which are focused on the role of the town and the planned level of growth. The matter of the appropriate scale of planned growth for housing and individual site allocations for Bideford is considered in detail in response to the representations received in relation to relevant town chapter within the Local Plan. On the basis of such discussions, the overall level of housing development is recommended to marginally increase, to achieve the Strategic Housing Market Assessment determined housing requirement, with a reduction in economic development allocations in response to findings of the Employment and Housing Study and the Employment Land Review. The table within Policy ST07 will require amendment to reflect recommended revisions to employment and housing allocations.
221 The referenced allocations subject to Policies BID06: Extension to Caddsdown Business Park and BID10: South of Clovelly Road, is recommended to be retained but subject to detailed revision. Both sites have been assessed as suitable for the intended uses, which will make important contributions to evidenced housing (BID10) and employment needs (BID06).
222 The comment that Bideford’s strategic role appears to have been forgotten is not accepted. Significant growth is planned for Bideford; in respect of housing it is only marginally lower than the sub-regional centre. It is accepted that defined retail and employment growth is at higher level in Barnstaple, but such is reflective of evidenced needs and the established role of the centre. In addition to site specific allocations, the Strategic and Development Management Policies of the Local Plan are encouraging of development that will contribute to economic objectives and will support appropriate proposals that will contribute to strong and prosperous communities.
Ilfracombe
223 The comments made with regard to the scale and form of planned development at Ilfracombe are noted. Evidence for Ilfracombe indicates that growth through regeneration of the local economy and rebalancing the local housing market, with more family houses required to meet the future workforce needs of existing key employers. The table within Policy ST07 will require amendment to reflect a recommended reduction in employment allocations.
Northam
224 The range of comments relating to Northam is noted, which are focused on planned levels of growth. The matter of the appropriateness of the scale of planned growth and individual site allocations for Northam is considered in detail in response to the representations received in relation to relevant town chapter within the Local Plan. On the basis of such discussions, the overall level of housing development is recommended to marginally increase, to better achieve site delivery objectives and to contribute to a required increase in the housing supply to meet the needs and demands identified by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment.
225 The suggestion that references to Northam should be extended to include Westward Ho! and Appledore is recognised as an appropriate point of clarification on which basis the Local Plan is recommended to be revised.
226 The comment that there are no employment allocations in Northam is accepted. There are however no established industrial estates or business parks in Northam and no such allocation requests have been received. The economic focus for Northam will continue to be based around sectors responding to population growth, the tourism industry and maritime activities centred on the Appledore Shipyard. The Employment Land Review provides no encouragement to allocate sites for economic development in Northam and the Strategic and development Management Policies of the Local Plan provide support for economic development, which is not restricted to sites allocated for economic development.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 55 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
South Molton
227 The comments relating to South Molton are noted. Significant development, both housing and employment related is planned at South Molton. The matter of the appropriateness of the scale of planned growth and individual site allocations for South Molton is considered in detail in response to the representations received in relation to relevant town chapter within the Local Plan. On the basis of such discussions, the overall level of housing development is recommended to increase, to better achieve the local vision and site delivery objectives. The suggestion that further development to draft Revised Spatial Strategy levels is accommodated in South Molton is rejected; development levels for the town have already been established to support a growth agenda in response to local aspirations.
Braunton and Wrafton
228 The comments relating to Braunton are noted. The matter of the appropriateness of the scale of planned growth and individual site allocations forBraunton and Wrafton is considered in detail in response to the representations received in relation to relevant village chapter within the Local Plan. The level of planned development is considered appropriate to the role of the settlement and of its ability to appropriately accommodate growth informed by land availability and physical, environmental and infrastructure constraints
229 The comment relating to the draft Revised Regional Strategy is noted. As discussed above the basis for determining the minimum land supply requirements is the Strategic Housing Market assessment not the draft Revised Regional Strategy, which is not based on up to date data and is not reflective of the Local Plans plan period, which is to 2031, not 2026.
Holsworthy
230 The comments relating to Holsworthy are noted. The matter of the appropriateness of the scale of planned growth and individual site allocations for Holsworthy is considered in detail in response to the representations received in relation to relevant town chapter within the Local Plan. On the basis of such discussions, revisions to an allocated site (Policy HOL05) and the addition of two small sites for housing development are recommended to better achieve site delivery objectives and to contribute to a required increase in the housing supply to meet the needs and demands identified by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment.
231 With regard to the focus of development at Bideford and Barnstaple, such is a necessary reflection of the role of the strategic centres and their respective capacity to accommodate growth in a balanced and sustainable manner. The scale of defined development in Bideford and Barnstaple is not considered to be detrimental to the scale of development or applied strategy for Holsworthy. The scale of planned development at Holsworthy is significant and based on a community supported growth agenda.
Rural Area
232 The matter of enabling housing development in rural communities, rather than restricting development to identified Local Centres and defined Villages, is principally covered through consideration of representations on other more relevant Strategic Policies of the draft Plan; in particular Policy ST06: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon. The outcome of this consideration has been to support the principle of extending the range of settlements whereby the provision of housing development is enabled to bring in a tier of smaller settlements – with housing development to be enabled subject to a range of criteria.
56 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
233 The level of development identified for the rural area is not a maximum level. The Local Plan provides for a range housing generating opportunities in the rural area (existing commitments and allocated sites) which have a settlement focus and will provide the 2,200 dwellings for rural areas. However housing policies around rural communities permitting windfall sites will enable growth beyond the identified 2,200 dwelling rural housing supply. The Local Plan aims to deliver a flexible and responsive approach to support rural communities in accommodating growth to meet local needs and aspirations.
234 The importance of facilitating a vibrant and prosperous rural area is recognised. Rural employment allocations will be defined in Part 3 of the Local Plan where such are locally supported and of an appropriate scale and location. Economic development in the rural area is not however reliant on allocated sites, as provided for by the Strategic and Development Management Policies of the Local Plan.
235 The comment relating to greenfield loss is noted, but in many instances will be required in the absence of sufficient previously developed land.
236 A number of respondents raised concerns with regard to Neighbourhoods Development Plans and the means by which rural allocations could be brought forward. Part 3 of the Local Plan will support implementation of the rural strategy, which will include the defining of development boundaries and the allocation of sites for housing, employment and community uses to meet identified local needs and aspirations. Rural communities will not be reliant on the production of Neighbourhoods Development Plans to achieve growth.
Other Matters Raised
237 The sites to be identified as housing allocations in Part 3 of the Local Plan will have been assessed as suitable sites and have the same availability and developability credentials as the town based allocations. It is not accepted that such sites are not secure in respect of supporting the housing supply. With regard to commitments, in recognition that some may not come forward a discount of 15% has been applied, which was established through the Strategic Housing Market Assessment.
238 It is accepted that the Local Plan is dependent on the delivery of large site developments, but such have been assessed as suitable and presented as available for development. The land supply is also formed by a range of small and medium sized sites; some are allocated whilst others are subject to commitments or have been assessed as deliverable. Additional housing sites will come forward on a windfall basis in both rural and urban locations but the Local Plan is not dependent on such in respect of meeting housing needs. It is recognised that the draft Local Plan did not include an indication of the planned delivery over the plan period, on which basis a housing trajectory is recommended to be added.
239 The need to support a five year housing supply is recognised and the projected delivery potential of sites will be presented through a housing trajectory.
240 Contrasting views have been submitted with regard to the absence of a phasing strategy. The Local Plan does not seek to restrict site release in respect of a timescale and such is considered appropriate having regard to the likely lead in times for the larger sites and in the interest of supporting the established growth agenda for the northern Devon.
241 The comments relating to “windfalls” are noted, a definition for which is already provided for in the Glossary to the Local Plan. The Local Plan does not take account of windfall as a contributor to the housing supply. It is recognised that windfall sites will come forward and add to housing delivery over the plan period, but there is no reliance on windfall sites coming forward to deliver the land
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 57 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
supply. The rate of likely delivery on windfall sites has not been assessed and there is no basis on which it could justifiably be added to the housing land supply; sites assessed through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment as deliverable but not subject to a commitment by consent do however contribute to the land supply and reduce the need for equivalent allocations to be made.
242 A wording change is proposed to paragraph 4.22 with regard to enabling identified villages to be “truly sustainable, self-sustaining and self-contained.” Such an objective is considered to be unrealistic having regard to the level of services and facilities across the range of Local Centres and Villages. Adding to the supporting text on the basis of: encouraging and enabling sustainable development that would increase self containment, is however considered an appropriate addition that could be made to paragraph 4.22.
243 A range of comments have been provided in objection to table 4.1. The table which will be correctly referenced within the supporting text and will be subject to amendment to reflect recommended revisions to existing and new policy based allocations. The contained information will be updated with regard to built development and commitments; the accuracy of the contained information has been subject to review to ensure accuracy. With regard to evidence to support the contained information, such is provided by the Councils’ annual monitor of housing and through the Strategic Housing Land Availably Assessment; additional detail of the contribution of allocated and non allocated sites is provided through the town strategies and will be provided in Part 3 of the Local Plan in respect of defined rural settlements. The suggestion to distinguish between the North Devon and Torridge rural component of the housing supply is accepted. It is recommended that the policy table is revised to provide separate North Devon and Torridge housing figures and that the column titles are revised to refer to a housing and employment target, not supply.
244 The comment that the NPPF does not limit rural development to that achievable on an exceptions basis is recognised. The Strategic and Development Management Policies of the Local Plan are considered to reflect national planning policy in seeking to support a prosperous and active rural area. Development opportunities are provided across the rural area, focused on villages, as will be principally set out in Part 3 of the Plan, with development in the countryside otherwise enabled and as guided by NPPF paragraph 55.
245 The comments on the rejected options are noted. The justification for pursing the approach provided for in the draft Local Plan has not altered and is considered to remain appropriate on the basis of gained evidence and compliance with guidance provided through national planning policy.
Agreed Actions
1. Amend Policy ST07 (2), refer to the planned provision for housing on an ”at least basis”; 2. Amend Policy ST07 (2), revise the contained table and Table 4.1 to reflect planned housing and economic development, as recommended through consideration of the Town Strategies; 3. Amend Policy ST07 (2), revise the contained table; distinguish between the North Devon and Torridge housing supply components, including separate targets for each local authority area and rename the columns to ‘Housing Target’ and ‘Employment Land Target’; 4. Update Table 4.1 to an April 2013 base including built 2011-2013 and commitments at April 2013 and for clarity amend Table 4.1 to provide Local Centre and Village housing information; 5. Amend Policy ST07 (2), revise the contained table to remove the reference to Fremington/Yelland and relocate the Local Centre’s strategy and allocations to Part 3 of the Local Plan; 6. Amend paragraph 4.13 to update the percentage development levels planned for strategic and Main Centres; 7. Amend paragraph 4.14, include the Strategic Housing Market Assessment identified housing needs and demands for Torridge and North Devon;
58 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
8. Add to the Distribution Strategy, following the currently numbered Table 4.1, a housing trajectory for North Devon and Torridge; 9. Amend Northam references across the Local Plan to include Westward Ho! and Appledore; 10. Amend paragraph 4.22 to extend the rural objective on the basis of increasing self containment. Amend paragraph 4.20 to refer to Table 4.1 rather than 4.2; 11. Amend paragraph 4.21 to recognise new site allocations are in Local Centres and Villages to meet housing targets, as well as in Strategic Centres and Main Centres (rather than Towns); and 12. Amend paragraph 4.22 to recognise that the plan now makes provision for housing in rural areas.
ST08: Rural Area Strategy
Total number of responses 110
Total number of responses in support 20
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 24
Total number of responses in objection 33
Total number of responses providing a general comment 33
Table 5.10
246 Comments made in response to Policy ST08 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
Summary of Key Issues
In response to comments received to Policy ST06: Spatial Settlement Strategy and Parish Council engagement outcomes to inform Part 3 of the Local Plan, the following policy and related changes are proposed that will impact on Policy ST08: Rural Area Strategy:
Countryside Settlements will be added to the hierarchy defined in Policy ST06. The further tier will allow for community supported modest development to meet locally generated needs. The qualifying settlements will not be defined by policy but determined through qualifying criteria. The rationale for extending the scope of rural development opportunities is to foster social sustainability within and between rural communities in support of an active rural area.
A mixed approach of development boundary definition and a criteria based approach will be applied to Local Centres and Villages, together with site allocations to meet growth requirements and community based aspirations. The determinate of the management approach will community preference and local settlement characteristics.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 59 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
To meet housing needs and support an active rural area residential growth level of 5% in Villages and 10% in Local Centres is confirmed. Exceptionally lower growth levels will be accepted where there are limitations on developable sites (suitable and available) and significant growth enabled where the scale of planned development has community support and directly contributes to the delivery of a local vision.
Policies ST06: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon, ST08: Rural Strategy and DM04: New Development within Local Centres and the Countryside will be reformatted to better present the enabled forms of development by settlement type.
Officer Comments and Recommendations
247 A considerable number of comments made in response to Policy ST08 have a relevance to ST06 and are addressed through the recommended policy changes, which are detailed in the “Additional Points of Consideration” (above). For completeness this report will also respond to the raised issues in relation to the role and growth opportunities in different settlement types.
248 The majority of commentators to policy ST08, support the enabled growth in the interests of improving self-containment, increasing opportunities for residents to live and work in their communities and to allow the changing housing needs of the resident population to be locally met. Policy ST08 brings together a positive strategy for enabling social, economic and infrastructure development within the vast and varied rural area of northern Devon.
249 The distribution strategy within the rural area, as provided by the settlement hierarchy (Policy ST06) will be further extended to allow for small scale, community-supported development in qualifying Countryside Settlement”. This approach addresses the concerns of Parish Councils with small villages and hamlets that do not qualify as Villages but which wish to have the opportunity for development to address local needs but also for Parish Councils who seek the retention of limited development opportunities. The significant consideration that allows for either approach to be applied is the required community support.
250 The suggested need for detailed design criteria specific to the rural area is not accepted. The importance of securing high quality design, as required by the NPPF (section 7), is recognised in the draft Local Plan. Policy ST04: Improving the Quality of Development states that development will achieve high quality inclusive and sustainable design taking full account of design principles provided for in Policy DM05. The strategic and development management policies require quality design to relate not only to the site but to its context, which will embrace both urban and rural environments.
251 With regard to employment development in rural area, the draft Local Plan is considered to present a supportive and enabling framework, as required by the NPPF (paragraph 28). Employment led development will however be difficult to achieve, but such will be enabled in appropriate locations. Part 3 of the Pre-submission Local Plan will include rural employment allocations and development management policies will seek to protect valued employment assets and support new employment opportunities, including, farm diversification schemes, equine development and tourism and leisure attractions, as a means of ensuring a diverse and healthy rural economy.
252 There is no rural specific reference to the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development as such is provided as draft Local Plan Policy ST01, which sets the overall principle for all elements of the Local Plan. With regard to the mandate for a rural area policy, while not an explicit requirement of the NPPF, such was considered valid to define the overarching elements of the rural
60 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
strategy. It is however proposed to amalgamate Policies ST08, ST06 and DM05 to remove current duplication and add clarity as to the type and scale of development that will be enabled at each tier within the settlement hierarchy, which will in effect remove the Rural Areas Strategy policy.
253 The varied support for the use of development boundaries as a means to determine the extent of generally permissible development within and at defined settlements is noted. The use of development boundaries for Local Centres and Villages will reflect community preference and local circumstances. Part 3 of the Pre-submission Local Plan will define draft development boundaries and allocate sites to meet local needs and deliverable growth aspirations where subject to community support based on locally determined visions. The draft development boundaries in Part 3 of the Local Plan have been defined following direct engagement with Parish Councils, who were encouraged to involve their local communities in coming to a view on the scale and location of future planned development.
254 The draft development boundaries where initially defined for engagement with Parish Councils through the application of criteria that sought to encompass the integral area of each defined Village and Local Centre. Development boundaries are considered to provide an appropriate means to manage development in locations where development can be supported and are defined at settlements which have a service based role. Development boundaries are not a means to capture all forms of development. If a residential park home estate forms part of the cohesive urban fabric to a settlement then it could be included within the development boundary. Development which is detached from or peripheral to the main built up area of a defined settlement will not be included within the related development boundary.
255 A revised ST06, together with Part 3 will enable growth levels beyond the minimum 5% (Villages) and 10% (Local Centres) where locally justified and supported within the context of delivering sustainable development.
256 Development provided for in ST08 (2) does not require a Neighbourhood Development Plan. Local growth aspirations are intended to be reflected in Part 3 of the Local Plan. If growth beyond the levels provided for by the Local Plan are sought following finalisation of the Local Plan then a Neighbourhood Development Plan may be required if beyond the scope of justifiable exceptions development. It is accepted that in the context of the preparation of Part 3, the reference in ST08 (2) is confusing. Clarification of the relationship of Neighbourhood Development Plans to Part 3 is required.
257 Presented support for the categorisation of settlements as Local Centres, Villages and as contained within the Countryside is noted, as is the need to limit development options in the countryside and to ensure the continued protection and enhancement of the countryside.
258 The scale of development in the rural area is considered appropriate in the context of the overall development strategy, with development focused towards the most sustainable locations and in respect of the rural area the nature and scale of the contained settlements. An adjusted housing supply figure may however be required to reflect the outcomes from Part 3 engagement. With regard to the level of development to be achieved through new allocations the proportion against commitments will be reviewed taking account of residential allocations provided in Part 3 and an updated assessment of commitments to 2013.
259 The residential land supply in the rural area will comprise commitments through planning consents and developable allocations. Windfall sites will add a further unaccounted supply, such will be provided on the basis of infill, conversions and redevelopments within defined settlement limits (established by development boundaries or criteria) and beyond, exception site provisions to meet affordable and economic associated needs and rural building conversions.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 61 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
260 The protection and enhancement of the countryside and landscape is addressed in Policy ST02: Principles of Sustainable Development, which seeks to minimise the environment footprint of enabled development, including through the prudent use of key resources. The Policy is also subject to a recommendation(22) to include the principle for reusing previously developed land. It is not necessary to duplicate policy content. Furthermore, while accepting the value of recycling land as a component of achieving sustainable development there is no presumption that such will be enabled; regard will given to all matters that determine development suitability.
261 With regard to the sought additional detail for exceptions housing schemes, such is provided through development management polices, currently DM21: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites and DM04: New Development within Local Centres and the Countryside. Criterion (5) provides strategic policy direction on the range of developments that will be enabled outside development boundaries, which extends beyond mixed tenure housing schemes. The proposed reformatting of Policy ST08 will enable a Countryside specific policy which will allow for an amalgamation of ST08(5) and DM04 to include the sought clarity, including the required consistency with DM21 that requires significant additional affordable housing to be secured from exception sites.
262 The protection of the AONB and other important environmental and historic assets are separately addressed by policies ST11: Enhancing Environmental Assets and ST12: Conserving Heritage Assets. An additional strategic policy reference is considered unnecessary.
263 The acceptability of Ministry of Defence operational development is supported around the Taw -Torridge Estuary through Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy, which extends to the Countryside location of Chivenor. Development proposals at Chivenor would be dealt with on an exceptional basis with regard to the relevant policies of the plan. No amendment is needed to provide a specific in principle support for operational development at Chivenor.
264 The text at paragraphs 4.40 to 4.47 will be subject to review in the context of the amalgamated ST06, ST08 and DM04. The following points are however made:
Rural Economy
265 The importance of public transport and improved connectivity is recognised (paragraph 4.47) as is the need to meet the needs of local communities and visitors (Policy ST10: Transport Strategy). It would however be unrealistic to seek public transport improvements associated with relatively small scale rural developments. The distribution strategy directs the majority of development to locations where sustainable modes of transport can be better achieved.
266 In supporting social and economic development in Villages and Local Centres the Local Plan encourages development to provide increasingly self-contained and balanced communities. The Local Plan provides the framework to support the delivery of a range of uses to meet locally defined growth levels the detail of which will be set out in Part 3 of the Local Plan. It must be recognised that while some employment opportunities and services will be locally available and improved and new provision would generally be supported, commuting and travel will continue to be required from rural settlements.
267 The Local Plan supports rural economic growth, both at rural settlements and in the Countryside, the detail of which is provided through Development Management Policies DM11 to DM15.
Rural Housing
22 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan Working Group 23rd July 2013.
62 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
268 The detail of affordable housing delivery with regard to qualifying thresholds, contributions to be made and management of occupancy is set out with in the “Delivering a Balanced Local Housing Market” sections of the Local Plan.
Social and Community Facilities
269 The significance of services and community facilities is recognised, Policy ST15: Town, District and Village Centres provides support for proportionately scaled development that will enhance viability, vitality and self-containment and guards against the loss of such services and facilities.
270 Devon County Council has recommended that reference is provided to the Connecting Devon and Somerset Programme that will assist in enhancing ICT connectivity. The use of this reference is accepted, which could usefully be added in the supporting text to Policy ST14: Delivering Employment and Economic Development.
Rural Infrastructure
271 The recognised importance of community transport is noted as is the need for continuing support to ensure rural communities avoid isolation.
Agreed Actions
1. Revise and reformat Policy ST08 with ST06 and DM04 to clarify enabled forms of development within each settlement type having regard to the variation in the use of development boundaries and criteria to manage development and the introduction of Countryside Settlements within the settlement hierarchy. 2. Clarify the relationship of Neighbourhood Development Plans to Part 3 of the Local Plan. 3. Update existing residential commitments and Part 3 housing allocations to inform and update the rural area housing supply. 4. Reference Connecting Devon and Somerset Programme in the supporting text to ST14: Delivering Employment and Economic Development.
Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy
Total number of responses 48
Total number of responses in support 20
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 11
Total number of responses in objection 8
Total number of responses providing a general comment 9
Table 5.11
272 Comments made in response to Policy ST09 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 63 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Summary of Key Issues
273 Comments made in response to Policy ST09 including the evidence base, Figure 4.2 and supporting text:
Supports this policy in principle (x4 including CPRE, ENPA) Supports strategy particularly in relation to coastline adjoining national park and particularly clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 (ENPA) Supports sections 2 and 4 for re-establishing flood plains to protect and improve salt marsh habitats (Taw Torridge Estuary Forum) Parts of unspoilt countryside are not designated as AONB and/or Heritage Coast, including Lundy and around Appledore There is no presumption against development in AONB or undeveloped coast Mention Lundy Heritage Coast in supporting text, which is outside AONB (NT) Supports policy but add wording to further maintain the undeveloped character of the Heritage Coast (NE) Providing access for informal recreation is supported but not formal outdoor sports facilities within heritage coast (NE) Protecting the seascape should be specified in ST09 Add support for establishment for MCZ on Taw/Torridge and North Devon coast Although marine conservation zones (MCZ) are not yet designated, the plan should be in compliance (BRP) Town maps are inconsistent whether CPA still exists (NT) No mention of CPA which are shown on policies maps No reference to CPAs in policies ST11 or in development management policies (x2) Coastal zone exceeds the area of the AONB and Heritage Coast which is not compliant with NPPF (PAA) The strategy is muddled and confused as to where designations apply leaving a weak policy with ambiguous interpretation (NT) Coastal zone needs to be defined on the Policies Map (NT) Need to clarify spatially what constitutes developed and undeveloped coast e.g. which settlements and large previously developed sites are excluded? Does the development boundary define the boundary between developed and undeveloped coast? (NT) Other Local Plans in Devon have provided simple spatial clarity to the undeveloped coast – seek clear definition of the undeveloped coast on policies maps to be contiguous with development boundaries (NT) Need to spatially define the undeveloped coast (NT) Tourist accommodation within resorts and villages (criterion10) should clarify if it related to the development boundary of the village and should not be allowed in undeveloped coast adjoining and sufficiently well related to the village (NT) Consider sites within the developed coast before sites in the undeveloped coast (NT) The coastal zone needs to be better defined to buffer wildlife needs and landscape (BRP) Paragraphs 2 and 3 contradict if camping and touring caravan sites revert to part of the undeveloped coast What is a protected landscape in clause 10? Does it include the developed coast? It should include the undeveloped and tranquil area between Appledore and Northam (NT) Supports marine transport interchange infrastructure being safeguarded and their use should be encouraged to reduce impact on road network (DCC)
64 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Supports tourism and leisure attractions in coastal resorts including Combe Martin where it does not detract from the character of protected landscapes (ENPA) Vital to protect the unique coastal environment, with compatible recreational activities Most tourist development such as camp sites will be outside coastal villages and wording should be amended to allow camp sites adjoining villages in paragraph 4.64 Concern that 5d would enable caravan parks arguing that the facility was necessarily coastal because the coast was the attraction underpinning the business (CPRE) DM14 (tourism and leisure attractions) requires all environmental and heritage assets to be conserved and enhanced but it could be varied by a neighbourhood plan if not in a strategic policy (NT) Tourism and recreation are key to local economy and a delicate balance is required between development and conservation (x2) Paragraph 5 is unduly restrictive and would not allow alteration of existing tourism premises (ND+) Hotel on Baggy point was narrowly defeated and such development should be resisted in future Construction of facilities for water sports, golf etc on the coast should avoid cluttering the land/sea-scape with buildings to retain the undeveloped coastline Support proposed completion of missing sections of footpaths and cycleways including Tarka Trail and at Kenwith Valley (x2 including DCC) Should protect ‘continuity’ rather than ‘integrity’ of the coast path in paragraph 4.59 Need new multi-access routes including off-road riding for equestrians, possibly along Tarka Trail Need to better define locations for mooring and recreational development in association with previous estuary management plans (BRP) Support maintaining the commercial role of Bideford port (DCC) Support protection of facilities at Appledore for landing aggregates, in line with mineral safeguarding area for Bideford and Appledore in Minerals Local Plan (DCC) Supports safeguarding future use of Yelland Quay for mineral transportation (DCC) Supports sections 6 and 7 with special reference to the Torridge estuary (Taw Torridge Estuary Forum) Requiring onshore facilities for operational servicing of RE proposals to be served by sustainable modes of transport is overly restrictive (PAA) There may be circumstances where existing employment sites should not be safeguarded on commercial, employment or environmental grounds, such as Richmond and Middle docks, Appledore. The Policy should include flexibility to support redevelopment for alternative mixed use development where demonstrated that sites are no longer appropriate for employment uses Give higher priority to proactively encourage employment uses before paragraph 7 (ND+) Supports paragraph 4.61 (EA) Supports and facilitates offshore wind energy to greatly improve reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and provide local employment by improving the port at Ilfracombe Important that Atlantic Array is given absolute support by Council Refer to Taw Torridge Coastal Management study (2013) in paragraphs 4.49 and 3.14 (EA) Offshore renewable energy proposals should be supported at existing jetties and wharves rather than being restricted to an existing port (PAA) Opposes continued military activity on Braunton Burrows as SSSI and world heritage site Support paragraph 8 but expect close collaboration with MOD to identify zones and times for activities (BRP) Welcome support in paragraph 8 of policy and 4.62 that military training and operational uses around the Taw-Torridge estuary will be supported (MOD)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 65 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
RMB Chivenor is to remain a ‘core’ site with an operational future for at least 15 years (MOD) Existing MOD establishments include RMB Chivenor, Atturm camp at Instow, Hartland Point radar site and the training area at Braunton Burrows (MOD) Supports paragraphs 2 and 7 advocating sequential approach to location of development in relation to flooding and coastal risks (EA) There are too many loopholes in section 5 through which development could occur in undeveloped areas This is a weakened version of CO5 without needing to demonstrate it cannot be accommodated outside the undeveloped coast and estuary (NT) Should define a Coastal Change Management Area in accordance with NPPF, contrary to rejected option 4 (NT) Housing should be of high quality design in the right place (NE) Paragraphs 5 and 7 are too restrictive because previously developed sites have their own restrictions Environmentally sensitive areas in paragraph 4.64 should include residential areas to protect residential amenity Questions whether improving water quality should be a planning policy (CPRE) Supports water quality improvements but need to clarify how this will be achieved (EA) Absorption of Appledore and Westward Ho! into Northam runs contrary to this policy i.e. maintain and enhance the separate identity and sustainability of coastal communities Last sentence of paragraph 1 (i.e. separate identities of settlements) should be deleted as it could hinder economic and maritime benefits Include Appledore in list of main coastal resorts in paragraph 4.63 There is no mention of Appledore as a strategic boat building location and key employer at the boat yard and within the local supply chain (ND+) Ilfracombe harbour is tidal and could provide a wonderful attraction of a floating harbour if a barrier retained water (x2) Opportunity to create a new Wildlife and Wetlands Park at Velator which could support the environment and tourism with good access to the Tarka Trail Concern at loss of Bucks Mills conservation area which draft Shoreline Management Plan would not defend or protect despite 14 listed buildings (EH) The diagram does not demonstrate a spatial strategy but displays environmental designations and infrastructure – cross references to policies in the plan would be helpful (DCC) Highlighted landscapes give impression that there are few areas where development is allowed (ND+) It is unclear how far the coastal zone extends, which areas are undeveloped coast and where development is actively encouraged (ND+) Delete first sentence of paragraph 4.53 that climate change and sea level rise is a significant issue for coastal areas Revert ‘as sea levels rise’ to ‘if sea levels rise’ in paragraph 4.65 No recognition of MMO and its responsibilities up to mean high water (CPRE) – see 5.10
Other Key Issues identified
The Government has still not authorised signing off the Shoreline Management Plan Review (SMP2) from Hartland Point to Anchor Head (Somerset) drafted in 2009 – a realistic estimate when this is likely to occur cannot be found When Defra announced the first round of Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) in March 2013, none of the proposed MCZs off northern Devon had been included, apart from Lundy MCZ which
66 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
was the first of its kind designated in early 2010. Further rounds of MCZs are to be announced within next 2 years Recent engagement with MMO (under Duty to Cooperate) has not identified any additional issues The Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) requires all public authorities to take decisions in accordance with the UK Marine Policy Statement (2011) unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise. The MPS and marine planning systems sit alongside and interact with existing planning regimes The area for a Marine Plan (to be prepared by MMO) will extend up to the level of mean high water spring tides, which overlaps with the terrestrial planning boundaries generally extending to low water spring tides. The geographic overlap between marine and land planning is intended to achieve effective harmonisation of plans and integrated holistic management The Taw-Torridge Coastal Management study (2013) commissioned by the EA identifies options and recommendations for realigning the Taw-Torridge estuary and a strategic approach for future flood defence maintenance Economic Development officers request:
enhance the tourism offer where the economic benefits outweigh the impacts moving paragraph 10 after paragraph 6 make specific reference to Ilfracombe’s potential role as a marina amend paragraph 10 to support tourism developments where they provide substantial economic benefits the coastal asset is a key lever for economic growth which should be addressed
Officer Comments and Recommendations
274 There was broad support for this policy although the objections raised a wide range of issues, most significantly from the National Trust who consider the strategy is muddled and confused as to where designations apply leaving a weak policy with ambiguous interpretation. The full range of issues raised is set out under the themes below.
275 In terms of environmental designations, there was recognition that Lundy Heritage Coast is outside the North Devon Coast AONB. The second sentence of paragraph 4.50 needs to be amended to clarify that there are 2 heritage coasts (for Lundy and northern Devon) which do not cover the same area as the AONB. Also not all parts of the undeveloped coast are covered by these designations. Natural England has recommended that the policy should maintain the undeveloped character of the Heritage Coast. Access for informal recreation is supported but not formal outdoor sports facilities. As a national designation it is considered appropriate to recognise the heritage coast through policy with a new criterion.
276 A presumption against all development in the AONB is inappropriate because parts of the AONB are already developed and within development boundaries. Policy ST11 clarifies the national importance and special character of the designation that will influence the types of development that would be acceptable here. Nevertheless, paragraph 5 of the policy clarifies the types of development acceptable within the undeveloped coast, which will include all of the AONB that is not already developed.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 67 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
277 Apart from Lundy, there are currently no marine conservation zones (MCZ) despite 5 proposed sites, including the Taw-Torridge estuary and the foreshore from Bideford to Foreland Point (in Exmoor NP) and from Hartland Point to Tintagel. It would be appropriate to support the future establishment of MCZs in these locations within the supporting text. The protection of seascape was added to Policy ST11: Enhancing Environmental Assets for which a cross-reference is required here.
278 The former Coastal Preservation Area (CPA) is not proposed in the emerging local plan having been specific to Devon. The NPPF requires maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast (paragraph 114) particularly in areas defined as Heritage Coast, and improving public access to and enjoyment of the coast. Protecting the undeveloped coast, in combination with Heritage Coast and AONB designations, overcomes the need for retaining a separate CPA designation. It is accepted that CPA needs to be removed from the Policies Maps for the coastal towns to avoid confusion.
279 One of the main objections from the National Trust related to defining the extent of the developed and undeveloped coast. The coastal zone extending beyond the AONB and Heritage Coast is not in conflict with the NPPF. It is accepted that defining the extent of the coastal zone is not entirely clear on Figure 4.2, although it mostly follows main roads. The extent of the coastal zone should be defined on the Policies Maps, including for coastal villages in Part 3 of the plan. There is also a need to define the undeveloped coast spatially. Within the coastal and estuarine zone there will be development boundaries around all the main centres, local centres and villages listed by Policy ST06. All villages seeking no development boundary are outside this defined coastal zone, so development boundaries would be a practical means of defining the edge of the developed coast within this zone. This is broadly consistent with the approach taken by other local authorities.
280 However, development boundaries are not proposed for unnamed ‘rural settlements’, although some of these settlements within the coastal zone are likely to be considered as developed parts of the coast. To avoid ambiguous interpretation it may be necessary to list rural settlements defined as developed within the coastal and estuarine zone, rather than attempting to define a boundary for each, as well as identifying other large previously developed sites that are explicitly excluded from the undeveloped coastal zone.
281 The National Trust seeks the policy to consider sites for development within the developed coast before sites outside the developed coast. However the policy does not assume any sequential test that development which cannot be accommodated within the developed coast will then be allowed in the undeveloped coast. Tourist accommodation is allowed within resorts and villages where it is well related to the settlement but would not be allowed in the undeveloped coast. It may be beneficial to define ‘well related to the settlement’ in terms of the development boundary or extent of the developed coast. Acceptability in the undeveloped coast is set out in paragraph 5 of the policy. Formal outdoor sports facilities should be excluded from the heritage coast (according to Natural England).
282 Paragraph 10 permits tourist attractions and leisure developments where not detracting from the character of protected landscapes. Protected landscapes should be clarified as meaning AONB and Heritage Coast, but are not intended to include undesignated undeveloped coast. ENPA supports tourism and leisure attractions in coastal resorts including Combe Martin where it does not detract from the character of protected landscapes.
283 Tourism and recreation are key to the local economy and a delicate balance is required between development and conservation. The coastal area could be a lever for economic growth. One response indicated that there were too many loopholes in section 5 through which development could occur in undeveloped areas. Some representations want to facilitate new camp sites adjoining villages (effectively in the undeveloped coast) with ST09 (5) considered to be unduly restrictive by not allowing alteration of existing tourism premises. However, there were counter-concerns that paragraph 5d
68 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
could enable proliferation of new caravan parks along the coast by arguing that the facility was necessarily coastal because the coast was the attraction underpinning the business. It is considered that paragraph 4.64 should be amended to clarify that appropriate alterations, improvements or growth to existing tourism premises are supported where needed adjoining existing settlements, but new sites for holiday accommodation do not justify a location in the undeveloped coast and estuary. Paragraph 4.57 already identifies locations for mooring and recreational development.
284 The reference to ‘environmentally sensitive sites’ in paragraph 4.64 is unclear. It was intended to refer to identified environmental assets, including biodiversity, archaeology, heritage, which should be clarified. It was not intended to include residential areas in order to their protect residential amenity, which is already protected by policy DM01: Amenity Considerations.
285 Maintaining the commercial role of Bideford port, facilities at Appledore for landing aggregates and safeguarding future use of Yelland Quay for mineral transportation are all supported by DCC. As a limited resource, waterside employment sites should be safeguarded for employment uses although the supporting text could include flexibility to support redevelopment for alternative mixed use development where demonstrated that sites are no longer appropriate for employment uses. However, development must be in accordance with ST03: Adapting to Climate Change (in relation to flood risks) and ST06: Spatial Development Strategy to encourage growth within sustainable locations such as the main towns. North Devon Plus have requested that higher priority should be given to proactively encouraging employment uses by moving paragraph 7 earlier in the policy. A separate comment seeks paragraph 10 being moved after paragraph 6.
286 Delivery of onshore facilities to support offshore renewable energy proposals was broadly supported (by representations received to this policy). It is accepted that requiring access by sustainable modes of transport is unnecessary since facilities for operational servicing is already directed to existing ports, all of which will have public transport links. It is accepted that onshore facilities to support offshore renewable energy could be supported at existing jetties and wharves rather than just existing ports, most of which will have existing public transport links. The principle of future employment opportunities having good access by sustainable modes of transport is still important but criterion (c) could be deleted.
287 References to military training and operational uses in ST09 (8) and 4.62 are supported by the MOD. All existing MOD establishments identified by MOD within the coastal area are already shown on the diagram (figure 4.2). There was opposition to continued military training on Braunton Burrows as a SSSI – it is not a world heritage site as claimed – but it is an established use and MOD recognise its future use. A request for collaboration with MOD to identify zones ands times for activities is noted but does not require any change to this policy.
288 The recreational value along the coast and estuary is recognised and supported, including the proposed completion of missing sections of footpaths and cycleways including along the Tarka Trail and at Kenwith Valley. It is accepted that the plan should protect the ‘continuity’ rather than ‘integrity’ of the coast path in paragraph 4.59 in response to rising sea levels. The demand for multi-access routes including off-road riding for equestrians is recognised but has been addressed in response to ST10: Transport Strategy.
289 In terms of development within the coastal and estuarine zone, the EA supported paragraphs 2 and 7 advocating a sequential approach to location of development in relation to flooding and coastal risks. The recent Taw Torridge Coastal Management study should be added to the list of documents in paragraphs 4.49 and 3.14. The requirement to prepare a Coastal Change Management Area relates to any areas likely to be affected by physical changes to the coast (NPPF paragraph 106). The most significant changes are likely to be around the Taw-Torridge estuary, as set out in rejected option 4,
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 69 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
where holding the line of existing defences will protect communities. Without the need to relocate development and infrastructure away from these areas, there is no need for the local plan to identify a Coastal Change Management Area. It can always be designated later if required.
290 If the Shoreline Management Plan (currently awaiting adoption) is proposing not to defend or protect listed buildings within Bucks Mills conservation area, there is no merit in the local plan proposing an alternative strategy that cannot de delivered.
291 Water quality improvements are supported by the EA, although others question whether this should be addressed through planning policy and how it will be achieved. Water quality improvements are one of the objectives linked to the Nature Improvement Area (NIA) and Taw River Improvement Project (TRIP), also enhancing the Taw-Torridge estuary where water quality is variable and needs to be improved. Land management and development upstream potentially affect water quality through discharges so water quality improvements are an appropriate objective that can be influenced through planning policy.
292 A number of representations received related to specific locations along the coast and estuary. Some of these are addressed through the main town chapters whereas others refer to the strategy for the coast and estuary. A barrier to retain water in Ilfracombe harbour is a matter for the Ilfracombe chapter. Policy ILF05: Harbour/Seafront Tourist area does not prevent a barrier but without a financed capital project its deliverability is sufficiently uncertain so specific inclusion would be inappropriate. A new Wildlife and Wetlands Park at Velator that could support the environment and tourism is discussed as a comment to the Braunton chapter.
293 There is no proposal to absorb Appledore and Westward Ho! into Northam, and separate identities of these settlements is not considered to hinder economic and maritime benefits. The policy to maintain separate identities and sustainability for these settlements (paragraph 1) should remain. Appledore should not be included in list of main coastal resorts (paragraph 4.63) as it is not a resort. However, it is accepted that the importance of boat building at Appledore to the local economy should be recognised.
294 The Spatial Strategy diagram (figure 4.2) raised several comments, some of which are addressed above. Designated landscapes (AONB and Heritage Coast) do cover large parts of the coastal zone, but would not prevent development in appropriate locations. It is accepted that the diagram is not sufficiently spatial to identify strategic opportunities for development and could show proposed locations for development within the coastal and estuarine zone. The key could also cross-refer to the relevant policy numbers. The diagram already shows the extent of the coastal zone.
295 It is inappropriate to delete references to climate change and sea level rise being a significant issue for coastal areas as the NPPF (paragraph 94) confirms that local plans should address these issues. It is accepted that the MMO and its responsibilities should be recognised, cross referring to references in paragraph 5.10 in preparing a Marine Plan.
Agreed Actions
1. Amend paragraph 4.50 to clarify that both heritage coasts and the AONB do not cover the whole of the undeveloped coast and Lundy heritage coast is outside the AONB; 2. Add new criterion to policy ST09 to maintain the undeveloped character of the Heritage Coast; 3. Amend paragraph 5 of ST09 to refer to Heritage Coast and exclude formal sports facilities within the heritage coast; 4. Define Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) in the Glossary; 5. Amend paragraph 4.52 to support future establishment of further MCZs by Defra;
70 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
6. Cross-refer to seascape as an environmental asset in paragraph 5.5; 7. Remove coastal preservation area (CPA) from town maps for Bideford, Northam, and Appledore; 8. Amend paragraph 4.50 to clarify the extent of the developed coast through use of development boundaries, listed settlements and previously developed sites; 9. Amend paragraph 10 of ST09 to clarify ‘well related to the settlement and its environmental setting’ in terms of the development boundary or extent of the developed coast; 10. Define developed and ‘undeveloped coast’ in the Glossary; 11. Amend paragraph 4.64 to clarify protected landscapes (within paragraph 10) as the AONB and Heritage Coast; 12. Move paragraph 7 earlier in the policy to show higher priority for proactively encouraging employment uses; 13. Delete criterion 9c of policy ST09; 14. Amend paragraph 9 of ST09 to facilitate delivery of onshore facilities at existing jetties and wharves as well as at existing ports; 15. Amend paragraph 4.59 to ‘continuity’ rather than ‘integrity’ of the coast path; 16. Rephrase paragraph 4.64 to clarify that ‘environmentally sensitive sites’ relate to identified environmental assets; 17. Add reference to Taw Torridge Coastal Management study in the list of documents in paragraphs 4.49 and 3.14; 18. Amend paragraph 4.55 to recognise the economic importance of boat building at Appledore docks which will be supported and enhanced; 19. Amend Figure 4.2 to show proposed locations for development within the coastal and estuarine zone and amend the key to cross-refer to the relevant policy numbers; 20. Amend paragraph 4.49, and cross-refer to paragraph 5.10, to refer to the MMO and its responsibilities; and 21. Move paragraph 10 earlier in the policy. Policy ST10: Transport Strategy
Total number of responses 104
Total number of responses in support 30
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 25
Total number of responses in objection 16
Total number of responses providing a general comment 33
Table 5.12
296 Comments made in response to Policy ST10 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
Summary of the Key Issues
297 Comments made in response to Policy ST10 including the supporting text:
Support:
Support Barnstaple and Lynton Railway (x20)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 71 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
ENPA – Support strategy, especially criteria 1(g), 2(b) and 2(d). Criterion 2(d) could be strengthened by including opportunities for cross-boundary villages ENPA – Principle of improvement is supported and ENPA will be seeking a similar status for the route in the emerging local plan Ensure major allocations are delivered in a timely fashion and ensure infrastructure is brought up to the boundaries of adjoining sites which are in separate ownership Support criterion 2, in provision of the requisite transport infrastructure to facilitate the delivery of proposed strategic housing development HIGHWAYS AGENCY – Primarily concerned with the A30 and M5. Support reference to ensuring the continued operational effectiveness of the main highway routes linking the area to the A30 and M5 as well as the effectiveness of the Strategic Road Network itself. HIGHWAYS AGENCY – Support criteria 2 and 3, however reference should be made to role of Travel Plans in encouraging the use of sustainable transport UNESCO BR PARTNERSHIP – support Support the inclusion of ‘community transport’ as part of the public transport offer DCC – strongly support paragraph 4.73 Consider widening carriageways to include a cycle lane rather than widen the pavement (safety) Dedicated cycle routes could be identified to join homes to work areas, rather than just routes like the Tarka Trail where recreation is the key use
Support Subject To Amendment(S)
DCC – Ensure consistency with the Devon and Torbay Local Transport Plan. Important to identify other routes of strategic importance for example 1(a) – Portmore Roundabout to Abbotsham Cross; 1(c) –improvements to capacity problems should be sought through additional rolling stock; 1(e) – this could be strengthened to read ‘maintaining and enhancing’ the function of Bideford as a commercial port DCC – provide definition of wider strategic road network as per 1(a) and (b); specifically relates to phrases “other strategic routes” and “operational effectiveness” DCC – amend wording at 3(b) and add 3(f):
3(b) – “requiring a transport assessment for major developments that generate significant movements, and travel plans for major developments, as set out in the threshold guidance or as directed by the Local Planning Authority" Add criterion to read "ensure that access to new development is safe and appropriate" or “only allowing development to happen where a safe access can be achieved”
DCC – Include transport development management policies to support the delivery of this strategic policy (x2) DCC – A39 (between Bideford and Barnstaple) is not identified as a strategic link in LTP3 and figure 4.3 of the plan, which should be clarified DCC – paragraph 4.66 could be enhanced by specifically referring to seasonal nature of traffic in northern Devon and the need to take into account transport impacts at these peak times DCC – The B3230 corridor between Barnstaple and Ilfracombe would also be subject to targeted improvements in connection with proposed strategic housing growth at Ilfracombe and to mitigate the traffic impacts in Braunton NATURAL ENGLAND – Concerned about further impacts on the Rackenford Culm Grassland SAC. LP should take a more proactive approach to rail freight to reduce dependency on the A361.
72 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
NATURAL ENGLAND – Support BAR16 but regard should be made to the protection and enhancement of designated sites, ancient woodland and ENP setting along the route Cycleways need to be separated from roads and network needs to be vastly improved to encourage greater use Transport investment should not lag behind housing development and significant investment is required to support the access to alternative modes of transport (cycling, walking and horses) Strongly support 1(h): Question what “enhancing” means. Investment is required to maintain and upgrade the network CPRE – no particular difficulty with the aims, however much of the policy is the responsibility of DCC and transport operators. The LPA should make clearer connections between policies intended to manage the demand for travel. CPRE – Policy (including criterion 3) is written from an urban perspective. Only reference to rural areas is aspirational only and does not acknowledge high dependency on cars (as per paragraph 4.79) CPRE – amend 1(c) to make clear that the policy of improved rail journey times between major centres should not be at the expense of small rural communities along the line CPRE – 2(a) state clearly how the services will be provided Strategy must include specific projects to improve existing cycle network. Improved cycle connections from Saunton Beach car park to Braunton CALVERT TRUST – Support re-instatement of Barnstaple to Lynton line provided it is environmentally sustainable ENGLISH HERITAGE – Welcome reference to ‘Streets for All’ Open rail line between Bideford and Barnstaple ND+ support infrastructural improvements to the M5 (J27 and it is recommended that the long-term enhancement of the A361 is similarly endorsed Barnstaple rail station should become the focus for bus routes to the other principal towns in northern Devon Barnstaple and Lynton Railway have significant practical difficulties; any investment would be better spent on the Rolle Quay Canal Revisit Open Access land inclusion and create footpaths along river banks; include this within the LP Remove the word “enhancement” from paragraph 4.78
Objection
DCC has no proposals for demand management measures on the A361 North Devon Link, as stated in paragraph 4.68. The route is considered able to accommodate growth. DCC will aim to facilitate alternative travel option where appropriate and support the principle of encouraging freight onto rail Significant concerns about peak time traffic flow along A39 so upgrade required as future economic growth depends on this Traffic will be made worse by increasing the population and all developments south of the River Taw will add huge numbers of vehicles to already congested roads Councils have little ability to deliver transport strategy other than give consent for more housing development Agree with the strategy’s sentiment but lacks detail Local Authority and national Government spending constraints are likely to have a detrimental impact on the transport network Include provision for a civilian airport at Chivenor (x2)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 73 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
NETWORK RAIL – object to the reinstatement of the Lynton and Barnstaple railway line and the Barnstaple to Bideford line NETWORK RAIL – The potential impacts from development affecting Network Rail's level crossings should be specifically addressed through planning policy. It is essential that the organisation be consulted as statutory undertaker in any circumstances where a proposal would affect a level crossing. PLANNING AGENTS FORUM – No mention of a park and change for Bideford; is it not necessary to assist with easing town centre congestion and encouraging visitors? DEVON COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS FORUM – Include the term ‘recreational routes’ after ‘strategic’ in part 2(d) to add clarity and reflect multi-use and shared use routes Improve links between Barnstaple and South Molton to include Landkey Do not improve the A399, as further works would impact the setting of ENP Don’t rule out stage 4 of the Barnstaple relief urban road as a means of reducing congestion suffered by bus services through Rolle Street and Braunton Road Junction improvements at J27 of M5 will do very little to support increased growth without a commitment to dual the link road to Barnstaple Self-supporting nature of a village may increase its felling of isolation Do not support a third bridge of the river Torridge affecting the SSSI and Jennets Valley (x2) Object to Barnstaple and Lynton Railway – further increase in vehicular traffic in northern Devon It is vital that access to the countryside through different rights of way should be maintained for equestrian use
General Comment
Poor transport links with the wider region and county is a major constraint upon the northern Devon economy Reduce car dependency and improve public transport, especially in the rural areas. Improve ticketing, greater frequency of services, including late services Amend criterion 1(h) to designate strategic footpath routes that link settlements and suggest a programme to improve surfaces to encourage use G.Torrington TC – need to minimise the environmental consequences and the considerable expense to the community for reliance on cars, for example by siting development to minimise travel to work. Unfortunately the desire to enhance rail travel is not matched by the ability to influence the cost Attempting to discourage car use must be negating the sustainability and self-sufficiency of local communities and promoting local businesses. Policies need to be co-ordinated and not pursued in isolation. Car parking provision should be made in urban areas. To suggest parking spaces area not required if one lives e.g. Barnstaple because there is some public transport fails to recognise it is like an island in a remote sea of rural hinterland Reducing dependency on cars will require further employment in the countryside Plan is slanted to North Devon, with questionable reliance in the link road to support proposed development, although the link road is poor compared to the A30. A new junction from the A30 onto a dualled A388 could bring enormous benefits to northern Devon. DEVON COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS FORUM – Public open space and recreational spaces should be protected from development. Opportunities to access land for recreation should be explored. New Public Open Space and recreational spaces should be developed alongside new housing and employment sites. DEVON COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS FORUM – Recognise the health, tourism and sustainability benefits of rights of way. Create circular routes around settlements. Where routes meet or run
74 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
along road, opportunities should be taken to improve safety of users. All new recreational routes should be multi-use (including mobility needs) and should be an early consideration in the development process ENGLISH HERITAGE – How will transport proposals respond positively to the historic environment? What opportunities are there to improve historic streets, townscapes, landscapes and setting? How are traffic/street management, environment improvements, paving and street furniture going to be designed and managed in a historic environment NETWORK RAIL – Locating freight generating development and local freight handling facilities close to the strategic road / rail network has not been discussed with Network Rail’s Route Freight Manager. Amend criterion 2(c) to add ‘in particular connecting North Devon’s towns to Tiverton and the wider rail network’ Buses in rural areas should link up with the trains to better integrate public transport Upgrade A361 to dual carriageway (x2) HIGHWAYS AGENCY – Impact of development across the area could have an impact on the A30 and M5 although this is unlikely to be severe. All strategic proposals should adhere to the requirements of Circular 02/2007 ENPA – There is some concern that increased traffic use will cause additional pollution that may impact on SACs within the National Park Support re-opening of platform 2 at Barnstaple station DCC – all development should maximise opportunities to provide good quality walking and cycling routes and facilities Barnstaple and Lynton Railway will further increase vehicular traffic in northern Devon (x2) DCC – there are no proposals to explore options for railway reopening currently however DCC will keep this under review should the case change in future Enhance the SW Coast Path and Tarka Trail as part of the development around Anchorwood Bank. No reference made to ‘wheels 2 work’ programme which should be mentioned A great improvement in the public transport infrastructure would lie in its penetration of more rural areas
Other Key Issues identified
Braunton Parish Council have recently requested the Local Plan include a reference to a future Braunton Bypass. This issue is considered in further detail in response to the Braunton and Wrafton Strategy Pinch point funding of £1.3M was granted to the Highways Agency (April 2013) to increase capacity at Junction 27 of M5 to reduce delay to users of the trunk road network (as the national gateway to Mid Devon, North Devon and Torridge) and improve safety by removing queuing from the motorway mainline DCC are investigating opportunities to widen the A361 and A39 in select locations such as from Landkey junction to Portmore Roundabout and Roundswell Roundabout to Lake Roundabout during the life of the plan, and wish to safeguard land along the length of the A361/A39 for possible future widening beyond this plan period DCLG’s Coastal Communities Fund awardedLynton and Barnstaple Railway Trust £150,000 to enhance the existing rolling stock and create 7 full-time and 13 indirect jobs and more volunteering opportunities The Highways Agency request that all strategic proposals should adhere to the requirements of Circular 02/2007
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 75 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
The draft Devon Green Infrastructure strategy (October 2011) identifies the strategic county priorities for future GI (Map 4.2), including an aspirational public access route between Barnstaple and South Molton LTP3 also identifies aspirational strategic walking/cycling link routes between Barnstaple and Tiverton via South Molton, and from Halwill Junction to Dartmoor to enhance the network of strategic cycle routes across Devon Informal comments to Figure 4.3 (Strategic Transport Links), originally copied from LTP3, indicate that the map should cover a wider area including adjoining counties to better show the strategic transport network
Officer Comments and Recommendations
298 There is a broad level of support for the Transport Strategy including around 50% of respondents classified as an organisation or business. Devon County Council (DCC) has made a significant number of representations in their capacity as the Local Highways Authority.
299 North Devon Plus and a number of other commentators identify a mutual exclusive relationship between improved transport links to the rest of the country and aspirations to grow the northern Devon economy.
300 A considerable number of representations raised concerns about peak time traffic flow along A39 and the impact on traffic congestion of an increasing population. In particular, a number of representations consider further development south of the River Taw will add huge numbers of vehicles to already congested roads. DCC identify the need to ensure the Local Plan recognises the seasonal nature of traffic in northern Devon, and the need to take into account transport impacts at these times.
301 DCC request that the local plan be clear that the A39 between Barnstaple and Bideford is not recognised by the LTP3 as being part of the Strategic Road Network (figure 4.3, page 48 of the local plan), which should be amended to accurately reflect the Devon LTP3. This map was copied from LTP3 without any amendments. However references to the strategic importance of the A39 and its key junctions for northern Devon should remain. The Local Plan should seek to define the difference between ‘Strategic Road Network’ and ‘Other Strategic Routes’ because there is conflict between the national and county wide views of strategic roads and locally strategic roads.
302 In response to comments that figure 4.3 should cover a wider area to better show the strategic transport network, it is proposed that this figure be amended. Clarification also could be achieved by mapping other routes of local strategic importance, for example the A39 between Barnstaple (Portmore roundabout) to Bideford (Abbotsham Cross), as well as strategic footpaths, trails and cycle networks.
303 Further engagement with DCC has identified their desire to safeguard land adjacent to the A361 and A39, especially in existing urban areas, to ensure future development alongside these roads does not prejudice potential road improvements or future widening/enhancement of these roads. It is considered prudent to provide further supporting text to establish what is meant by the ‘operational effectiveness’ (criteria 1a). This could include the requirement to safeguard land for future road improvements. Concerns are raised about the impact further works would have on the setting of Exmoor National Park. Natural England maintain (as per the Habitats Regulations Assessment) that any improvements to the A361 would need to avoid or mitigate potential impacts on the Culm Grassland Special Area of Conservation at Hare’s Down and Knowstone Moor.
76 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
304 Natural England encourages the Local Plan to take a more proactive approach to promoting rail freight to reduce dependence on the A361 and any subsequent air quality issues on the Culm Grassland Special Area of Conservation. It is argued improvements to rail capacity could be sought through additional rolling stock. However CPRE argue improved rail journey times between major centres should not be at the expense of small rural communities along the line.
305 DCC aim to facilitate alternative travel options where appropriate and support the principle of encouraging freight onto rail. However Network Rail state that locating freight generating development and local freight handling facilities close to the strategic road / rail network has not been discussed with Network Rail’s Route Freight Manager. It is imperative the highways and planning authorities engage with Network Rail to ensure the principle of increasing freight on the Tarka railway is supported and deliverable and to demonstrate adequately meeting the duty to cooperate.
306 There is a high level of support to the reinstatement of the Lynton and Barnstaple railway line, comments for which are discussed in more detail in response to BAR16. Consultees recognised the numerous economic and social benefits to northern Devon. However several representations believe that the reinstatement would increase the level of traffic congestion in and around Barnstaple. DCC support BAR16 but regard should be made to the protection and enhancement of designated sites, ancient woodland and Exmoor National Park’s setting along the route.
307 Critically Network Rail has objected to the reinstatement of the Lynton and Barnstaple railway line and the Barnstaple and Bideford line, because neither project is included within Network Rail’s organisation strategy. Network Rail appears to misunderstand the proposals found within the Local Plan. The Local Plan does not include specific proposals to reinstate the Barnstaple to Bideford line, however policy BAR16 does seek to protect land to allow the reinstatement of the Lynton to Barnstaple railway line. Policy ST10 criterion 1(g) seeks to safeguard all former railway routes and supports proposals to reuse and reinstate.
308 Further engagement with Lynton and Barnstaple Railway Co. Ltd, Network Rail and the Office of Rail Regulation is required to ensure the project remains deliverable and importantly that Network Rail is aware of Lynton and Barnstaple Railway Company’s business plan. It should be noted the Office of Rail Regulation is a public body covered by the ‘duty to co-operate' requirements of the Localism Act 2011.
309 Network Rail have requested that a policy be included to confirm the Councils’ statutory responsibility under planning legislation (Schedule 5 (f) (ii) of the Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) order, 2010) to consult the statutory rail undertaker where a proposal for development is likely to result in a material increase in the volume or a material change in the character of traffic using a level crossing over a railway. Whilst there are no level crossings across a highway within northern Devon, (the nearest level crossing is at Eggesford railway station in Mid Devon) the LPA will need to compliant with the order. A future level crossing could be required if the proposed Lynton to Barnstaple railway were delivered. It is recommended that reference be made to this statutory responsibility to consult in the reasoned justification.
310 Several representations believe the loss of the Devon Structure Plan and the non-statutory nature of the LTP3 means the Local Plan should ensure highways matters once included in higher order development plans are now included within the Local Plan. The NPPF is clear that where a development plan is silent the NPPF takes precedent. This position is generally accepted. Further consideration is needed to ascertain the value of another Development Management policy addressing highway matters. If a new policy is supported it should seek to support new development that does not detract from the function, safety and utility of the strategic and locally strategic road network, specifically with regard to access and junction design.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 77 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
311 The B3230 corridor between Barnstaple and Ilfracombe would also be subject to targeted improvements in connection with proposed strategic housing growth at Ilfracombe and to mitigate the traffic impacts in Braunton. This issue is currently being debated as part of proposals found in the emerging plan and speculative applications such as the proposal adjacent to Trayne Farm (adjoining North Devon Hospital). This issue will be the subject of further discussion in response to comments to the Barnstaple Strategy (especially policies BAR5 and BAR6).
312 There is general support from a range of organisations and individuals supporting the plan’s aims to meet the transport needs of communities and visitors to the area, and reduce the impacts of transport on the environment and society (i.e. criteria 2 and 3). The Highways Agency requests that the policy references the role of Travel Plans in encouraging the use of sustainable transport.
313 The CPRE is concerned that the policy, especially criterion 3, is written from an urban perspective. It is accepted that further reference should be made to the rural area and establish how the plan and future development can help address its specific needs and requirements. Representations argue that decreasing car dependency in rural areas will require better access to public transport, facilities and services and the increase supply of employment land to improve self-sufficiency. Representations further recognise the importance of rural public transport to link up with the trains to better integrate public transport.
314 There is a good level of support to improve transport links between Barnstaple and Bideford. However it is requested that criterion 2(c) adds particular reference to connecting northern Devon’s towns to Tiverton and the wider rail network and improving links between Barnstaple and South Molton, through Landkey. LTP3 and the draft Devon GI strategy also support a strategic cycle route between Barnstaple and South Molton that could contribute to sustainable tourism and green commuting. This proposal should be referenced within the policy and supporting text.
315 DCC support developments that maximise opportunities to provide good quality walking and cycling routes and facilities. Other representations identify specific examples such as the need to enhance the SW Coast Path and Tarka Trail as part of the development around Anchorwood Bank. Representations also support the creation of circular recreational routes around settlements, the designation of strategic footpaths routes that link settlements and a programme to improve surfaces to encourage use.
316 DCC request the following amendments to criteria 3(b) and a new criterion (f). These amendments are accepted as they support the transport strategy’s objectives and it allows the policy to be more precise, especially in relation to travel assessments and travel plans.
317 There was a request to recognise the health, tourism and sustainability benefits of public rights of way. Opportunities should be taken to improve safety for users where routes meet or run adjacent to the road. All new recreational routes should be multi-use (including mobility needs) and should be an early consideration in the development process. This is generally supported.
318 English Heritage question how transport proposals will respond positively to the historic environment, and what opportunities there are to improve historic streets, townscapes, landscapes and setting. The NPPF and Local Plan’s principles of sustainable development (ST02) and general design principles (ST04) provide development proposals with the opportunity to respond positively. Opportunities to improve historic streets and townscapes will depend on the ability of the District Councils, Highways Authority and the local Town Councils to agree and prioritise projects of this nature. A recent example is the audit of signage in Ilfracombe.
78 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Agreed Actions
1. Correct paragraph 4.66 to accurately reflect the Devon LTP3 Strategic Transport Links (Network). 2. Add map showing locally important transport roads and amend figure 4.3 to show strategic transport links across a wider area. 3. Amend text and glossary to define the difference between ‘Strategic Road Network’ and ‘Other Strategic Routes’. 4. Include a new policy criterion on Part 2 to ensure assessment of transport impacts take into account the seasonal nature of traffic in northern Devon. 5. Reword 3(b) as per DCC suggestion to require transport assessment and travel plans for major developments. 6. Add new criterion 3(f) to ensure access to new development is safe and appropriate. 7. Add reference to the Development Management Procedure order, 2010 to recognise need to consult rail undertakers for new level crossings. 8. Contact Network Rail’s Route Freight Manager to clarify and explain transport strategy, ensure compliance with duty to cooperate and confirm the deliverability of Lynton and Barnstaple Railway business plan. 9. Amend paragraph 4.75 to establish what is meant by the ‘operational effectiveness’. 10. Add reference that identifies the importance of safeguarding land alongside the A39 and A361 so as to not prejudice opportunities for future road improvements. 11. Amend criterion 2(d) to refer to strategic recreational routes and local networks. 12. Clarify that recreational routes should reflect shared use and differing mobility needs. 13. Include additional reference to the rural area within part 3 of the policy and supporting reasoned justification. 14. Add a new development management policy relating to highways to support the delivery of this strategic policy and new development. 15. Add reference to a new strategic cycle route between Barnstaple and South Molton. 16. Amend paragraph 4.78 to recognise and safeguard current use of the Tarka Trail. 17. Amend criterion 1(d) to improve other routes to Ilfracombe, including B3230.
Chapter 5 : A World Class Environment (introduction)
Total number of responses 20
Total number of responses in support 4
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 4
Total number of responses in objection 7
Total number of responses providing a general comment 5
Table 5.13
319 Comments made in response to Chapter 5 can be found via the online planning portal
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 79 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Summary of Key Issues
320 Comments made in response to the introduction to the World Class Environment chapter, strategic objectives and evidence – these comments relate to the chapter as a whole, which precedes Policies ST11, ST12 and ST13:
Supports this section in principle Welcomes strategy for protecting and enhancing the natural environment (NE) The policy is improved by making the link between the proposed development and how it will protect and enhance the environment, which is implied but not stated specifically (NE) The need to sustain economic growth and provide development must be reconciled with potential impacts to significant internationally designated sites (NE) Protecting the environment at all costs conflicts with the plan’s number one priority to enable economic regeneration and employment The plan is too negative and does not encourage sustainable balanced development, discouraging investment from outside the area The plan as a whole should support positive growth (ND+) Move ‘enabling the vibrant economy’ chapter before the ‘world class environment’ chapter (ND+) Too much emphasis on protecting the environment when the priority is economic growth The Councils’ priority is economic regeneration and employment which is not reflected in section 5 Inland rural area should be afforded the same protection as coastal areas, otherwise they may suffer from unwanted industrial invasion Agricultural production will become a crucial requirement in future as the population increases
Strategic Objectives
Supports the statement of objectives, although the meaning of ‘important countryside assets’ is unclear; how is important defined and is the countryside not deemed important of no value? (CPRE) Objective 5.1(d) is not robust enough to enable poor/average quality design to be thrown out – the plan needs a greater emphasis on high quality architecture and a presumption that poor quality design will be rejected Objective 5.1(d) should delete ‘mitigate and’ Where is the proof of man’s ability to control nature? Supports objective to ensure important countryside assets are protected and enhanced, wildlife habitats are conserved and enhanced and the decline in biodiversity is reversed Supports the creation of local nature reserves Reintroduce areas of great landscape value (AGLVs)
Evidence
Support the bullet points relating to renewable energy production (ie avoid over reliance on wind farms and cumulative landscape impacts) (x3) Both districts should have a moratorium on all wind turbines over 50 metres in height with more than 10 residences within 1.4 kilometres of such turbines Supporting the farming community is not adequate to justify wind turbines How should protection of AONBs be strengthened? The unique Devon Character Areas should be referenced as well as the land description units within the AONB in order to present the landscape assessment comprehensively (DCC) Question the meaning of ‘through mitigating ecological impacts of development’
80 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Other Key Issues identified
A draft Northern Devon Economic Strategy 2013-17 was published for consultation in April 2013. This Economic Strategy is vital in informing and supporting the delivery of the Local Plan. An amended version of the strategy is scheduled for later this year, having considered the range of representations received. North Devon Plus have proposed moving the economy chapter before this one.
Officer Comment and Recommendations
321 Several representations comment on the potential conflict between strategic objectives to protect the environment and support economic regeneration. This chapter focuses on environmental protection whilst chapter 6 focuses on a vibrant economy. Balancing these strategic objectives is partly addressed through the spatial planning vision (chapter 2) and the identification of specific sites in the local plan considered suitable for development. The plan is not proposing to protect the environment at all costs, and environmental protection is not being prioritised over economic growth.
322 North Devon Plus have proposed moving the economy chapter before this environment chapter, which could refocus perceived priorities. However, the plan should be read as a whole and it may be more effective to clarify the strategic linkages and shared delivery opportunities between the economic and environment chapters and objectives. For example, clarifying the important role of the local high quality local environment to deliver opportunities for inward investment, tourism and economic growth. Also, economic growth could potentially provide funding to help deliver specific environmental enhancements.
323 Whilst particular designations are focused in the coastal areas (e.g. AONB, Heritage Coast), inland areas are protected in the same way. The joint landscape character assessment identifies the distinct landscape character types across both districts and Policy ST11 protects the key characteristics of all individual landscape character types. There are many competing uses and issues within the coastal areas, where the overall strategy is set out in Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy.
324 The strategic objectives are broadly supported. It is accepted that the term of ‘important countryside assets’ in objective (a) is unclear, so the word ‘important’ could be deleted. Objective (d) reflects the environmental role of sustainable development set out in the NPPF (paragraph 7) through development mitigating and adapting to climate change. It is accepted that objective (d) may need to be rephrased to clarify the different intentions of this objective and to emphasise the importance of good quality design.
325 Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLVs) originated within the structure plan and were rejected as an option in paragraph 5.14(1) to enable the special qualities and key characteristics of all landscape types to be protected rather than prioritising some landscapes over others. This issue is discussed in more detail in under Policy ST11 (below).
326 Support for the community’s comments relating to renewable energy is noted, but the evidence base section is not the place to create policy. A moratorium on all wind turbines over 50 metres in height within 1.4 kilometres of more than 10 residences would need to be considered under representations to Policy ST13, but is unrealistic and unjustified.
327 The AONB and setting of Exmoor National Park will be strengthened through Policy ST11, as well as through relevant management plans. The North Devon Coast AONB management plan is currently being reviewed. ‘Mitigating ecological impacts of development’ refers to retaining or enhancing
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 81 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
biodiversity assets on site where feasible, or delivering a net gain in biodiversity offsite when assets cannot be retained or enhanced on site. The pilot biodiversity offsetting strategy is explained in paragraph 5.3.
328 In addition to the joint Landscape Character Assessment for North Devon and Torridge (2010), a Devon Landscape Character Assessment() was prepared in 2012 by the County Council. It has more strategic landscape character types and land description units which complement the character types within the local character assessment in principle. DCC have identified Devon Character Areas which are geographically specific, distinctive and recognisable. It is considered appropriate to refer to the Devon Landscape Character Assessment and its Devon Character Areas in the evidence base and in paragraph 5.5 alongside the joint Landscape Character Assessment.
Agreed Actions
Recommendations found in Policy ST11, ST12 and ST13
Policy ST11: Enhancing Environmental Assets
Total number of responses 70
Total number of responses in support 16
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 17
Total number of responses in objection 25
Total number of responses providing a general comment 12
Table 5.14
329 Comments made in response to Policy ST11 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
Summary of Key Issues
330 Comments made in response to Policy ST11 including the evidence base, Figure 5.1 and supporting text:
Supports the policy in principle (x3 including CPRE, ENPA) Welcomes recognition of national park and its special qualities including dark skies (ENPA) Supports (h) to deliver bridleways and new footpaths in South Molton Supports no net loss of biodiversity Supports protecting and enhancing the landscape character of the area and its historic growth (x2) Support strategic policy to conserve the environment (EH) Christie Devon Estates is very supportive of this approach to safeguard Devon’s most valued landscapes and habitats Supports criterion (c) fostering the social and economic well being of the area Supports rejection of development that is not locally distinctive (EH) The plan will lead to reduction and destruction of the environment
82 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Conservation areas must be increased including larger boundaries and wildlife corridors Too vague and ambitious Strengthen by adding “ensuring that development proposals contribute to” the opening sentence of ST11 to demonstrate how the policy will be achieved (DWT)
Landscape
Cannot protect all local landscapes so need to prioritise All landscapes should be protected and enhanced Retain Areas of Great Landscape Value designation (x10 including CPRE) A specific local landscape designation is a stronger form of protection (CPRE) Reflect NPPF to recognise the intrinsic character of the countryside, including outside designated areas (x2 including CPRE) Need to identify which landscapes are valued Need AGLV buffer along fringe of national park at the edge of moorland Loss of AGLV will open up inland parts of northern Devon to industrial development All landscapes beyond the urban areas should be designated as AGLVs Joint landscape character assessment affords little protection for Exmoor Fringe NPPF (para 113) supports protection of locally designated landscapes as long at the protection is distinct from that for nationally designated landscapes (CPRE) The setting of AONB and National Park must not be confused with the defined designated area Reinforce NPPF by conserving the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB by giving it great weight (NT) Any extension of AONB should include Braunton Marsh and Great Field not just be around them Add policy or supporting text for major development in AONB to clarify interpretation of national policy at a local level (NT) Provide guidance on setting so low impact proposals are not rejected Amend final sentence of paragraph 5.4 to clarify duties relating to the National Park’s purposes (ENPA) Supports paragraph 5.8 explaining the intrinsic vale of the National Park’s setting (ENPA) Red lights on top of turbines impact on Exmoor National Park’s special qualities (x2) Reflect NPPF to recognise the intrinsic character of the countryside, including outside designated areas (x2 including CPRE) Highlight omission to coastal preservation area (CPA) within policy and incorporate reference to CPA Refer to Natural England’s recent National Character Area profile (EA) Mention conserving the seascape (x2) Widen wording to include a description of landscape sensitivity to change (DCC) Expand footnote 27 to refer to all landscape character assessment work within Devon (DCC) Refer to ‘distinctive characteristics and special qualities’ rather than ‘key characteristics’ for consistency with DCC’s landscape character assessment (DCC) Support recognition of and approach to tranquillity (x2) Supports approach to tranquillity with good external lighting design (ENPA) Tranquillity is supported but needs to be defined; the CPRE map is out of date, so a more up-to-date baseline should be developed and mapped avoiding red-green transitions (Biosphere Reserve Partnership) Refer to dark ‘night’ skies consistent with wording in Exmoor National Park’s special qualities (ENPA)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 83 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Designated areas (AONB, SSSI, BR) must be given higher priority and taken into account by adjoining developments Development alongside designated areas should not be allowed Need a comprehensive list of locally important assets in paragraph 5.2 Development should not be detrimental to SSSIs, AONB, Biosphere Reserve or Tarka Trail The risk of ill health increases for residents within 2km of industrial sized turbines Criterion (b) cannot be achieved whilst renewable energy applications keep being approved without considering cumulative impacts Detrimental impact of large scale PV farms needs to be considered (x2) Why restore culm grassland when adjoining land is deemed suitable for industrial growth [Batsworthy?]
Biodiversity
Net gain in biodiversity is inappropriate for ancient woodland which is an irreplaceable habitat that cannot be moved or recreated – add a criterion for ‘conserving, restoring and expanding ancient woodland, ancient trees and native woodland’ (Woodland Trust) Refer to working at an ecosystem scale on criterion (g) to protect and enhance ecosystems and deliver an effective ecosystem services approach (CPRE) Proposals to create more local nature reserves would help to show this policy means to protect areas Connectivity and biodiversity gain can only be achieved both inside and outside designated sites (Biosphere Reserve Partnership) Wording should reflect biodiversity gain across the entire area (Biosphere Reserve Partnership) The policy of using biodiversity offsetting for enhancement should be introduced as the Government’s Natural Capital committee has recommended offsetting should be supported and mainstreamed as best practice (Biosphere Reserve Partnership) Local sites are important to maintain ecosystems and policies should consider how development will ensure they are protected (NE) Protect all European protected species and ensure favourable conservation status is maintained (NE) Maintain and protect flyways for bats, including hedgerows and water courses and consider impacts from lighting (NE) Supports ecosystem approach to development (DWT) Net gain in biodiversity is opposed to NPPF which minimises impacts on biodiversity – need to see evidence that this requirement will not put implementation at risk (x2 including ND+) Provide detail about adopted protocols in paragraph 5.3 Without strong economy there is no funding for biodiversity improvements and environmental enhancements Include preserving the settings and corridors between SACs in paragraph 5.13 Explain how culm restoration and re-creation will be resourced (DWT) In absence of DM policy, ST11 should include policy specific protection for the hierarchy of all designated site e.g. protecting the integrity of international sites and the strategy for avoidance, mitigation etc
Nature Improvement Area
Specify the types of development that may be appropriate in the Nature Improvement Area, in accordance with paragraph 117 of NPPF (NE)
84 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Support NIAs more specifically without risking work commitments to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services across the entire Biosphere Reserve (Biosphere Reserve Partnership) Why is river Torridge included as NIA but not river Taw? Add objective to improve failing water bodies and prevent deterioration (EA)
Green Infrastructure
Supports green infrastructure network to achieve net gain in biodiversity Need to balance providing green infrastructure with land for development Green infrastructure strategy needs to address ecosystems and their services (Biosphere Reserve Partnership) Paragraph 5.3 is supported (ENPA) Include reference to cross boundary linkages by facilitating migration of wildlife and improving connectivity of habitats (ENPA) Supports enhancement of GI networks to improve quality of life, health and wellbeing Support opportunities to enhance cross boundary GI linkages Supports paragraph 5.3, which includes blue corridor usage for rivers and streams (EA) Refer to Devon GI strategy within evidence base (DCC) Require more access to the countryside for walkers and horse riders Encouraged to see access for all and education included (criterion h)
Agricultural Land
Do not build on agricultural land classified as good and above if alternative poorer grade land is available (x2) The natural environment is the result of man’s activity through farming must allow farmers to continue farming whilst supplementing their income Protecting the intrinsic nature of the countryside should include the countryside as a human habitat Recognise that landscape has evolved through intervention and needs to allow a functioning rural economy Mention dualling the A361 if this is proposed
Other Key Issues identified
The North Devon’s landscape sensitivity assessment is currently being prepared
Officer Comment and Recommendations
331 There was a broad support for the policy protecting and enhancing the environment in principle but with a wide range of issues raised which are identified and addressed below. The most general concern was that the policy was too vague and ambitious without clarifying how it would be delivered. However, it is a strategic policy intended to inform other policies elsewhere in the plan. It has been questioned how the policy will be achieved and the opening sentence of ST11 could be strengthened to clarify that development proposals will contribute to protecting and enhancing the natural environment. There was also concern that policies elsewhere in the plan, especially renewable energy proposals, would destroy the environment if it wasn’t protected sufficiently.
332 The biggest single issue was the draft plan’s rejection of Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLVs) as an option in paragraph 5.14(1). AGLVs originated in the Structure Plan and effectively prioritise designated landscapes above other undesignated landscapes. The dilemma is whether all landscapes should be valued and protected equally or whether some landscapes are valued for
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 85 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
protection at the expense of others. The joint landscape character assessment recognises the key characteristics of landscape types across northern Devon, all of which are locally valued. Designating all or additional landscapes as AGLVs is unrealistic and unjustified since the landscape character assessment does not prioritise landscapes. The NPPF (paragraph 113) facilitates local designation of landscapes if protection is commensurate with their status (e.g. AONBs given greater weight than local landscape designations) but also recognises the intrinsic character of the whole countryside. Representations are concerned that loss of AGLV status will lead to industrial development across the countryside, but inappropriate types of development in the countryside could be adequately controlled by others policies in the plan. It is not considered appropriate to reintroduce AGLVs as all local landscapes should be valued and protected.
333 The national importance of the AONB is already recognised and there is no need for a separate policy providing guidance for major development in the AONB. Paragraph 116 of NPPF indicates that major developments should be refused in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances. It is accepted that the reference to supporting an extension of the AONB around Braunton Marsh and Great Field (paragraph 5.8) could be rephrased to include these areas. The setting of the AONB and National Park are important and should continue to be protected. The extent of the setting and acceptability of development within it will vary with distance, scale and potential impacts of different types of development. This setting is contextual and should not be defined through policy or supporting text.
334 It is accepted that paragraph 5.4 should be amended to the alternative wording proposed by the National Park Authority to reflect the Councils’ special duty to protect the National Park’s special qualities. National designations are already given higher priority than local designations with the national importance of the AONB and National Park recognised. The NPPF (paragraph 113) already gives greater priority to international and national designations.
335 The Councils’ joint landscape character assessment is already referenced and it is considered appropriate to reference the County’s complementary landscape character assessment. Natural England’s recent National Character Area profiles could be referenced in the evidence base, with a need to highlight the hierarchy of landscape character assessment in paragraph 5.5. Amending ‘key characteristics’ to ‘distinctive characteristics and special qualities’ for consistency with DCC’s landscape character assessment is accepted.
336 Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy recognises the range of environmental designations along the coastline and around the Taw-Torridge estuary. The coastal preservation area (CPA) is not mentioned as Policy ST09 defines and differentiates the developed and undeveloped coast in accordance with the NPPF (paragraph 114). The CPA is not therefore necessary. It is accepted that references could be added to include seascape as an environmental asset and to cross-refer to seascape within the supported text for ST09.
337 Criterion (e) protects and enhances local landscape character taking account of its sensitivity to change. It is accepted that Torridge’s landscape sensitivity assessment and a similar assessment currently being undertaken for North Devon should be referenced in paragraph 5.5, along with clarification how landscape sensitivity will be assessed.
338 The recognition of tranquillity is broadly supported. Figure 5.1 shows Devon’s tranquil areas, although the CPRE map is claimed to be out of date. Minor changes will have occurred over time, but this is the most up to date information currently available and it is impractical to create a new baseline. Exmoor NPA request that ‘dark skies’ should be amended to ‘dark night skies’ for consistency with the National Park’s identified special qualities. This amendment is accepted for paragraph 5.5 and elsewhere in the plan.
86 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
339 It is inappropriate to prevent all development alongside designated areas. The range of environmental assets is diverse and it is inappropriate to list all locally important assets. Policy ST11 indicates the important qualities and characteristics of identified environmental assets that will be protected and enhanced, which indicates the types of development that would be acceptable. Local sites are important to maintain ecosystems and paragraphs 5.8 could be clarified to recognise their importance in contributing to the wider biodiversity network. The levels of protection is already linked to the hierarchy of designations through the NPPF.
340 The Government’s Natural Capital committee supported biodiversity offsetting and mainstreamed it as best practice. A net gain in biodiversity does not conflict with the NPPF, with paragraph 109 support for enhancing the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity. It is accepted that biodiversity gain can best be achieved across the districts as a whole including outside designated areas. The offsetting strategy provides the guidance so should be referred to rather than the protocols. Amended wording could clarify this.
341 It is accepted that some biodiversity assets are ‘critical environmental capital’ which are irreplaceable, such as ancient woodland. This is explained in the offsetting strategy, but should be clarified at the end of paragraph 5.3. An additional policy criterion for conserving, restoring and expanding ancient woodland is unnecessary within this strategic policy since ancient woodland cannot be expanded and restoration is beyond the influence of planning. However, the principle is supported and paragraph 5.2 or 5.3 could be amended to recognise the importance of ancient woodland and ancient trees as an environmental asset.
342 It is accepted that reference should be made to protecting European protected species, including flyways for bats such as hedgerows and watercourses, whilst considering impacts from lighting. Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are of European importance and opportunities to preserve their setting and corridors between them is supported, with paragraph 5.13 being amended to recognised this. Culm restoration and re-creation will be delivered through the Working Wetlands Project and funded through CIL because the potential impact is from increased traffic along the A361 from growth across northern Devon as a whole.
343 The plan’s ecosystem approach is supported. Conserving and enhancing the robustness of ecosystems and ecosystem services will occur at a range of spatial scales so it is unnecessary to refer explicitly to an ecosystem scale on criterion (g). However, clarification is proposed in paragraph 5.12.
344 Reference to Torridge NIA (Nature Improvement Area) is supported. The NIA only covers the river Torridge catchment which is why the river Taw is not included. Paragraph 117 of NPPF indicates that local plans should consider specifying the types of development that may be appropriate in these areas. A new criterion could be added that supports types of development helping to meet the NIA’s strategic objectives. This would support NIAs more specifically.
345 The EA’s proposed new objective to improve failing water bodies and prevent deterioration could be appropriate in principle and would tie in with the NIA’s strategic objectives. However, the strategic objectives in paragraph 5.1 reflect those identified at the end of chapter 2 (strategic aims and objectives). It is suggested that this representation is considered alongside others made to the strategic aims and objectives.
346 It has already been agreed to clarify the strategy for green infrastructure (GI) networks under ST03 and paragraph 3.21, so a cross-reference to them should be added. DCC have requested a reference to their GI strategy, which was published in October 2011 but is yet to be adopted, with no
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 87 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
clear guidance if/when it will be adopted. It is already referenced under the evidence base section and no further mention is considered necessary. Opportunities to enhance cross boundary green infrastructure linkages are already mentioned (paragraph 5.3), although criterion (a) could be amended to support cross-boundary GI links.
347 Access for all and education included within criterion (h) is supported. Improving access to the countryside for walkers and horse riders is supported through enhancing the GI network under criterion (a), but is also addressed through representations to the Transport Strategy (ST10).
348 Comments indicate the natural environment is the result of man’s activity through agriculture and needs to allow farmers to deliver a functioning rural economy. Paragraph 5.7 already directs development towards the poorer quality agricultural land, whilst recognising that lower grade land may have greater ecological value.
349 A number of comments oppose renewable energy proposals, which are addressed more fully under Policy ST13 where landscape, biodiversity and heritage designations are already recognised. The justification for restoration of culm grassland is set out in paragraph 5.13, but no industrial growth is proposed near the culm grassland SAC.
Agreed Actions
1. Make it more explicit how the proposed development will protect and enhance the environment. 2. Amend paragraphs 5.1 and 6.2 (strategic objectives of the environment and economic chapters) to highlight the clear inter-dependence and linkages between these strategic policy areas to show how they are inter-related and can complement each other rather than conflicting and competing. 3. Delete ‘important’ from strategic objective (a) in paragraph 5.1. 4. Amend first sentence of Policy ST11 to “…protected and enhanced by ensuring that development proposals contribute to:” which will help to clarify and demonstrate how the policy will be achieved. 5. Amend objective (d) in paragraph 5.1 to highlight the importance of good quality design and to clarify slightly different objectives to mitigate impact on climate change whilst adapting to the effects of climate change. 6. Refer to the Devon Landscape Character Assessment and Natural England’s National Character Area profiles in the evidence base and in paragraph 5.5. 7. Amend paragraph 5.5 to recognise the unique Devon Character Areas within the Devon Landscape Character Assessment. 8. Amend paragraph 5.4 to clarify the Councils’ special duties in protecting the National Parks’ special qualities. 9. Amend paragraph 5.8 to clarify that any future extension of the AONB should include Braunton Marsh and Great Field rather than just the area around them. 10. Amend paragraph 5.5 to refer to s landscape sensitivity assessments along with clarification how landscape sensitivity will be assessed. 11. Amend criterion (e) and paragraph 5.5 to include seascape as an environmental asset and cross-refer to seascape within the supported text for ST09. 12. Amend paragraph 5.6 so dark skies changes to ‘dark night skies’, as well as elsewhere in the plan, primarily within Ilfracombe and South Molton town strategies. 13. Amend paragraph 5.3 to clarify that biodiversity gain can best be achieved across the districts as a whole including outside designated areas, whilst recognising that critical environmental capital (such as ancient woodland) is irreplaceable and should not be lost. 14. Amend paragraph 5.2 or 5.3 to recognise the importance of ancient woodland and ancient trees as an environmental asset.
88 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
15. Amend paragraph 5.3 to refer to the offsetting strategy rather than adopted protocols. 16. Add policy criterion to protect European protected species and amend paragraph 5.2 to refer to protecting flyways for bats whilst considering impacts from lighting. 17. Amend paragraph 5.13 to support opportunities to protect the setting of SACs and enhance the corridors between them. 18. Clarify paragraph 5.8 to recognise the contribution of local sites to the wider biodiversity network. 19. Amend paragraph 5.12 to recognise the importance of protecting ecosystems and ecosystem services at an ecosystem scale. 20. Add new policy criterion that supports development helping to meet the NIA’s strategic objectives. 21. Consider improvements to water quality in rivers, estuaries and other water bodies when reviewing strategic objectives in chapter 2.
Policy ST12: Conserving Heritage Assets
Total number of responses 43
Total number of responses in support 7
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 10
Total number of responses in objection 15
Total number of responses providing a general comment 11
Table 5.15
350 Comments made in response to Policy ST12 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
Summary of Issues
351 Comments made in response to Policy COR13: Housing to meet Community Needs, including supporting text:
Recognition of the importance of providing for a range of housing needs;
Development viability must be taken into account when determining appropriate affordable housing delivery;
Policy conflict with the Councils objective to increase affordable housing delivery;
Clarification required as to when affordable housing and mixed schemes including market housing would be appropriate;
A significant number of affordable houses are required to meet the needs of local communities, in urban and rural areas;
Strategic housing needs by type should be identified;
The need for all new residential development to meet identified needs is questioned;
A new policy focused on meeting the housing and care needs of the elderly is required;
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 89 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Review the need for the 45% affordable housing target; and
Adoption of the Lifetime Standard may not always be appropriate; it could impact on viability and reduce will on affordable housing delivery.
Officer Comment and Recommendations
352 The policy objective is to achieve balanced housing markets that better reflects the areas housing needs both in respect of tenure, size and type. It is accepted that delivery on this objective cannot be achieved by all new residential development, on which basis policy revision is recommended. Policy change is also proposed to remove the requirement to achieve maximum delivery of affordable housing in recognition that local housing or other priorities may seek a variance in this approach.
353 Policy issues relating to the affordable housing target is addressed in comments relating to Policy COR14 and Lifetime Standards in comments relating to Policy COR8.
Agreed Actions
1. Policy revision to recognise that development but not all new development can contribute to improving the balance of housing markets.
2. Policy revision to require the optimising the supply of affordable housing in preference to maximising the provision of affordable housing.
Policy ST13: Delivering Renewable Energy and Heat
Total number of responses 46
Total number of responses in support 7
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 15
Total number of responses in objection 19
Total number of responses providing a general comment 5
Table 5.16
354 Comments made in response to Policy ST13 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
Summary of Key Issues
355 Comments made in response to Policy ST13, including supporting text and evidence:
Support
The key aims are supported Support the policy as it will reduce the demand for energy resulting from new developments
90 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Northern Devon’s contribution towards adapting to the impact of climate change will include reducing energy consumption through energy conservation measures and increasing use of renewable energy and heat Support of employment opportunities created by promoting a low carbon economy Support for paragraph 5.26 (x2)
Support subject to amendment
Criterion 5 offers almost no protection from large turbines or solar arrays. Add ‘residential and other amenities’ to criterion (b), add protection to valued local landscapes. Add reference to protection from cumulative impacts Important to develop and increase woodland across the area to provide fuel, as well as developing and increasing wind and solar power Policy ST13 should look to support/maintain the balance of protecting the natural environment with the other needs of the community (in particular economic activity) Policy should reference the NPPS (National Planning Policy Statements) and companion guide to PPS22 that environmental, economic and social benefits of renewable energy can outweigh the potential harm a proposal may have Paragraph 5(c) should give protection to AGLV as set out in paragraph 113 of the NPPF New paragraph suggested at 5(d) the cumulative impact upon an area of a number of renewable energy schemes remains acceptable Add additional criterion as follows: (6) Large scale renewable energy developments should include the delivery of meaningful benefits to communities who are either directly affected by the planned developments or are within the area covered by the scope of this Plan. Where this community benefit can be demonstrated - and endures for the planned life of the development - these developments will be supported Amend (5) and the supporting text to ensure regard is given to the most up-to-date guidance available (currently the joint LCA [Dec 2011]; and Accommodating Wind & Solar PV Developments in Devon’s Landscape [Jan 2013]) Criterion 5(b) should include reference that there should be no adverse impact on residential amenity Amend 5(b) to read “there is no significant adverse impact…” Amend 5(c) to read “there is no residual significant adverse impact…” Renewable energy policies should include protection for birds, other EU protected species, and protected landscapes including their setting Paragraph 5.22 should strongly encourage solar panels on new build and refurbished roofs Support the policy but the protection of rural peace and environmental diversity of northern Devon should be stronger Suggest deletion of the line “and appropriately scaled projects should be designed to directly supply the needs of individual properties, businesses and communities” as some schemes will be aimed at the wider benefits nationally The last sentence of paragraph 5.25 should be amended to better reflect the current situation from a Devon-wide perspective (DCC) Insert “…unless it can be shown that the environmental, economic or social benefits outweigh the perceived harm” at the end of the opening sentence to paragraph 5.26
Objection
The countryside is being ruined by wind turbines. They are inefficient and a total blot on the landscape. Offshore turbines and wave hubs do not cause as much damage to the landscape
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 91 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Objection to criterion 5 for not acknowledging the ‘significant impact’ on public health as well as impact on the landscape In relation to criterion 3, the Community Energy Fund Strategy has not been written, and the Local Plan cannot proceed until this strategy is formulated Policy ST13 should not allow any further energy developments in North Devon as they would have a totally unacceptable cumulative landscape and visual impact Policy ST13 contradicts references to ‘world class environments, vibrant communities and increased biodiversity’ that are destroyed by these developments Objects that paragraphs 5.22 and 5.24 imply that damage to important landscapes is actually good, enabling people to do whatever they like Delete references to carbon emissions in paragraphs 5.19 and 5.20 Policy should include reference to separation distances between dwellings and turbines (x2) Deletion of repeated text in paragraph 5.25
General Comments
No mention of a ‘fabric first’ approach to sustainable construction, introduce a Passivhaus approach as an alternative to the Code for Sustainable Homes route Include a section on building energy resilience at a local level Reference should be made to the technical feasibility and financial viability of schemes, as well as provision being appropriate to the scale and nature of development Issues should be address on a site by site basis through the submission of an energy statement Energy conservation measures should be prioritised over on-site renewables Guidance for the NDC area for landscape sensitivity to renewable energy should be provided The Exmoor Fringe buffer zone should be afforded special protection from any further consideration of energy development The greenhouse gas emissions savings of any renewable energy scheme should include a full & accurate lifetime assessment of the savings Questions why Option 1 (page 61) that includes “cumulative impacts on landscape and heritage assets” was rejected Cumulative impact is not considered sufficiently at decision-making stage. Elected members obviously require more training to understand the implications of their decisions
Other Key Issues identified
DCLG Planning Guidance addresses the planning balance for renewables and identifies requirement for developers to assess landscape impacts and to engage with local communities. The guidance also rules out the option of prescriptive buffer zones Renewables development should be in accordance with the adopted baseline which includes Devon Landscape Character Areas, North Devon and Torridge Landscape Character Types, Devon Landscape Policy Group Advice Note 2 on siting of renewables in the Devon landscape Torridge Landscape Sensitivity Analysis and emerging North Devon Landscape Sensitivity Analysis draws together the baseline above and quantifies value of landscape in relation to individual and cumulative development giving consideration to international, national and local designations, local importance, tranquility and scenic value DECC have produced guidance on community energy projects and will publish a Community Energy Strategy in Autumn 2013 to support community led initiatives and ensure early engagement leads to the full range of benefits The Biosphere Reserve Partnership in partnership with SEACS has produced a Sustainable Energy Action Plan covering the Biosphere Reserve plus the whole of Torridge district. A baseline
92 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
and technical appendix has been published this year to establish the potential opportunities for energy demand reduction and renewable energy supply measures. A separate action plan will be prepared in 2014. The Government published ‘Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy’ on 29 July 2013 which seeks to ensure planning decisions reflect the environmental balance in the NPPF.
Officer Comments and Recommendations
356 There is general support for energy demand reduction, climate change mitigation and employment opportunities through sector development. Concerns were raised that this policy contradicts other objectives within the plan, such as aspirations to protect and enhance the landscape and heritage assets of the Biosphere Reserve’s world-class environment. However, potential environmental impacts are already recognised and the policy clarifies how these will be balanced against renewable energy generation and how special environmental qualities will be conserved. Paragraph 5.22 recognises that renewable energy generation complements the Biosphere Reserve’s objective of delivery of sustainable development through utilising ecosystem services.
357 Impact on landscape and amenities is already addressed by Policy ST13(5) and can be considered against other policies protecting residential amenities, environmental and heritage assets. The NPPF (paragraph 98) states that applications for renewable energy should be approved if their impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Development should be avoided where the significance of effect is judged as major in EIA terms, but less significant harm would not prevent renewable energy proposals. The request for additional protection against “significant adverse” impacts could be clarified by amending paragraph 5 of the policy.
358 All scales of renewable energy developments can have significant national benefits towards targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. Such benefits at a national scale need to be considered as part of any proposals and may sometimes be shown to outweigh identified local impacts. The NPPF (paragraph 98) does not require a need for renewable and low carbon energy to be demonstrated. Paragraph 97 of the NPPF requires ‘policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development whilst ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily’. It is accepted that the supporting text needs to recognise potential benefits at both national and local scales.
359 It is inappropriate for policy to require 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 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.
360 Paragraph 98 of the NPPF indicates that small-scale renewable energy projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Policy ST13(4) supports proposals by local communities and local businesses, although the terminology should change to community-led co-operatives’ which can include local businesses. Development that ‘meets a local energy demand should not be unduly restricted and additional weight will be given to the benefits of rural diversification or supporting an existing enterprise through energy or tariff generation. The supporting text needs to clarify these points. DCLG and DECC have consulted on co-operative and community led schemes and will publish further guidance.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 93 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
361 The National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) forms part of the overall framework of national planning policy (NPPF paragraph 3) and clarifies that electricity generation from renewable sources of energy is an important element in the Government’s development of a low-carbon economy. Paragraph 5.22 should make reference to the national policy statements.
362 Any planning application for renewable energy needs to be supported by a landscape visual impact assessment (LVIA) with levels of detail appropriate to the scale of the proposal. This requirement could be set out within the supporting text (paragraph 5.24). Assessing landscape sensitivity of different landscape character types is addressed by Policy ST013(5a), but it may be beneficial to clarify that it should be done in accordance with the landscape sensitivity assessments and Devon’s landscape policy guidance. Policy ST013(5a) should also clarify that landscape impact will be assessed in relation to its sensitivity to accommodate the scale of development being proposed.
363 Several responses raised concerns about the cumulative impacts of renewable energy developments. Paragraphs 5.24 and 5.25 indicate how cumulative impacts of permitted and proposed developments will be assessed, however there is no explicit reference to cumulative impacts in the draft policy. Because cumulative impacts will frequently affect multiple landscape character types, it is proposed that an additional paragraph within Policy ST13 ensures the cumulative impact of any proposal alongside existing and permitted development is acceptable without significant harm to landscape character, heritage assets and visual amenity. This conforms with the principle set out in paragraph 98 of the NPPF where impacts are or can be made acceptable.
364 Devon County Council has requested that paragraph 5.25 be amended to support generic Devon-wide guidance on accommodating development in Devon's landscape to ensure compatibility with neighbouring districts and recognising that the landscape and visual impacts of large scale renewable development can extend across administrative boundaries. It is already proposed to amend Policy ST013(5a) to clarify that assessing landscape impact should be done in accordance with Devon’s landscape policy guidance and Local Authority Landscape Sensitivity Assessments. Paragraph 5.25 could also be amended to recognise landscape and visual impacts across administrative boundaries and Devon-wide guidance being used to consider visual impacts consistently with neighbouring districts.
365 There is no clear evidence to demonstrate adverse impacts on public health from renewable energy developments. Industry best practice [ETSU May 2013] addresses potential issues from noise and shadow flicker. Adverse impacts from these sources are already addressed by paragraph 5(b) of ST13 and by Policy DM01: Amenity Considerations so no amendments to address health issues are considered necessary.
366 CPRE have proposed specific separation distances between residential dwellings and wind turbine development. This is not supported by any current Government guidance or recent appeal decisions so cannot be justified. Impacts on local amenities are already addressed irrespective of separation distances.
367 An energy strategy is not being prepared so the final sentence in paragraph 5.26 should be deleted. However, there may be justification for adding a reference to the emerging Biosphere Reserve and Torridge District energy plan which establishes potential opportunities for energy demand reduction and renewable energy supply measures.
94 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
368 Policy ST05: Sustainable Construction and Buildings supports the principle of low carbon design and construction, including opportunities to reduce overall energy demand, improve energy efficiency and maximise opportunities for micro-generation of renewable, low carbon and decentralised energy. This supports opportunities to deliver renewables integrated into new buildings, including solar panels. Paragraph 5.19 already cross-refers to ST05.
369 Carbon reduction is the currency used by Building Regulations rather than a proportion of energy generation from renewable sources. Merton style policies are potentially being phased out in favour of non-specific carbon emission reductions. The suggested removal of reference to carbon emissions would result in the Local Plan being out of step with Building Regulations Part L and national standards such as Code for Sustainable Homes.
370 ‘Allowable Solutions’ relate to an assortment of carbon reduction measures, not just renewable energy generation, which exceed current Building Regulations and moves towards 2016 zero carbon targets. However, the Housing Standards Review may incorporate allowable solutions within future Building Regulations in which case there is no need for a separate policy reference. If allowable solutions are supported as part of or alongside future Building Regulations then it is considered more appropriate for any policy relating to allowable solutions to be incorporated within Policy ST05, with paragraph 5.20 deleted. The Community Energy Fund Strategy has not yet been prepared so ST13(3) should be amended to any future Community Energy Fund Strategy.
371 Energy conservation through fabric efficiency as an alternative to the Code for Sustainable Homes, such as PassivHaus, is addressed through Policy ST05.
372 Paragraph 5.23 recognises the opportunities for off-shore renewable energy proposals in the South West, although the proposed Atlantic Array is not mentioned specifically. This paragraph should cross-refer to Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy which supports delivery of onshore facilities for operational servicing of large-scale offshore renewable energy proposals. Growth in the marine renewables and offshore wind economic sector should be supported where it can bring opportunities for local and regional onshore economic growth and regeneration.
373 An increase in woodland cover would help to support opportunities for wood fueled renewable heat, and would potentially complement green infrastructure and biodiversity objectives. However, increasing woodland cover would not normally need planning permission. Any proposals for renewable energy and heat based on wood fuel that require planning permission can be considered against this policy and are likely to be supported in principle.
Agreed Actions
1. Amend Policy ST13(4) to refer to ‘community-led co-operatives and schemes that meet the needs of local communities’ rather than local communities and local businesses. 2. Amend Policy ST13(5a) to clarify that landscape sensitivity will be assessed in accordance with the Councils’ landscape sensitivity assessments and by a landscape’s sensitivity to accommodate the scale of development being proposed. 3. Amend paragraph 5.22 to recognise opportunities for community-led co-operatives to benefit local communities, including local businesses, by generating energy directly and/or provide income for the community through energy generation. 4. Amend paragraph 5.23 to cross-refer to Policy ST09 supporting delivery of onshore facilities for operational servicing of large-scale offshore renewable energy proposals and growth in the marine renewables and offshore wind economic sector. 5. Delete the last 3 sentences of paragraph 5.23 that duplicate the first 3 sentences.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 95 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
6. Amend paragraph 5.24 to set out the requirement for levels of detail within a landscape visual impact assessment appropriate to the scale of a development. 7. Amend paragraph 5.24 to recognise the potential benefits from renewable energy at both national and local scales. 8. Add a new paragraph to Policy ST13 to ensure that cumulative impact of any proposal, alongside existing and permitted development, is acceptable without significant harm to landscape character. 9. Amend paragraph 5.25 to indicate that landscape and visual impacts across administrative boundaries will be considered using Devon-wide guidance. 10. Delete final sentence of paragraph 5.26 referring to the Energy Strategy. 11. Refer to the Biosphere Reserve and Torridge District energy plan in paragraph 6.26 which establishes potential opportunities for energy demand reduction and renewable energy supply measures. 12. Move ST13(3) referring to ‘Allowable Solutions’ to Policy ST05 and delete paragraph 5.20. 13. Amend Paragraph 5.22 to make reference to national policy statements. 14. Amend paragraph 5.21 to create opportunities for co-location of energy producers with energy users, in particular heat, and facilitate renewable and low carbon energy innovation. Chapter 6: Enabling a Vibrant Economy (introduction)
Total number of responses 128
Total number of responses in support 24
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 19
Total number of responses in objection 44
Total number of responses providing a general comment 41
Table 5.17
374 Comments made in response to Chapter 6 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
Summary of Key Issues
375 Summary of comments made in response to the policies and supporting text of the Enabling a Vibrant Economy section of the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
General Comments
Can key economic objectives and positive policies result in delivery?
In the absence of an Economic Development Strategy there is no basis to judge if the stated aspirations are realistic.
The section should be repositioned to reflect its importance and to counter the perception that the environment is given greater weight, which would be inconsistent with the NPPF; references to “environmental limits” are discouraging to business.
96 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Expand upon how development will be encouraged through the planning process, absence of policies on agriculture, agriculture diversification, horticulture, forestry, rural tourism, broadband, energy and low carbon sectors, work hubs and business start ups.
Absence of a reference to infrastructure and how such will be delivered.
Vision and Objectives
Support for strategic objectives
Reflect the world-class environment in the vision and link the economy and the environment in the objectives.
The vision does not recognise exiting multiple weaknesses and that positive growth is required.
Support for the vision but how will deliver be achieved.
Ensure viability is not prejudiced, allow for development on a package basis.
6.2 (e) will only be achieved by halting the spread of out of town retail development; such should be enabled only when sequentially justified.
6.2 (c) reflects the Plans emphasis on the environment.
6.2 (g) absence of a reference to horticulture, forestry and other land based industries.
Clarification of the basis for the strategic objectives; add a detailed analysis and evidence relating to the local economy.
North Devon Economic Strategy themes: add an additional theme relating to rural area regeneration through enabling housing, employment and community facilities in the rural area.
North Devon Economic Strategy themes: no reference to support for existing business, rural diversification, support and facilitating economic development.
6.3 (f) ensure consistency of reference to Bideford between 6.3(f), Figure 1.1and ST06 and Northam; does it include Appledore and Westward Ho!. As a Main town should Braunton and Wrafton be included?
Unjustified reference to the Economic Development Strategy; which is not published and on which the LEP have not been consulted.
Expand the themes to illustrate required change, why they are necessary and how they will be undertaken.
Bideford should have greater emphasis with regard to its Strategic Centre status.
Develop employment land ecologically; low energy use with wildlife areas.
Evidence
Inaccurate information on required retail quantitative capacity in Barnstaple.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 97 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Question the need to release poorly performing employment sites.
The retail development option, focusing on Barnstaple does not assist the regeneration of Bideford; without growth retail trade will continue to leak to Barnstaple; avoid the town centre restriction of “a unique and quality offer”.
Delivering Employment and Economic Development
Economic development, as defined by the NPPF should be enabled on employment sites.
No employment allocation in the rural area.
If delivery of employment land linked to housing delivery, little prospect of short term provision, consequent of CIL demands and downturn in housing market.
More emphasis on encouraging business start ups, including self employment.
Additional Points of Consideration
376 The draft Northern Devon Economic Strategy was issued for consultation in April 2013 from which received comments have been considered to deliver revised Strategy, the adoption of which is programmed for October 2013.
377 The North Devon and Torridge Housing and Employment Study and Employment Land Review is not yet finalised, early findings include:
based on a housing target of 16,000 the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan employment land supply of 157 represents a significant overprovision; against a context of below average economic growth and limited employment opportunities there is justification for the strategic direction of seeking to diversify the economic base, increase “value added” in the local economy and ensure that housing and employment grow in tandem; the shift towards higher skilled and paid employment should be viewed as a long term and more challenging goal given the nature of the economic base and the location of the sub-regions and its relationship to wider markets; It is more realistic that the economy will continue to grow organically, within which the key economic drivers are likely to be: housing and population growth, visitor numbers and spend and footloose small business growth / enterprise; Over the long-term housing provision will be an important economic driver in its own right; Wider economic opportunities include the marine and energy sectors, and Modest short-term growth in manufacturing but significant job growth is unlikely to be supported. A workshop with North Devon+ and local economic stakeholders was held on 7th May 2013 to discuss concerns that the Local Plan had an environmental emphasis. The stated District Councils’ position is that the draft Local Plan provides an enabling and flexible framework to support economic development consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework while being responsive to the area’s environmental and economic characteristics. The District Councils did however accept that in reviewing the Local Plan consideration would be given to the perception of an unfavourable balance between economic and environmental considerations.
98 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Officer Comments and Recommendations
378 The Economy section of the draft Local Plan generated 128 comments; 18% in support, 15% in support subject to amendment 34% in objection and 32% provided a general comment.
379 Clarification of the nature of supported development has been sought having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) definition of economic development. The NPPF definition provides for a wider range of uses than enabled by the draft Local Plan in respect of employment land allocations and exceptional site release, which are focused on the “B” Use Classes (business, general industry and storage or distribution). The NPPF defines economic development as:
[Main town centre uses includes: Retail development (including warehouse clubs and factory outlet centres); leisure, entertainment facilities the more intensive sport and recreation uses (including cinemas, restaurants, drive-through restaurants, bars and pubs, night-clubs, casinos, health and fitness centres, indoor bowling centres, and bingo halls); offices; and arts, culture and tourism development (including theatres, museums, galleries and concert halls, hotels and conference facilities).]
380 The NPPF is clear in directing support to be given to economic growth and thus the more flexible approach in respect of the range of acceptable uses should generally be embraced. It is however considered appropriate to retain some use restriction where objectives related to local visions are directly linked to the sought development, for example, the employment land associated with the Holsworthy agri-business centre (Policy HOL01) and water compatible employment uses at Yelland (Policy FRE02). The likely continuing over supply of employment land further supports this approach on the basis that provision is made to meet identified needs on unrestricted sites.
381 The Local Plan will provide the framework to support identified short and long term growth sectors. The growth sectors, as indicated in the draft Housing and Employment Study and to be taken forward by the Economic Strategy could usefully be referenced in the supporting text to Policy ST14. The means of enabling, delivering and driving economic growth beyond the planning process is however outside the scope of the Local Plan and will be otherwise supported by the District Councils and economic partners.
382 The vision and themes set out in paragraph 6.3 are taken from an early version of the Economic Strategy and revisions will be made to reflect any alternations made as a consequence of consultation undertaken on the Strategy.
383 With regard to the strategic objectives, they have been developed and revised following consultation on the Core Strategy and support the economic vision. The need to provide additional detail and analysis in relation to the objectives is not accepted; supporting and evidential material provide the detail sought which is unnecessary to replicate in the Pre-submission Local Plan. For clarity revision is however recommended to 6.2 (g) to reference horticulture, forestry and other land based industries.
384 A number of commentators, including North Devon+ and the Planning Agents Association, have suggested the environment has been given greater weight than the economy. This position is not accepted; considerable support is given to economic development in respect of the scope and flexibility afforded to enabling employment generating development. The components of sustainable development are considered in equal measure as required by the NPPF. Nevertheless to counter the perception of unequal weight the suggested repositioning of the economy section within in the strategic policies is accepted.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 99 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
385 Extending the number of policies to include additionally; agriculture, agricultural diversification, horticulture, forestry, rural tourism, broadband, energy and low carbon sectors, work hubs and business start ups, is not considered necessary. The Local Plan either provides existing policies or the framework to support the range of uses listed through Development Management Policies DM09, DM11-15.
386 Concern is raised regarding a retail focus on Barnstaple, which is suggested will be to the detriment of Bideford. The retail strategy for Bideford and Barnstaple reflects the outcomes and needs identified through the Retail and Leisure Study, taking account of the role of the respective settlements, planned growth and town centre focused opportunities. The centres perform different roles and the opportunities for growth are reflective of need and potential. The approach of supporting “an unique and quality offer” is not regarded as being restrictive to Bideford and would not prejudice future proposals where such would support the objective of improving the viability and vitality of the town as provided for by Policy DM16. Enhancing the attraction and function of the area's town centres is recognised as fundamental to the delivery of sustainable communities.
387 Comment is provided that would seek to prevent the loss of poorly performing employment sites. Employment land is recognised as a valuable resource. It is important that opportunities to secure growth are focused on sites which are suitable (available, deliverable and locally appropriate) and attractive to the market. The NPPF also guards against the long term protection of sites allocated for employment where there is no prospect of the site being used. The Local Plan (Policy DM10) seeks to safeguard employment land to ensure the maintenance of a range of suitable and available sites. There is no justification for seeking to resist proposals for acceptable alternative use if the subject site is demonstrably not suited to employment use and there is no prospect of the maintenance or re-establishment of employment activity.
388 Opportunities for employment development through allocations in the rural areas will be defined through Part 3 of the Local Plan. The Strategic (ST08 and ST14) and Development Management Policies (DM09, DM11-15) of the Local Plan additionally support development and protect assets in the rural area beyond allocated sites.
389 The delivery of employment land is not solely secured by linked housing development. The majority of employment sites are independent of housing sites and include allocations supported by a delivery strategy; the extension to Caddsdown (Policy BID06) for example and the employment land associated with agri-business centre (Policy HOL01), both of which are or will be advanced by Torridge District Council. It is however appropriate to increase the delivery of serviced employment land where enabled by supporting development. Policy ST14: Delivering Employment and Economic Development
Total number of responses 42
Total number of responses in support 8
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 6
Total number of responses in objection 13
Total number of responses providing a general comment 15
Table 5.18
390 Comments made in response to Policy ST14 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
100 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Summary of Key Issues
391 Comments made in response to Policy ST14 and supporting text:
Support with amendment, add within Policy “without adverse environmental impact” and “need to respect environmental limits”. Support, but ensure allocated sites can be brought forward cohesively, providing infrastructure links between sites in different ownerships. Support Policy but detail and definition need to be added. Support, with the addition of enabling development to make the best use of land and buildings to deliver the retention and/or improvement of existing business. General Policy support, but inappropriately urban focused given the primarily rural nature of the area. Support opportunities for residents to live and work in the rural area. Restrictive Policy Policy reference to meeting the housing needs of the workforce required. No allowance is made for a market based approach. If funding for employment land is provided by housing, how will employment opportunities be delivered in step with housing development? Who will be employed if the population is increasingly elderly? No local employment prospects, unemployment will result from people being encouraged to move into the area. Employment should be provided at least concurrently with new housing. Significant housing numbers need to be allocated to deliver employment land, which is unlikely to be delivered in the short term due to market downturn. No mention of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, rural employment and land based industries; reference is required to C2 and C3 uses; enabled development should be consistent with the NPPF definition. NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to work with LEP, not how developers will work with the LEP. Integrated and mixed use development should be provided to maximise opportunities for walking and cycling should be provided where possible. Employment schemes should be well located to junctions on the Strategic Highway network; to limit the use of the Network for local commuting trips. Allow for the release of poorer quality sites where redevelopment would result in community benefit and define “suitably” located. ST14 (1) clarify “locally determined growth aspirations”; and is it relevant to northern Devon. ST14 (5) reference to Local Economic Partnerships or the LEP is correctly used. Greater emphasis on encouraging business into the area and start ups, including in the rural area. ST14 (7) will be hampered by the use of Development Boundaries. Inadequate provision for rural economic development a restrictive approach in the rural area. Strengthen the rural area reference; add at 6.12” in particular recognising the opportunities provided by sustainable use of the area's rich environmental assets, including farmland and woodland". A strategic plan should be in in place to implement rural employment opportunities. Broadband/mobile phone providers should be encouraged to deliver effective rural area coverage. Review the use of rejection options 3, allow for employment allocations in the rural area.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 101 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Officer Comments and Recommendations
392 The Policy ST14: Delivering Employment and Economic Development generated 42 comments; 19% in support, 14% in support subject to amendment, 31% in objection and 36% provided a general comment.
393 The level of employment land release will be subject to revision to take account of the emerging findings of the Employment Land Review. The scale of provision represents a significant over supply against need, which will require all sites to be reviewed with regard to suitability and delivery. The risk associated with over providing for employment development is that sites that can be demonstrated as unlikely to come forward could be lost to housing as enabled by the NPPF, the consequences of which could be prejudicial to economic objectives and long term growth aspirations. The Local Plan in providing a supportive approach to unexpected expansion or new site needs avoids the need for an oversupply of employment land. The maintenance of employment allocations will be considered as individual town chapters are reviewed.
394 The overall land supply includes a level of provision beyond that required by need, as indicated by the reference in ST14 (1) ..”locally determined growth aspirations…”. In reviewing the overall scale of employment allocations the growth aspirations that have been established at South Molton, Holsworthy and Ilfracombe will be maintained. The extended scale of employment provision in each of the referenced towns relates directly to local visions and is central to the related development strategies. The strategies for the each of the towns are set out in the relevant sections of the Local Plan. For clarification, explanation of the increased level of employment land supply to support local development strategies could be added to paragraph 6.9.
395 The need to add the qualification “without adverse environmental impact” and “need to respect environmental limits” is considered unnecessary having regard to Policies ST02 and ST03. Duplication of policy content within the Local Plan should be avoided; the Local Plan needs to be read as a whole.
396 Comment on the urban focus of employment opportunities is accepted but the approach is necessary in the context of achieving sustainable development and responding to market demands. It is appropriate to provide the greatest opportunity for employment growth where the population is concentrated and where significant growth is planned. The need to accommodate economic development in the rural area is also recognised and provision for such is made that will support appropriately located new build and change of use employment development. Part 3 of the Local Plan will additionally provided allocations in defined settlements, for housing, employment and community uses to support an active and increasingly sustainable rural area.
397 The suggestion that the policy is restrictive is not accepted. The scale of employment land release, taking account of a reduction from the draft supply of 157 hectares will significantly exceed identified needs which is further supported by a flexible and responsive approach to employment generating development on unallocated sites. The framework provided by Policy ST14 provides for market needs as established through the Employment Land Review and will enable delivery of the areas economic strategy developed through direct engagement with the local business community and stakeholders.
398 The Local Plan positively supports economic development in the rural area, the detail of which is provided through Development Management Policies. The expansion and start up of new business will be supported where appropriately located and scaled. The overall objective in respect of the rural area is to support sustainable proposals that contribute to active villages, where community supported needs will be met and a countryside that is protected where necessary but also well managed and economically robust.
102 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
399 In addition to the general policies of the Local Plan, Part 3 will include allocations for employment development where supported by the local community. The use of development boundaries will not be a constraint to employment development, allocated sites will be brought within development boundaries, but as provided for by DM11 small scale employment development is enabled in the countryside as a result of rural building conversion, on sites or buildings adjoining defined settlements and to enable improvement and expansion of existing business.
400 Policy ST14 reflects identified employment needs and the framework for supporting economic growth. Housing needs are provided for separately, so there is no need to replicate the requirement; as previously stated the Local Plan needs to be read as a whole.
401 The Local Plan provides the framework for meeting housing and employment needs, a number of proposals for which are linked. The District Councils through the Economic Development Teams with partner organisations will work to improve the area’s economic performance, including the delivery of employment sites and business development. Additional housing sites are not required to be allocated to bring forward employment land; the majority of employment sites are not dependent upon associated housing development. As evidenced by the Employment and Housing Study, growth sectors will predominantly not require sites on traditional estates.
402 The suggestion of adding the detail of all sectors to be supported is not accepted. The scope of economic development is clarified by the recommendation to relate enabled development to the NPPF definition. Furthermore Policy ST14 is strategic in nature on which basis it provides support for economic development and the diversification of the rural economy. The level of sought detail is inappropriate and is otherwise provided by Development Management policies. For clarification however an extended reference to land based industries could be added within the supporting text at paragraph 6.12.
403 The need to integrate uses and locate employment development so as to maximise opportunities for sustainable transport modes and enable living and working in the same area is supported and recognised. Policy ST02 sets out the means by which the environmental footprint of new development will be minimised, including by the delivery of a balanced mix of uses in appropriate locations, which will contribute to reducing the need to travel. The integration of uses within and across new and exiting development and the location of allocated sites are considered in detail within the town specific sections and Part 3 of the Local Plan. No amendment to Policy ST14 is considered necessary.
404 The alternative use of allocated employment sites or the change of use on existing or vacated employment sites is addressed in Policy DM10: Safeguarding Employment Development. Employment sites are a significant and valuable resource and it is important that such are protected where they remain an asset in support of the local economy. Nevertheless Policy DM10 allows for the release of poorly performing employment sites and it is on the basis of the Development Management policy that proposals should be assessed. It is recommended that ST14 (1) is amended to remove the qualification of “suitability located”.
405 The need for an additional reference to inward investment and start ups within Policy ST14 is considered unnecessary. Inward Investment is referenced at ST14 (3) and new business formations at ST14 (4). The Local Plan provides the framework for employment opportunities for new, expanding and relocating business. The detail of how business will be encouraged and supported will be provided through the Northern Devon Economic Strategy. A reference to new business is however considered appropriate to add to the strategic objectives at paragraph 6.2.
406 The need to correctly reference the Local Economic Partnership and its role is accepted and correction where appropriate is recommended.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 103 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
407 The importance of improving ICT connectively is recognised as important to the economic prospects of the area, a reference to which could usefully be added in the supporting text to Policy ST14. Devon County Council in commenting on Policy ST08 sought a reference to the Connecting Devon and Somerset Programme which will form part of the proposed additional text.
Agreed Actions
1. The definition of economic development will reflect that provided by the NPPF and be applied to employment allocations except where locational objectives are established by the town vision or site characteristics determine the need for a restricted range of economic uses. 2. Amend the supporting text to Policy ST14 to reference the short and long term economic drivers as indicted in the draft Economic and Housing Study. 3. Amend the economic vision and related themes to reflect those contained within the Northern Devon Economic Development Strategy. 4. Reposition the “Enabling a Vibrant Economy” before “A World Class Environment” as section 5 of Part 1 of the Local Plan. 5. Amend 6.2 (b) to refer to the establishment of new business and (g) to reference horticulture, forestry and other land based industries. 6. Amend the employment land supply, reflecting the review of suitable and available sites to better relate the employment land release to identified need. 7. At paragraph 6.12, add an extended reference to land based industries. 8. Amend ST14 (1) to remove the qualification of “suitability located”. 9. Amend paragraph 6.9, provide an explanation of “locally determined growth aspirations” and cross reference to the town strategies. 10. Amend the supporting text to Policy ST14 to reference the importance of securing improvements in ICT. ST15: Town, District and Village Centres
Total number of responses 33
Total number of responses in support 5
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 7
Total number of responses in objection 11
Total number of responses providing a general comment 10
Table 5.19
408 Comments made in response to Policy ST15 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
Summary of Key Issues
409 Comments made in response to Policy ST15 and supporting text:
Support retail growth commensurate to the role of the various centres; avoid the creation of a destination that would encourage unnecessary car borne trips. ST15 (1); reference Barnstaple as a strategic retail and cultural centre. ST15 (1); clarification of the “strategic site” reference to ensure it relates to town centre sites.
104 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
ST15 (4) support allowing for continued appropriate development in Local Centres. In preparing Neighbourhood Development Plans Parish Councils must recognise that village centre viability must be supported by housing and employment allocations. ST15 (4) reword, avoid the impression that Local Authorities will financially support community services and facilities. Plan positively to deliver growth. Conflict of statuses in the Local Plan. The changing nature of the high street must be taken into account in planning for its future. Explain how Local Centres are defined. Designate Roundswell as a District Centre, allow for the protection and enhancement of the centres role to serve the areas future population. Extend policy protection to cover new district or local centres where brought forward as part of planned development, including the new neighbourhood hub at Ilfracombe. Biased towards Barnstaple in respect of leisure and economic allocations. No discussion of alternative options. Only minimal growth is proposed at Bideford; leakage to Barnstaple will increase and existing trader will suffer. Retail growth is required to provide for town centre vibrancy and to support significant housing growth. Recognise all villages to allow for modest growth; avoid stifling the rural economy. The Local Plan focuses on B uses; it does not properly support rural business, tourism, innovation and live/work units. Great Torrington performs poorly against its designation within the service hierarchy. Bratton Fleming should be defined as a Village, not a Local Centre, ; limited services for a “centre” and too much development will reduce its vibrancy. Proposed, retail allocation at Sydney House Car Park, Great Torrington will support the retail and service role of the town. Redevelopment providing regeneration will improve functionality and encourage intensification of use. The Queen Street/Bear Street retail development could be counter productive, depleting the town’s character; resist out of town centre outlets and support the high street. Correct retail study inaccurate (butchers in South Molton) and referenced quantitative capacity in Barnstaple. Highlight opportunities provided by the refurbishment and expansion of Green Lanes.
Officer Comments and Recommendations
410 The Policy ST15: Town, District and Village Centres generated 33 comments; 15% in support, 21% in support subject to amendment, 33% in objection and 30% provided a general comment.
411 The suggestion that Barnstaple is identified as a strategic retail and cultural centre is accepted. The joint Retail and Leisure Study recognises the importance of Barnstaple in this respect and the Barnstaple focused strategy supports the maintenance and enhancement of the centre’s strategic role in respect of retail and cultural activities.
412 For the avoidance of doubt in respect of the “strategic sites” referenced at ST15 (1), clarification is recommended for the location of such sites. The site to which the reference is directed is the Queen Street/Bear Street site (Policy BAR11); Policy ST15 could be amended to clearly refer to investments that are within the town centre.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 105 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
413 The suggestion that ST15 (4) indicates that local authorities will financially support community facilities and services is not accepted; the phrasing is considered to offer clear guidance. However, to further support the policy position paragraph 6.24 could be amended to confirm this and provide a reference to the protection from loss of important services and facilities and with a cross-reference to Policy ST21: Community Services and Facilities.
414 The status of the identified centres within the service centre hierarchy is reflective of the findings of the Retail and Leisure Study, with the additional recognition of the strategic roles undertaken by Barnstaple and Bideford. With regard to the “conflict of settlement status” a variance occurs between ST15 and ST06: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon, with regard to Northam but such is required and relates to purpose of each policy. For development purposes, to meet the area’s overall needs and having regard to the range and level of contained services, Northam (as a whole) is defined as a Main Centre in Policy ST06. Its component settlements do not individually contain town centres. The range of services and facilities separately within Northam, Appledore and Westward Ho! are limited in scope and scale and could not be considered perform a town centre function. The differential between Policies ST06 and ST16 does not represent an inconsistency within the Local Plan on which basis no amendment to policy is recommended.
415 The suggestion to designate Roundswell as a District Centre is not accepted. The range of uses expected to be present within a District Centre is not available at Roundswell. The Retail and Leisure Study provides guidance that such centres would ”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.” Accepting that not all the listed facilities would be present, the important consideration is that there would be a range of provisions beyond retail. No amendment is recommended to define Roundswell as a District Centre.
416 Concern is raised regarding a retail focus on Barnstaple, which is suggested will be to the detriment of Bideford. The retail strategy for Bideford and Barnstaple reflects the outcomes and preferred strategy and needs identified through the Retail and Leisure Study, taking account of the role of the respective settlements, planned growth and town centre focused opportunities. The town centre allocation at Barnstaple is again reflective of evidential outcomes and appropriately provides for identified needs in a town centre location. The limited extent of identified retail need for Bideford does not necessitate further retail allocation. The opportunity for additional retail development will be considered on the basis of Polices DM16: Town Centres and DM17: Development Outside Town Centres.
417 The issue of the definition of economic development is discussed at paragraph 2 above. Clarification is recommended as to the scope of enabling development within the range of “economic development” to reflect the NPPF definition.
418 Growth at villages is currently defined by Policy ST06, the detail of which will be established in Part 3 of the Local Plan. The expressed concern in respect of Bratton Fleming is noted but the scale of development at ST06 rural settlements will generally reflect local aspirations, which will allow for a range of growth opportunities. The overall objective for the rural area is however to allow for growth, at least to meet local needs and where promoted from a community basis to enable growth to meet aspirations. The approach is driven by the need to encourage active villages. In the rural area development will be focused at defined settlements but as set out in consideration of Policy ST08: Rural Area Strategy, the level at which development is to be enabled is recommended to be extended to Countryside Settlements.
106 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
419 The Queen Street/Bear Street site provides a town centre development opportunity to meet identified retail needs. No alternative sequentially preferable sites have been identified. Detailed site proposals are provide in Policy BAR11, and no policy change is recommended. Edge of centre and out of town proposals will be considered against the NPPF compliant policy DM17 which seeks to protect town centre viability and vitality.
420 The retail allocation proposed at Great Torrington at the Sydney House Car Park is not justified in respect of accommodating identified need. The Retail and Leisure Study determined there to be a combined need of less than 1000sqm of convenience and comparison floorspace in Great Torrington and Holsworthy. The identified site is predominantly within the town centre and any proposal coming forward would be considered on the basis of relevant Development Management Policies.
Agreed Actions
1. Amend the policy title to: Town, District and Local Centres. 2. Amend ST15 (1): additionally refer to Barnstaple as a Strategic Cultural Centre and amend to clarify that the referenced strategic sites are within the town centre. 3. Amend 6.24 by adding a reference to the protection from loss of important services and facilities and cross-reference with ST21. 4. Amend the definition of “economic development” within the Glossary to clarify the scope of enabling development to reflect the NPPF definition. 5. Amend Policy ST08 (3) to be extended to include Countryside Settlements within the identified parts of the rural area where economic development is enabled. Policy ST16: Sustainable Tourism
Total number of responses 19
Total number of responses in support 10
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 3
Total number of responses in objection 5
Total number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.20
421 Comments made in response to Policy ST16 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
Summary of Key Issues
422 Comments made in response to Policy ST16, including supporting text:
ENPA support aims of policy Christie Devon Estate support policy UNESCO – support a dedicated Biosphere Reserve centre Amend Policy wording to “must not” rather than “should not” G.Torrington Town Council – Encourage year round tourism activities and move away from seasonal employment as far as possible. The most successful tourist areas cater for wet weather activities
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 107 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Development should contribute to the attractive landscape of northern Devon Equestrian tourism is green (sustainable) Include provision to expand the Milkyway Adventure Park and Downland Holiday Village. This development is well placed and will bring increased income to the local communities What is “high quality”? there is no support for the expansion of existing facilities or new small scale facilities in rural areas. Policy is not clear and is too subjective. Where is the evidence base that says only “high quality” facilities are needed or defines them? Support quality rather than quantity approach to tourism ND+ ‘High quality tourism’ and ‘sustainable tourism’ need to be defined and should not preclude seasonal development potential e.g. camping ND+ tourism market is very varied and there is a need to support all segments. Logical to prefer high quality development but not to exclude developments that cater for traditional family holidays, a key market Tourist related development helps to underpin the quality of the local environment and facilitate enjoyment of it both by local people and visitors alike Policy should emphasis the role of cultural tourism which exploits the great depth of cultural and artistic opportunities in North Devon Industrial sized wind turbines are an eyesore and will adversely affect tourism and increase the likelihood of sleep deprivation. Interested to see how wind turbines in close proximity affect income from tourism Concerned large hotels profits do not benefit local area. Better to support and in some cases sponsor local resident tourist businesses No mention of the need for Holsworthy – Bude cycleway. This would enhance trade and help the regeneration of Holsworthy
Other Key Issues identified
423 Relevant issues were raised in discussion of comments received to other policies:
DM14: Tourism and Leisure Attractions; and DM15: Tourism Accommodation ST08: Rural Area Strategy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy
Officer Comments and Recommendations
424 Policy ST16 received relatively few comments albeit of the 19 representations recorded, 13 either supported the policy or supported it subject to amendments.
425 The phrase “high quality development“ caused the greatest level of debate. A couple of representations (including North Devon Plus) requested the Local Plan to define the phrase “high quality”. As per paragraphs 6.28 and 6.29, policy ST16 encourages qualitative improvements, which could include the expansion and diversification of existing facilities. The delivery of a quality product through improved standards in the quality and range of accommodation and attractions is an important element in achieving sustainable development. The Local Plan seeks to maximise the benefits of tourism (income and employment opportunities) whilst minimising the impact on the environment. Tourist development is supported where it enhances the area’s tourism “offer”. The policy does not prevent more traditional tourism development although in summary, the local plan is seeking quality over quantity. The majority of respondents support this principle.
108 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
426 It is argued Policy ST16 does not make clear whether the local plan supports existing facilities or new small scale facilities in rural areas. It is accepted Policy ST16 should cross refer to policies DM14 Tourism and Leisure Attractions and DM15 Tourism Accommodation to make clear the development of new and the expansion of existing tourism, visitor or leisure facilities, within or adjacent to defined settlements (ST06) is supported. There is further benefit to cross refer to policies ST08 Rural Area Strategy and ST09 Coast and Estuary Strategy; both policies provide further guidance to support “high quality tourism development” and expansion of existing tourism facilities in appropriate locations.
427 A representation recommends that Policy ST16 should emphasis the role of cultural tourism, which exploits the great depth of cultural and artistic opportunities in North Devon. It recognised that northern Devon offers a diverse range of tourist destinations and opportunities. It is accepted the policy could cross refer to individual town strategies where they have specifically identified opportunities to improve and develop their cultural and tourist offer. For example the spatial vision for Ilfracombe identifies opportunities to enhance and use cultural assets to aid regeneration.
428 A representation more suited to policy ST10 Transport, is assigned to policy ST16. It refers to the inclusion of a Holsworthy to Bude cycleway. It is suggested this would enhance trade and help the regeneration of Holsworthy. This will be raised with Devon County Council along with recommendations identified in the recent ST10 Transport Strategy summary paper, to discuss opportunities to create new and enhance existing recreational paths and green infrastructure across the northern Devon area.
429 It is stated wind turbines adversely affect tourism in northern Devon. There is limited evidence to conclude whether there are significant long-term impacts of wind turbines on tourism. However wind turbine applications will be determined on their individual merits, of which the impact on tourism may be one of many material considerations.
Agreed Actions
1. Cross-refer to policies DM14 and DM15 in the reasoned justification. 2. Amend Policy ST16 to cross-refer to policies ST08 Rural Area Strategy, ST10 Coast and Estuary Strategy and town strategies 3. Ensure Bude to Holsworthy cycle/foot path is raised as part of ongoing discussions with Devon County Council about future cycle/foot paths across northern Devon, with potential amendment to paragraph 4.78 to refer to an aspirational Bude to Holsworthy cycle/foot path within the strategic green infrastructure network 4. Amend ST16 to ‘… the natural and historic environmental assets of northern Devon’.
Chapter 7: Delivering a Balanced Local Housing Market (introduction)
Total number of responses 150
Total number of responses in support 29
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 33
Total number of responses in objection 55
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 109 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Total number of responses providing a general comment 33
Table 5.21
430 Comments made in response to Chapter 7 can be found via the online planning portal
Summary of Issues
431 Comments made in response to wider chapter content:
Questions the absence of a 40% affordable requirement at Larkbear. Development should satisfy local needs and aspirations not encourage inward migration or second home ownership. Inappropriate use of the housing stock which is adequate. How capital receipts from the New Homes Bonus, land sales and Right to Buy are to be used to stimulate and sustain housing regeneration activity needs to be set out in the Local Plan. Absence of policy consideration for the housing needs of an aging population; a shortfall of specialist accommodation will result if not properly planned for. An additional policy relating to specialist accommodation for the elderly is proposed. State that development should not be allowed on flood plains. Meeting local housing needs is often not meet by larger developers. Few small to medium scale allocations appropriate to local developers. Support objectives to deliver an appropriate scale of housing by type and location to meet needs and demands. Support objectives; recognising the need for a range of house types to support lifetime needs. Be explicit in stating that all housing needs will be met and the delivery of market housing is beneficial. Support the objective of a balanced housing market but the scale of planned housing is excessive, the supply should related to need. The strategic objectives should be clear in that objectively defined housing needs will be fully met. Add to the objectives a specific reference to the housing needs of an aging population; reflect the outcomes of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2012). Questions how the objectives will be delivered. Support the use of the update the Strategic Housing Market Assessment to inform plan content. Notes the use of the update the Strategic Housing Market Assessment to inform plan content
Officer Analysis on Comments Associated to wider Chapter Content
432 The representations offering support to the Chapter 7, Delivering a Balanced Local Housing Market are noted, including those that support the objectives of delivering the appropriate scale of housing to meet identified needs and demands, along with recognition of the need for a range of dwelling types, sizes and tenures. The support for meeting lifetime needs is also noted, as is the use of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update as the basis for identifying the full, objectively assessed needs and demands for housing.
433 A respondent has questioned how the objectives will be met. It is considered that the policy framework provided by the Local Plan as a whole, enables the necessary opportunities for the objectives to be met. The Policies are predicated on the positive delivery of development to meet identified needs and demands, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework.
110 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
434 It has been suggested through representation that the scale of planned housing development advocated through the Local Plan is excessive and that it should simply be seeking to meet identified needs. The appropriate scale of housing growth is principally considered through Policy ST07: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon and this matter is considered in detail in response to representations received on that Policy. It is however disputed that the scale of housing growth planned for delivery through the Local Plan is excessive. The draft Local Plan is seeking delivery of housing in the range of approximately 16,000 – 17,000 dwellings, which compare to a figure of 14,520 dwellings that equates to the full, objectively assessed need and demand for housing for North Devon and Torridge. It is recognised that the scale of planned housing is above the minimum required to meet the baseline level of identified need and demand, however the modest addition above this baseline it is considered appropriate, and relates to an intervention strategy associated to North Devon. Such a level has been established having regard to a range of matters; and fundamentally seeks to balance delivery of housing to meet identified needs and demands with other considerations such as economic opportunities, infrastructure capacity, environmental sensitivities and community aspirations. The modest addition also adds a level of flexibility and helps to manage the risk that some development sites may not come forward for delivery as anticipated.
435 A respondent has suggested that the Local Plan should only seek to meet ‘local’ needs and demands for housing and not encourage inward migration or second home ownership. It is considered that the Local Plan does not seek to encourage inward migration nor second home ownership. It does however take account of such matters when establishing the level of housing that it is necessary to plan for. The National Planning Policy Framework requires that local planning authorities seek to meet the full, objectively assessed needs and demands for housing. It is established practice that in identifying the full, objectively assessed needs and demands for housing that all sources of need and demand are considered. The exclusion of consideration of housing need and demand generated through sources such as in-migration would not be considered robust or compliant with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, and as such, it is likely that such an approach would lead to the Local Plan being found unsound at Examination.
436 Representation was offered in response to the draft Local Plan that advocated that the existing housing stock is appropriate to meet future housing needs and demands but it is the current use of it that is inappropriate. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update(23) does recognise that the existing housing stock is not being used effectively, with many larger family homes being underused by ageing residents. There is however a fundamental issue of imbalance within the housing stock, with the profile of housing stock not equating to the demographic profile of existing or future residents. The Local Plan does seek to meet this imbalance by influencing the size, type and tenure of dwellings through Policy ST17. Whilst this imbalance has an influence on the type and size of dwellings that are required, it does not preclude the need for additional housing. The need for additional housing is unequivocally demonstrated through evidence and is a consequence of in-migration vs out-migration, births vs deaths and falling household sizes. As such, the suggestion that the existing housing stock is appropriate to meet future needs and demands is rejected.
437 A respondent has suggested that the meeting of housing needs is not often addressed by larger developers. The draft Local Plan seeks to ensure that development proposals respond to evidence of housing need and demand. Policy ST17 seeks to influence the dwelling mix in terms of size, type and tenure to do so, whilst Policies ST18, DM20 and DM21 seek to secure a range of affordable housing to meet housing needs. As such, it is considered that the draft Local Plan provides the appropriate framework to ensure overall delivery of housing to meet housing needs and demands.
23 Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 111 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
438 It has been noted through response that there are few small to medium development opportunities enabled through the draft Local Plan appropriate to local house builders. The scale of housing growth planned for through the Local Plan has demanded the release of larger development sites that are likely to attract ‘larger’ major house builders. The approach of allocating larger sites has also been followed to enable development to better contribute to the provision of supporting infrastructure and facilities which is not as readily deliverable through the use of smaller sites. This is however recognised and a number of additional ‘smaller sites’ are proposed for allocation, particularly within Torridge and ‘Part 3’ Village Plans, within the revised draft of the Local Plan. Further to these opportunities, the Local Plan will enable development of unidentified sites within settlements, so called ‘windfall sites’ that are likely to be generally smaller in nature and more attractive to local developers. A range of small and medium sized sites are also provided within the committed site supply and those which form part of the non-allocated land supply.
439 A respondent has called for changes to the objectives to be explicit about the intention to fully meet the objectively assessed housing needs and to state that the delivery of market housing is beneficial. It is considered that the objectives appropriately portray the commitment of the Local Plan to deliver the scale of development required to meet the total level of full, objectively assessed need and demand for housing. This commitment is then taken through into Policy ST07: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon. In terms of the request to state that the delivery of market housing is beneficial, such a statement within the Local Plan is neither considered appropriate or likely to add value to the policy framework. Whilst it is accepted that the delivery of market housing can have positive benefits, this can be the case for many forms of development. It is not considered necessary for the Local Plan to explicitly state the benefits of particular forms of development.
440 Representation has sought that the Local Plan should explicitly state that development will not be allowed on flood plains. It is considered neither necessary nor appropriate to make such a statement within the housing policies of the Local Plan. National planning policy(24) and associated technical guidance(25) provides detailed policy and guidance to manage development in areas of flood risk. Furthermore, Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change provides detail within the Local Plan to manage development or sites that might be subject to flood risk.
441 Calls are made through representation to add a specific objective about meeting the needs of an ageing population. It is not considered necessary to add a specific objective on this basis. The objective that seeks to ensure ‘a choice of decent, well-designed housing for the range of needs of our existing and future communities’ is considered to appropriately cover this matter. Whilst it is recognised that meeting the housing needs of an ageing population is a key task for the Local Plan, it is not the only sector of northern Devon’s communities that require their housing needs to be met and it is not considered necessary to specifically identify each within the objectives. Policy ST17: A Balanced Housing Market
Total number of responses 35
Total number of responses in support 9
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 7
Total number of responses in objection 9
24 National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012) 25 Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012)
112 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Total number of responses providing a general comment 10
Table 5.22
442 Comments made in response to Policy ST17 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
Summary of Key Issues
Policy aims are supported In providing for housing needs take account of underused and empty stock. Provide smaller accommodate attractive to aging residents to allow family homes to become available. Encourage development that can sustain local employment and provide a long term future for the community. Support rural growth to sustain services and facilities for the area to remain active. Community engagement in determining appropriate growth levels is vital. Policy inconsistency; planned growth at South Molton for example is not commensurate to the exiting community or have regard the existing scale and mix of housing stock. Support policy objectives but developer’s proposals will not always bring forward suitable schemes. Policy implementation will only be achieved if local authorities initiate development. Affordable housing requirements must be based on robust evidence to avoid provided dwellings being unaffordable or vacant. Affordable housing must address local needs. Local needs must be demonstrated, not left to developers. Housing Needs Surveys are required for all defined villages. Provide support to parish councils wishing to undertake survey work. (2)(a)-(d) supporting text clarification required as to how the housing sub-market will influence dwelling size, mix and dwelling type.(3) mainly unnecessary as the Plan should be read as a whole. Support the objective of a balanced housing market. Add a reference that development should be viable. (4) is assumed to include consideration for older persons, but a specific policy or reference to the needs of an aging population is required to identify the wide ranging issues associated with a larger proportion of older people in need of accommodation, care and other facilities which cannot be addressed under the wider "residential" heading. Complex needs and support will vary considerably within the age group; a holistic approach to different types of housing and care provision from the public and private sector and across all types of tenure will be required. General policy support but little indication of how development proposals will respond to the needs of the elderly or vulnerable. Rejection of the need for all development to contain affordably housing. Increase housing numbers and allow for development in all villages. Support the provision of additional residential development as provided for in Policy ST17 and in the requirement to contribute to specialist needs. A non strategic site is proposed to contribute to the policy objectives. Questions the concept of “rebalancing”, the issue of fully meeting objectively defined needs requires no further explanation. Questions rebalancing communities and the means by which the housing stock mix will be affected, suggests such represents social engineering and beyond the scope of planning. Allow the market to deliver what is required to meet objectively defined needs. To respond to need it may be more appropriate to complement not copy the existing housing mix. Paragraph 7.14; absence of evidence to support lifetime home requirements.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 113 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Paragraph 7.16; extra car housing, a C2 use, as appeal evidenced does not have to provide affordable housing. Paragraph 7.16; support recognition of specific accommodation requirements for the elderly; the support given to achieve viability of development proposals and the recognition that extra-care housing needs to be provided in schemes of sufficient size to be effective and viable. Paragraph 7.17; highlight the need for local services and infrastructure to support independent living. Where an imbalance of housing stock to occupancy exists resulting in a block on the release of family homes, evidence of the needs/aspirations of elderly residents to encourage should be sought to help facilitate a better home needs/capacity balance. Concerned at policy intent to direct provision of types of development that the industry may not want to deliver. Negative consequences on delivery may result. Use empty homes to house the homeless.
Officer Analysis
443 Policy ST17: A Balanced Housing Market along with its supporting text was subject to 35 representations. There was a relatively balanced response amongst all categories of representation with 26% offering support, 20% support subject to amendment, 26% providing an objection and 28% offering a general comment. A broad range of issues were raised and each are considered in turn below.
444 The general support offered towards Policy ST17 related to the objective of delivering a balanced housing market and the principle of seeking delivery of specialist accommodation are noted.
445 The promotion of a site to help contribute to the delivery of policy objectives is noted. The specific identified site is not considered directly in relation to Policy ST17 but rather in association with the analysis of the representations received in relation to the settlement where the site is proposed – namely Barnstaple.
446 It is recognised that underused and empty housing stock provides an opportunity to help towards meeting housing needs. The Councils are fully supportive of such an approach and of making the most effective use of existing housing stock. Both Councils have adopted strategies(26) for managing the issue of empty homes and both seek to take a proactive approach to address the problem of long-term empty properties and aim to bring them back into use. Such strategies are supported by a range of initiatives(27) and the approach accords with the National Planning Policy Framework(28). It is considered that the strategies offer the appropriate mechanism for managing the issue of empty homes. Whilst bringing empty homes back into use does offer the opportunity to help address housing need, the scale of delivery from such initiatives is likely to be limited in comparison to the scale of overall housing need. Furthermore, it is not possible to establish with any certainty the number of empty homes that are likely to be brought into use across the Plan period. To this end it is not considered appropriate to quantify within the Local Plan the scale of contribution that brining empty homes back into use is likely to achieve. The potential delivery from this source will add a level of flexibility to the Local Plan housing strategy, reflecting the potential that there is a risk that some identified sources within the Plan will not deliver the scale of housing as expected. To this end, whilst it is not considered appropriate to quantify the scale of delivery that might be possible from bringing
26 Empty Homes Strategy 2012-2015 (Torridge District Council, December 2012) – Available at: http://www.torridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=10254&p=0 & Private Sector Housing Renewal Strategy 2012-2015 (North Devon Council, June 2013) – Available at: http://www.northdevon.gov.uk/ndc_private_sector_housing_renewal_strategy.pdf 27 Empty Property Action Groups, Loans to enable works to being homes back into use, etc. 28 Paragraph 51 (National Planning Policy Framework, Department for Communities and Local Government, March 2012)
114 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
empty homes back into use, it is considered that reference should be made within the supporting text of the Local Plan to recognise that brining empty homes back into use can contribute towards meeting housing needs and also to make reference to the empty homes strategies of both Councils and recognise the supporting role that planning can play in achieving the aims of these strategies.
447 Calls have also been made through representation for the Local Plan to specify that empty homes should be utilised to house the homeless. It is accepted that there is benefit in bringing empty homes back into use and it is recognised that these offer a potential supply of housing that can contribute towards meeting housing need and demand. Whilst the Local Plan can support the objective of bringing empty homes back into use, it is not considered the appropriate platform to dictate the end use of the properties. Whilst the principle of bringing the properties into use to house the homeless is a laudable proposition, such opportunities are better driven by empty homes strategies and such like.
448 In respect of the underuse of existing dwelling stock, this is an acute issue recognised by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)(29). It is particularly associated to the ageing population in North Devon and Torridge who tend to be residing in homes that are significantly larger than their housing needs require, leading to the issue of ‘house blocking’. One of the significant policy intentions of ST17 is to help address this imbalance of housing needs and demands versus existing housing stock. In doing so, it should help to reduce so-called ‘house blocking’ and hence deliver more effective use of the existing housing stock. This should be achieved by freeing up larger housing for families by delivering smaller and more adaptable or specialist housing attractive to the more elderly population. Furthermore, evidence indicates a need for additional small family housing to meet the needs of newly forming households and such need is also not adequately met by the existing housing stock. It is not considered necessary to make any changes to Policy ST17 to take account of underused housing although there may be merit in making reference to such matters within revised supporting text (paragraph 7.8).
449 A respondent has questioned the necessity for much of Part (3) of Policy ST17 on the basis that many elements are covered by other policies within the Local Plan and that, as the plan should be read as a whole, it is simply introducing repetition. Respondents have recognised that the scale of growth proposed through the strategy for some settlements is inconsistent with this advocated policy approach, citing South Molton as an example. These points are noted and considered to have validity. Policies ST06, 07 & 08 set out the principles for the appropriate scale and nature of development that should be considered at individual settlements. These policies, coupled with Policy ST04: Improving the Quality of Development are deemed to sufficiently cover such matters. As such, on balance, it is recommended that Part (3) of Policy ST17 should be deleted.
450 Concerns are raised by respondents as to whether development proposals are realistically going to deliver in respect to the objectives of the Policy. The Councils are seeking to enshrine the requirements within a Strategic Policy of the Local Plan. If supported when examined by an independent Planning Inspector and subsequently adopted by the Councils, the Policy will become part of the adopted development plan and hence be able to be afforded significant weight when determining relevant planning applications. As such, the Policy should be able to bring to bear strong influence on the shape of development proposals. It is suggested that the policy goals will only be achieved if the Councils initiate development. This is disputed on the basis of the above, and in any case, across the plan period, there is not a realistic prospect that the Councils will be able to initiate any significant proportion of the residential development requirements likely to be taken forward. The concerns are however noted.
29 Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 115 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
451 A range of representations make reference to affordable housing and raise the importance of requirements being based upon robust evidence of housing need and that proposals seek to meet identified local needs. This is raised in relation to ensuring that newly provided dwellings are not unaffordable or left vacant. This is noted. This is not a matter covered by Policy ST17 but is rather more relevant to Policy ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing, along with associated Policies DM20: Affordable Housing on Development Sites and DM21: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites. In general terms the need for proposals to respond to identified housing need is considered by Part (5) of Policy ST18. With regard to the justification for the exceptional release of land to deliver additional affordable housing the matter is covered by Part (c) of Policy DM21. As such, it is not considered necessary to make any changes to Policy ST17 or its supporting text in response to this matter.
452 Calls are made to reference development viability within the Policy. Concerns are raised that the imposition of particular housing mix, in order to rebalance the housing market, may impact on the viability, and hence the deliverability, of individual development proposals. This concern is supported and it is recommended that reference to development viability is incorporated into an additional sub-element of Part (2) of Policy ST17 with associated consequential changes to the supporting text.
453 Part (4) of Policy ST17 is intended to offer a positive policy framework to support the delivery of specialist accommodation for all sectors of the community including the ageing population. Representations were received that highlight that such accommodation is different to standard residential accommodation and this is noted and supported. It is considered that Part (4) of Policy ST17 does offer this recognition and is framed to respond to such matters. There are calls that for a specific policy or reference to be added to Policy ST17 with respect to the ageing population. It is considered that Part (4) of Policy ST17 adequately covers such matters although it is recommended that this element of Policy is restructured for clarity. Responding to the specific housing needs and demands of the communities of North Devon and Torridge is an a thread running through the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. The Plan responds to the specific needs of the elderly and vulnerable throughout, with particular reference within Part (4) of ST17 which supports the provision of specialist accommodation and Part (3) of Policy ST04 which seeks provision of a proportion of dwellings that meet Lifetime Homes standard. The need for a holistic approach to housing to meet the requirements of the aging population is recognised and Policy ST17 is framed to ensure this is achieved.
454 The proposition of not requiring all housing proposals to contribute to the delivery of affordable housing is rejected. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update identifies an overwhelming need for additional affordable housing over the period up to 2031. Allied to this, the National Planning Policy Framework(30) indicates that local planning authorities should be ensuring that the Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area. The Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge(31) identifies that it is financially viable for all housing development delivering net new dwellings to contribute towards the provision of affordable housing. As such it is considered appropriate to seek affordable housing provision, either physical or in the form of financial contributions, from all development proposals that deliver a net increase in the number of dwellings.
455 The Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update has been used to establish an objectively assessed level of housing need and demand for North Devon and Torridge over the plan period (2011 – 2031). The draft Local Plan is predicated on the premise of meeting or exceeding this scale of housing growth over the plan period. It is recognised that the scale of housing
30 Paragraph 47, National Planning Policy Framework (Department for Communities and Local Government, March 2012) 31 Adams Integra, September 2013
116 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
growth planned for delivery within Torridge will need to increase from the figure of 7,600 identified within the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan - Consultation Draft (January 2013) to 7,864 to reflect the housing requirements of the final SHMA(32). The matter of the appropriate scale of planned housing growth for North Devon and Torridge is considered in detail in response to the representations received in relation to Policy ST07: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon. The comments stating that community engagement in determining appropriate growth levels are noted. It is recognised that community engagement is a key aspect of plan making. The appropriate levels of growth for individual communities have been shaped by community engagement, such as earlier stages of formal consultation and engagement through stakeholder workshops. Community views are however only one strand of evidence that the local planning authority needs to consider when developing the Local Plan and levels of housing growth are also informed by a range of other matters such as evidence of land availability, housing need and demand and physical or infrastructure constraints. The scale of housing growth in the rural communities is being directly shaped by local communities through the process of engaging with Parish Councils and seeking them to directly plan for the development that they wish to see come forward.
456 Respondents have raised the importance of supporting rural growth to help sustain rural services and facilities. The Consultation Draft of the Local Plan already sought to direct a significant proportion of planned housing growth to the rural communities of northern Devon, seeking provision of approximately 2,200 dwellings, focused on development at Local Centres and defined Villages. In doing so, the strategy has been formulated, at least in part, on the premise of supporting existing rural services and facilities. The matter of enabling housing development in all rural communities, rather than restricting development to identified Local Centres and defined Villages is principally covered through consideration of representations on other more relevant Strategic Policies of the draft Plan; in particular Policy ST06: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon. The outcome of this consideration has resulted in support being given to the principle of extending the range of settlements whereby the provision of housing development is enabled to bring in a tier of smaller settlements – with housing development to be enabled subject to a range of criteria.
457 The policy is founded on the principle of delivering a balanced local housing market. This builds upon the National Planning Policy Framework provision that requires local planning authorities ‘…to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area…’ and also reflects the findings of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment which cites the need to redress the imbalanced housing stock. Representation has been received questioning the need for the Local Plan to reframe the National Planning Policy Framework requirement, advocating that the principle of fully meeting objectively assessed needs satisfactorily covers this topic without further explanation. This is disputed twofold. Firstly, whilst the NPPF places obligations upon local planning authorities to plan to meet the objectively assessed needs for housing, it does not follow to impose such requirements onto individual development proposals. The purpose of Policy ST17 is therefore to provide tools to ensure that proposals deliver appropriate housing to meet these objectively assessed needs. Secondly, it is considered that framing it under the principle of delivering a balanced local housing market is important to reflect the locally distinctive need to address the imbalance in the existing housing stock versus the identified future housing needs. As such, whilst it is recognised that the policy is intended to deal with the issue of meeting objectively assessed needs, it is considered appropriate to reframe this under the guise of a balanced local housing market.
32 Figures within the consultation draft were based upon the emerging findings of the SHMA which indicated a requirement of approximately 7,600 dwellings for Torridge.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 117 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
458 Parts (2)(a) – (d) of Policy ST17 are intended to implement these aspirations in terms of the mix of dwellings, in terms of size, type and tenure to respond to local circumstances. Respondents have questioned the practical implementation of this element of the policy and question whether the identified criteria will in reality be able to influence the dwelling mix of proposals. It is considered that this element of Policy does have value and that it should be possible for all development proposals to respond to its requirements. Each element is a sound planning principle and an important objective for the Local Plan is to seek delivery of housing that meets identified needs.
459 For clarity and to aid delivery, it is suggested that the principles set out within paragraph 7.12 of the supporting text are brought within the scope of Part (2) of the Policy as an additional element, placing into Policy the requirement that major development proposals (i.e. for 10 or more new dwellings) provide a proportionate housing mix that responds to the identified housing needs and demands for the sub-market area within which the development resides. This is a reintroduction into policy of the requirements set out within the pre-publication draft of the North Devon and Torridge Core Strategy. As such, it is recommended that the principles established in paragraph 7.12, of requiring major residential development schemes to provide a balanced and proportionate mix of dwelling types and tenures to reflect the identified housing needs and demands for the locality, are incorporated into Part (2) of Policy ST17.
460 A respondent has suggested that the policy, as framed, is tantamount to social engineering and that this is beyond the scope of planning. The representation advocated that the Local Plan should not attempt to influence development proposals in such a way but should rather allow the market to deliver what it believes is required to meet objectively assessed needs. It is however the role of planning to manage development; to ensure that development is achieved to meet the needs of present and future generations. The National Planning Policy Framework(33) advocates that local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on trends (demographic and market) along with the needs of different groups of the community and also identify the size, type tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations, reflecting local demand. It is considered that this element enables local planning authorities to seek to shape planning proposals for housing and Policy ST17 responds to this opportunity. It is not therefore considered that Policy ST17 goes beyond the remit of the planning system.
461 19. A respondent has suggested that a policy approach of complementing rather than copying the existing housing mix may be more appropriate. It is not the intention of the policy, as worded, to seek proposals to copy the existing housing mix in a locality. Rather, the policy is intended to seek proposals to respond to local circumstances and amongst other things, have regard to the scale and mix of existing housing in the locality. In doing so, it is intended to enable proposals to respond to matters such as deficiencies of particular housing products, or surpluses of particular dwellings. The policy does not require proposals to replicate the existing stock balance.
462 20. A respondent considers that the draft Local Plan has an absence of policy to properly plan for an ageing population and that this may lead to a shortfall in specialist accommodation. In their response they propose the provision of a new policy specifically on this matter and offer suggested policy wording:
“The Council will encourage the provision of specialist housing for older people across all tenures in sustainable locations. The Council aims to ensure that older people are able to secure and sustain independence in a home appropriate to their circumstances and to actively encourage developers to build new homes to the
33 Paragraph 50, National Planning Policy Framework (Department for Communities and Local Government, March 2012)
118 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
‘Lifetime Homes’ standard so that they can be readily adapted to meet the needs of those with disabilities and the elderly as well as assisting with independent living at home. The Council will, through the identification of sites, allowing for windfall developments, and / or granting of planning consents in sustainable locations, provide for the development of retirement accommodation, residential care homes, close care, Extra Care and assisted care housing and Continuing Care Retirement Communities.”
463 Part (4) of Policy ST17: A Balanced Local Housing Market is intended to address the specialist accommodation needs of northern Devon’s communities, including those of an ageing population. It is considered that the principles established through this policy are sound and do provide an appropriate framework to support the delivery of appropriate specialist accommodation. It is however considered that the proposed policy wording does have some merit and that Part (4) of Policy ST17 should be reviewed having regard to the intent of this proposed wording. It is however recommended that Part (4) of Policy ST17 element is revisited and reworded to aid clarity and to enhance deliverability of the Policy.
464 A key delivery mechanism for the provision of appropriate housing to meet the needs of this section of our community is the provision of Lifetime Homes. Policy ST04: Improving the Quality of New Development currently advocates that, on major developments, all affordable housing and 20% of market housing be constructed to meet the Lifetime Homes standard. It is considered that such policy provision would be better placed within ST17: A Balanced Local Housing Market and it is therefore recommended that the requirements for Lifetime Homes are relocated from Policy ST04 to ST17.
465 The Local Plan seeks delivery on housing developments of a proportion of new dwellings to meet the Lifetime Homes standard. A respondent has commented that they believe there is an absence of evidence to support such a requirement. This matter is covered by Policy ST04: Improving the Quality of Development but also forms a component of helping to deliver a Balanced Local Housing Market, being cited specifically in paragraph 7.14. The matter is considered in more detail in regard to Policy ST04 but in the interests of responding to the specific comment the relevant evidence supporting the requirements is detailed below. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update identified the growth in the older population as the greatest challenge facing the housing market in Northern Devon(34). The assessment notes(35) 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. This is a priority for the area…”. Requiring a proportion of new properties to meet the Lifetime Homes standard will help meet this requirement.
466 The representations offering support to the provision of specialist accommodation for the elderly is noted, along with the particular comments highlighting support for the recognition of providing schemes of a sufficient size to be viable and effective. The issue of whether extra-care housing should contribute towards the provision of affordable housing is raised by a respondent, citing that it should not do so on the basis of it falling into the Use Class C2: Residential Institutions rather than C3: Dwelling Houses; a position supported in their opinion by Appeal decisions. The reality is considered to be a somewhat more complex and a mixed picture, with various Appeal decisions and legal decisions supporting the position of extra care housing falling into C2 or C3 Use Classes, dependant upon a range of factors particular to an individual development proposal – such as the level of care and support being provided or the self-contained nature of the accommodation. In terms of the Local Plan, it is considered that the appropriate starting point for the consideration of extra-care housing proposals
34 Paragraph 7.7, Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012) 35 Paragraph 7.18, Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 119 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
is that they are deemed to fall within Use Class C3: Dwelling Houses and should therefore contribute towards the provision of affordable housing. It is recognised that there maybe occasions when individual proposals for extra-care housing are determined to fall within Use C2 rather than C3 and in such cases it is recognised that it would not be appropriate to require an affordable housing contribution on the basis of those units. It is recommended that the supporting text in paragraph 7.16 should be updated for clarity to reflect this qualification but also to note that the starting point for considering the required affordable housing contribution provided by extra-care proposals should be that they fall within Use Class C3.
467 The need for local services, facilities and infrastructure to be in place in communities to support independent living, as cited by a respondent is noted. The importance of these is recognised and the Local Plan seeks to have a positive affect on their provision. The Local Plan, through Policy ST22: Infrastructure, requires that infrastructure required to support development proposals is provided in step with the proposal. Furthermore, under Policy ST21: Community Services and Facilities, the Local Plan seeks to protect services and facilities from loss, whilst positively supporting the provision of new ones where justified. Part (4) of Policy ST17 seeks to ensure that proposals for new accommodation for members of the community that require care and specialist support are provided in locations that enables them to access the services and facilities that they are likely to require.
Additional Matters
468 Concerns have been raised by development management colleagues that Part (4) of Policy ST17 as drafted, might restrict opportunities for existing specialist accommodation developments to expand, by virtue of their location not offering access to the services and facilities that the policy currently requires residents to have access to. This concern is considered to be well founded however it is not thought necessary to make a revision to the Policy wording. Rather, it is recommended that reference is made within supporting text at paragraph 7.15 to highlight that access to such services could be alternatively afforded by sustainable transport provision.
469 A great deal of synergy can be found between Policies ST17 and ST18. In the interest of clarity and brevity it is advocated that an alternative hybrid Strategic Policy is introduced to the Local Plan, replacing Policy ST17 & ST18, combining the key content of both policies and having regard to the recommendations and proposed changes put forward in relation to the two individual Policies.
Agreed Actions
1. Add reference within Part (2) of Policy ST17 to require major developments (10 or more dwellings) to provide a proportionate mix of housing based upon assessment of objectively assessed needs for housing for the local housing sub-market. 2. Incorporate consideration of development viability into Part (2) of Policy ST17 with associated consequential changes to the supporting text. 3. Delete Part (3) of Policy ST17, on the basis that this element is appropriately considered in alternative Policies – ST04, 06, 07 & 08. 4. Restructure and re-draft Part (4) of Policy ST17 to aid clarity, breaking down into sub-elements - part (a), (b), etc. 5. Relocate the policy provisions for Lifetime Homes Standards from Policy ST04: Improving the Quality of New Development to Policy ST17: A Balanced Local Housing Market. 6. Make reference within the supporting text of the Local Plan to recognise that brining empty homes back into use can contribute towards meeting housing needs, to recognise the empty homes strategies of both Councils and reference the supporting role that planning can play in achieving the Council’s aims.
120 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
7. Revise supporting text at paragraph 7.8 to make reference to the policy objective of making better use of an underused dwelling stock. 8. Update the supporting text in paragraph 7.16 for clarity - to reflect that the starting point for considering the required affordable housing contribution provided by extra-care proposals should be that they fall within Use Class C3, considering however that dependant upon the individual circumstances of a proposal they may sometimes be deemed to fall under Use Class C2. 9. Revise supporting text at Paragraph 7.15 to highlight that access to services and facilities could be afforded by sustainable transport provision. 10. Introduce a new hybrid Strategic Policy in place of Policies ST17 & ST18, incorporating the key principles of the existing strategic policies and having regard to the individual recommendations and proposed changes put forward in relation to each of the two polices. Policy ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing
Total number of responses 62
Total number of responses in support 10
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 15
Total number of responses in objection 28
Total number of responses providing a general comment 9
Table 5.23
470 Comments made in response to Policy ST18 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
Summary of Key Issues
Support policy approach subject to the application of site specific viability assessments to determine affordable housing levels. Support the proactive policy, all means of tackling this strategic issue must be explored. Rigorous assessment of the need for affordable Housing is of paramount importance. Support policy aims. Support recognition at Policy ST18 (5) that the scale and mix of affordable housing will have regard to the viability of developments. Support providing homes for local families but the local plan cannot affect the financial circumstance that restricts access to the housing market, such as lack of a deposit. Where affordable housing is required, it must be harmonised with the community. Policy support, affordable housing should be subject to a legal agreement to maintain affordability to locally connected households. Support the delivery of affordable housing, but identify the factors that will be considered in determining on site levels: housing mix, development costs (including abnormal and/or infrastructure costs, section 106 contributions and CIL and the availability of funding. Support the delivery of affordable housing as a strategic objective. Flexibility is however required within the current economic climate to also allow for the delivery of critical infrastructure without impacting on delivery.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 121 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Support affordable housing delivery and consideration of viability. More detail required of tenure mix on exception sites, amend (4)(c): “exceptionally supporting the provision of mixed tenure affordable housing schemes (including an element of market housing to ensure viability) to meet identified local community needs, on sites adjoining or well related to defined settlements, in line with the requirements of policy DM21.” Support (2)-(5) but (4) (c) will limit the location of affordable housing to defined settlements. Affordable housing should be enabled in smaller communities in support of rural sustainability. Policy support to delivery affordable housing including on exception sites but if restricted to proposals where affordable housing provides the majority of dwellings viability and thus delivery will be jeopardised. Add a small village category. No justification for 25% affordable housing targets when recent application ahs achieved levels of 20% and no justification to require contributions from all housing schemes. Viability and thus delivery will be jeopardised. Agree that the local housing market has a fundamental affordable housing problem for a large proportion of the population, which has been exacerbated by a low affordable housing stock and historically low delivery rates. Paragraph 7.21; if accommodation is rented, exploitation by landlords must be avoided. Ownership is the preferable option. Paragraph 7.21; the aspiration to achieve social rents may not be deliverable, particularly as grant aid is dwindling. The affordable rent model may provide a solution. To seek the majority of affordable housing on the basis of social rent does not meet NPPF requirements for tenure to be flexible. Social rented provision will impact scheme viability and thus deliverability. If affordable rents improve viability then the need for accommodation outweighs considerations that will limit supply. A rent of 80% open market levels is more affordable than an open market rent. 25% affordable housing requirement on qualifying sites is appropriate. Inconsistency between the affordable housing target of 7,927 and means of delivery on the basis of 25% of the land supply of 16,000 dwellings. Update Policy ST18 to reflect Policy ST07 or allocate more housing land to increase the affordable housing yield. The affordable housing target cannot be met with a housing supply of 16,000 subject to 25% affordable requirement. The affordable housing target can be delivered only through increasing the overall housing requirement. The policy is not proactive and affordable needs will increase. 20% affordable houses on sites providing 6-15 houses and 30-40% 15 units plus. Clarification of ST18 (4)(d; affordable housing should be limited to locations with services and infrastructure. Define affordable. Commit to actively identify sites for affordable housing and work in partnership with developers and to buying suitable sites for social housing and /or building on Council land. Clarify affordability and tenure requirements having regard to viability. Question the viability of all schemes contributing to affordable housing. The plan has a high reliance on windfall sites, adding an affordable requirement to such small sites will impact on delivery. Imprecise in the absence of a specific requirement and consideration shroud be given to variable thresholds across the plan area. Contrary to the NPPF as housing needs cannot be met. Policy DM18 does not provide clarification and the need for both polices is questioned. The 25% requirement will not result in needs being met, the overall housing requirement should be reviewed to accord with the NPPF. Clarify what affordable housing will deliver and allow for the delivery of lower than market rentals
122 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
It is not always necessary to use a RSL; allow local purchasers to enter the housing market above the affordable qualification. Introduce a policy distinction between the RSL route, and the local needs compliant purchaser. Only provide affordable housing where infrastructure allows. Amend (4)(a), site allocations should be considered on the basis of Policy DM20, not subject to individual affordable requirements. Support to the tailored approach to on site affordable housing requirements having regard to viability tests. Lack of clear guidance on proposal commitments with regard to percentage requirements or thresholds to be applied. (4)(c) is out of step with the NPPF; allow market housing on exception sites. Open market houses are required to delivery infrastructure and employment land. No indication of affordable housing delivery. No provision for lower than market rentals. Affordable housing should be delivered through Government funding not private enterprise. Exceptions site release should be enabled as a last resort Add a small village category. Support the provision of affordable housing, with scale and tenure being subject to viability testing on all sites. The need for site specify viability assessment is inappropriate, such should be required only if the proposal seeks to fall below the standard threshold of 25%. Paragraph 7.27: clarify of what 'smaller' means in terms of the application of flexibility regarding on site delivery of affordable units. Paragraph 7.28: no point in having development boundaries if they can be ignored, unless exceptionally really means extraordinarily. Paragraph 7.30: Amend to incorporate recognition that the proposed affordable housing tenure mix can have a significant impact on development viability. Consideration viability when determining the precise tenure split. Tenure flexibility is required to meet the needs of local communities. Paragraph 7.31: legal agreements should be secured affordable housing in perpetuity. Support working with Parish Councils. Development must be prioritised to brownfield sites before development on greenfield sites.
General Comments on Chapter
Define affordable housing and a percentage target.
Officer Comments, Recommendations and Agreed Actions
Introduction
471 Many of the representations received go beyond the scope of Policy ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing and stray into the detailed scope of the associated Development Management Policies DM20: Affordable Housing on Development Sites and DM21: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites. As Policy ST18 and DM20/21 are inextricably linked and as the significant majority of the representations received in relation to DM20 and DM21 were attributed to ST18, and reflect strategic policy matters, it is considered appropriate to consider these policies as a collective and reflect on potential changes required to them all.
Viability Assessment
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 123 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
472 It is important to note that Policy ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing, along with the associated affordable housing Development Management Policy, DM20 were considered provisional within the Consultation Draft of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan, with the recognition that they would be subject to review at a later date on the basis of outstanding evidence. At the time of the preparation of the Consultation Draft, evidence assessing the viability of development to accommodate planning requirements was not available. The requirements set out within the draft policy were based upon very tentative initial findings from consultants and were provided to enable debate on the potential policy direction.
473 A final draft of the Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (‘Viability Assessment’)(36) has now been received and will be a significant driver for the content of the affordable housing policies. The findings and recommendations from the Viability Assessment are threaded into the Officer Analysis below on a topic by topic basis and recommendations are informed not only by the representations received on the Consultation Draft of the Local Plan but also the recommendations provided through the Viability Assessment.
474 In terms of establishing the appropriate affordable housing provisions for the Local Plan it is important to recognise that the appropriate affordable housing requirements to be imposed on development are inextricably and explicitly linked to the scale of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) sought on such development and other policy requirements placed upon it (i.e. higher standards of energy efficiency, green infrastructure provision, etc.). In establishing both the affordable housing requirements and the CIL provisions t is necessary to find an appropriate balance between these requirements to best meet the wider objectives of the Local Plan.
475 The Viability Assessment provides a series of recommendations in relation to the appropriate affordable housing requirements to be established within the Local Plan. It also provides a recommendation as to the appropriate level of Community Infrastructure Levy to be sought from residential development. For reference, the recommendations provided within the Viability Assessment are as follows:
Recommendation 1: An appropriate headline policy target applicable to both North Devon and Torridge District Councils would be to seek 30% on-site provision of affordable housing on sites of 12 or more dwellings. Recommendation 2: On Greenfield (previous agricultural use) sites an appropriate policy target applicable to both North Devon and Torridge would be to seek 40% on-site provision of affordable housing on sites of 12 or more dwellings. Recommendation 3: We consider it to be appropriate for the Council to remove the affordable housing policy threshold (retaining 30% affordable housing) so that it applies to all new housing. If there are compelling local factors and evidence that point to the unworkability and sustainability of providing the affordable units on-site our view is that schemes of fewer than 12 dwellings should provide a financial contribution as per Recommendation 3 [4] below at an amount equivalent to 30% affordable housing. Recommendation 4: On sites in the range of 1–11 an alternative to on-site affordable housing provision (for example, the use of a financial contributions strategy) may be appropriate. Financial contributions can be related to the exact affordable housing equivalent produced by a calculation – numbers rounding need not affect their use. Recommendation 5: The starting point for negotiation will generally be to expect 80% social rent and 20% intermediate tenure.
36 Adams Integra (September 2013)
124 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Recommendation 6: Policy should be clearly worded so as to set out genuine targets (but not by reference to ranges, minimums or other variables) with the approach acknowledging the role of viability and application of flexibility where required. Recommendation 7: Where a developer considers a site has particular viability issues then the developer should put forward a case which will then be subject to independent assessment to enable full consideration by the Council. (The cost of any scheme specific viability assessment should be funded by the applicant). Recommendation 8: Having regard to these variations, our opinion is that the majority of residential schemes in the Districts should be able to absorb a CIL rate of £60 per m2 leaving a margin for site-specific factors that might affect viability. We recommend the Council consider this rate.
476 Whilst it is not the purpose of this report to consider the appropriate scale of Community Infrastructure Levy to be sought from residential development, this is obviously a compelling driver that will influence the ability of development to deliver affordable housing and will hence directly influence the recommendations provided within this report. The recommendations presented in this report in relation to affordable housing provision are formed on the basis that Recommendation 8 of the Viability Report is followed and a CIL rate of £60 per square metre is sought from residential development. Should a level of CIL higher to this be sought, it will be necessary to revisit the potential for seeking delivery of affordable housing and propose new recommendations on this basis.
Officer Analysis
477 Sixty two individual representations were received in relation to Policy ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing and its associated supporting text. A significant proportion (45%) of those representations registered an objection, with 16% registered in support, 24% in support subject to a proposed amendment and 15% offering general comment. A number of further comments were logged against the chapter as a whole but are best considered as part of the analysis of the individual policy.
478 Analysis and recommendations are provided on the basis of representations received through the consultation, however they are tempered by the findings of the completed Viability Assessment which provides a key contribution in terms of defining the potential affordable housing requirements.
General Support
479 The representations offering support towards the policy are noted. The recognition that ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing offers a proactive policy approach and that it is deemed an appropriate response to a key strategic issue is noted. The support offered towards the identified policy objectives is also noted, as is the support towards the reference of working positively with Parish Councils and other partners with the aim of delivering affordable housing.
Policy Structure
480 The need for the Local Plan to contain both a Strategic Policy and Development Management Policies on the topic of affordable housing is questioned by a respondent, advocating that the strategic policy does not provide any ‘additionality’ over the detail contained within the Development Management policies. It is recognised that there is repetition between Policy ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing and Policies DM20: Affordable Housing on Development Sites and DM21: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites and that there is an opportunity for rationalisation. In doing so, it would be possible to reduce the risk of contradictory material being presented in the Local Plan, whilst making the Plan simpler and more succinct for the reader.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 125 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
481 It is recommended that Policies DM20 and DM21 are reclassified as strategic policies and moved to sit within Chapter 7: A Balanced Local Housing Market. This then offers the opportunity to rationalise Policy ST18 to remove duplication, cross reference and explanation within these Policies and the associated supporting text.
482 Alongside the important benefit of simplifying the Local Plan for the reader, a key driver for moving DM20 and DM21 to the Strategic section of the Local Plan is to recognise their importance in the delivery of the Local Plan objectives. By establishing them as Strategic Policy it will also afford them protection from potential change through the Neighbourhood Planning process; something considered important in terms of safeguarding delivery of the Local Plan Objectives.
483 As part of the rationalisation process, it is considered appropriate to move some elements of Policy ST18 into supporting text. With the reclassification of Policies DM20 and DM21, it is not considered necessary for Part (4) of Policy ST18 to remain as Policy. This element principally provided reference of delivery mechanisms for affordable housing, cross-referencing other policy content or potential Council activities. It is considered that these elements are better placed as supporting text. It is therefore recommended that the content of Part (4) of Policy ST18 is moved to become supporting text.
484 A great deal of synergy can be found between Policies ST17 and ST18. In the interest of clarity and brevity it is advocated that an alternative hybrid Strategic Policy is introduced to the Local Plan, replacing Policy ST17 & ST18, combining the key content of both policies and having regard to the recommendations and proposed changes put forward in relation to the two individual Policies. As such it is recommended that a new hybrid Strategic Policy in introduced in place of Policies ST17 & ST18, incorporating the key principles of the existing strategic policies and having regard to the individual recommendations and proposed changes put forward in relation to each of the two polices.
Affordability of Housing
485 A respondent offered support towards the policy and the notion of providing homes for local families. They went on however to suggest that the Local Plan is unable to positively affect the financial circumstances, such as limited access to a deposit, that generally preclude people from being able to access the wider housing market. It is recognised that the Local Plan is unable to directly influence the availability of finance for house purchase however it is offering a holistic strategy to enable people to be better able to access appropriate housing to meet their needs.
486 The Local Plan provides polices that seek to maximise the potential delivery of affordable housing and also to try and influence the mix of housing in terms of size, type and tenure. In doing so, they seek to rebalance the local housing market and ensure that appropriate housing is delivered to meet identified housing needs.
487 Alongside the direct intervention in the housing market, the Local Plan also supports a strategy of improving the local economy, recognising the need to 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.
488 It has been suggested that the housing affordability issue has been exacerbated by low levels of affordable housing delivery, coupled to a low base stock of affordable tenure dwellings. This is accepted and the position is recognised both within the Consultation Draft of the Local Plan and the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment identifies that there is a significant need for additional affordable housing delivery across northern Devon over the plan period and that some of that need is generated from a backlog of housing need that was
126 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
outstanding at the start of the plan period, due to historic under-provision of affordable housing. The Local Plan recognises this backlog in provision, with the scale of backlog identified through the SHMA incorporated into the overall level of housing development planned for delivery15.
Principle of Delivery
489 Representations suggest that affordable housing should be financed by Government funding and not delivered through impositions on private enterprise. This notion is not supported. The approach of seeking affordable housing delivery by requiring open market housing developments to deliver a proportion of affordable housing is a long established planning approach supported by the National Planning Policy Framework and incorporated in a range of recently adopted development plans that have successfully passed through an Examination in Public. As such, it is considered appropriate to continue to seek proposals for open market housing to contribute towards the delivery of affordable housing. It is recognised that public sector funding does have a role to play in the delivery of affordable housing, offering both the opportunity to increase the scale of affordable housing delivery and/ or the mix in terms of dwelling size, type and tenure. It is not considered necessary to explicitly state this within the policy but a reference could be afforded within the supporting text to the Policy.
Affordable Housing on Development Sites (DM20) Impact of Scale and Mix on Viability
490 A range of representations were received in relation to the impact of affordable housing on development viability. One respondent offered support towards the Policy subject to the provision that the scale and tenure mix of affordable housing requirements would have regard to, and could be influenced by, evidence of development viability.
491 Part (5) of Policy ST18 currently addresses this matter, along with Part (3) of Policy DM20 and Part (f) of Policy DM21. Part (5) of ST18 currently states that the “scale and mix of affordable housing that will be sought, in terms of dwelling numbers, types, sizes and tenures, will be optimised and prioritised to respond to identified housing need whilst having regard to the viability of development”. This clause is intended to offer the opportunity for the affordable housing requirements to be varied on the basis of development viability (subject to robust demonstration). The matter is also covered by Part (2) of Policy ST17.
492 The recently completed Viability Assessment recognises the importance of viability on the delivery of affordable housing. The Assessment recommends that policy should be set out as genuine targets whilst acknowledging the role of viability and the application of flexibility where required(37).
493 This matter is currently covered by slightly differing clauses in multiple Policies. As such, there is an opportunity for rationalisation. It is considered that, Part (5) of Policy ST18 should be relocated to sit within Part (2) of a hybrid Policy ST17.
Site Specific Requirements
494 Part (4)(a) of Policy ST18 currently advocates the provision of specific ‘tailored’ affordable housing requirements on sites allocated within the Local Plan for housing development. Representations were received in relation to this clause, both in support of the bespoke site based approach and also to object to it, advocating instead that the ‘standard’ affordable housing requirements should be attributed to all sites. The provision was originally incorporated on the basis of maximising the potential affordable housing contribution achievable from individual development sites whilst
37 Recommendation 6, Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2012).
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 127 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
having regard to their unique development constraints and requirements. To develop such site specific affordable housing requirements would however require detailed site specific evidence on development viability.
495 The final approach taken on the wider viability appraisal work carried out to support the preparation of the Local Plan has considered ‘notional development typologies’ rather than looking at the specific development proposals within the Local Plan. As such the Councils are not in possession of appropriate evidence to establish bespoke affordable housing requirements for individual sites. Furthermore, it is questionable as to whether sites are likely to be able to deliver significantly and beneficially above the level likely to be required through standard policy requirements. Any site specific constraints that would be likely to reduce the potential for delivery of affordable housing on a site can be satisfactorily dealt with though the imposition of the clause that enables the affordable housing contribution to be reduced on the basis of a robust demonstration of development viability. It is therefore recommended that Part (4)(a) of Policy ST18 and paragraph 7.16 of the associated supporting text be deleted. Furthermore, it is recommended that consequential changes are made to Part (4)(2) of ST18 and associated supporting text to clarify that ‘standard’ affordable housing requirements will be applicable to sites allocated within the Local Plan to deliver housing.
496 Representation has questioned the absence of a 40% affordable housing requirement for the Larkbear Strategic Allocation at Barnstaple (BAR02). As noted above, Part (4)(a) of Policy ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing within the Draft Local Plan currently identifies that sites allocated for residential development within the Local Plan will be subject to specific affordable housing requirements. The detail of such provisions were not set out within the Draft Local Plan as they need to be established on the basis of an assessment of development viability. As noted above, the Councils are not in possession of such evidence and it is now recommended that sites allocated for residential development are subject to the ‘standard’ residential requirements.
Requirement for Viability Assessment
497 The requirement for all developments to be subject to a viability assessment to establish the appropriate level of affordable housing to be provided is questioned by a respondent, advocating that site specific viability assessments should only be a requirement where proposals seek to fall below identified policy requirements. It was the intention of the policy when drafted to support such an approach. It is recognised that the Policy wording as provided in the consultation draft may not satisfactorily portray such an approach and it is therefore recommended that Part (5) of Policy ST18 and any associated supporting text is redrafted to provide clarity of this position.
498 Where site specific viability assessments are provided to support applications to deviate from the prescribed affordable housing requirements, the Viability Assessment recommends that the cost of assessing the validity of a financial viability argument should be borne by the developer making the application. On this basis, it is recommended that reference is made within the supporting text to ST18, DM20 and DM21 to reflect the expectation that the applicant will fund the preparation of such evidence along with the cost of any independent review.
Impact of Requirements on Infrastructure Delivery
499 Devon County Council offers support for Policy ST18 subject to the proviso that its requirements and implementation does not inhibit the provision of wider necessary infrastructure. The Local Plan is predicated on a balanced approach to development and Policy ST22, requires that development proposals contribute to the provision of infrastructure necessitated by development. The scale of affordable housing provision sought through the Local Plan is informed by evidence about the viability of development. The recommendations put forward through the Viability Assessment report
128 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
commissioned to support the preparation of the Local Plan and to establish the appropriate levels of affordable housing to be sought considered the balance of seeking affordable housing versus other policy requirements and demands on development. Such requirements and demands include the provision of new infrastructure. Part (5) of Policy ST18 is also intended to enable the affordable housing requirements to be varied to take account of site specific development viability issues. As such, should it be demonstrated that provision of essential infrastructure to support a particular development proposal would mean that the ‘standard’ affordable housing contribution could not be achieved, the policy would enable the affordable housing contribution to be adjusted accordingly.
500 A respondent offered general support for the delivery of affordable housing but sought identification of the factors that would be considered in establishing an appropriate site specific level of provision. In doing so, the respondent advocates that reference should be made to housing mix, development costs (including abnormal and/ or infrastructure costs, s106 contributions, CIL provision) and the availability of funding. Part (5) of the policy does support the site specific variation of affordable housing provision on the basis of such matters subject to a robust appraisal of development viability. It is considered that all of the matters raised could be satisfactorily taken into consideration within the scope of the existing policy wording.
501 A respondent suggests that the draft Local Plan seeks all infrastructure and employment provision to be delivered by cross-subsidy from the provision of open market housing. This is disputed. Policy ST22: Infrastructure does require development proposals to contribute towards the timely provision of infrastructure, as necessitated by development, however this will not form the only source of infrastructure investment over the plan period. Infrastructure providers will also have programmes of delivery that will contribute towards improvements in provision, whilst it is also likely that the public sector will contribute towards provision. In terms of employment provision, it is recognised that some of the sites proposed within the draft Local Plan will contribute to the delivery of employment land as part of a package of mixed use development incorporating housing. In such cases, the housing element of the proposal will form a higher yield use that could cross-subsidise some less viable uses. This is not however the only delivery mechanism, with some sites being identified as stand alone employment or commercial developments which may be delivered by both public and private sector involvement.
502 Calls have been made for affordable housing to be allowed only where infrastructure (or service) provision allows, suggesting that this will also negated the need for car travel. The Local Plan is underpinned by the principle of focussing the majority of development in the most sustainable and accessible locations. As such, the Plan will afford delivery of the majority of new affordable housing in locations that offer access to services and facilities. Furthermore, Policy ST22: Infrastructure will require adequate infrastructure provision to be provided to support the provision of additional housing. It is recognised that some affordable housing is likely to be delivered in less sustainable locations, on ‘exception sites’ at rural settlements, however these dwellings will be provided to meet the explicit needs of particular local communities. No change is recommended on the basis of this matter.
503 In a similar fashion, representation sought the amendment to Part (4)(d) of ST18 to ensure that delivery of affordable housing enabled through the provision of financial contributions from development is provided in sustainable locations with access to services and facilities. No change to the policy is recommended on the basis that any affordable housing provision being delivered through the use of such funding would be subject to the policies of the Local Plan that seek delivery of affordable housing in defined settlements, where in principle, there is access to services and facilities.
Tenure
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 129 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
504 Respondents have raised concerns that targeting the provision of Social Rented affordable housing, rather than Affordable Rent tenure might not be deliverable, particularly if the opportunity for subsidy through pubic grant aid funding is reducing. It is further suggested, that Affordable Rent would be preferable because the reduced cost of delivery would enable the provision of a higher number of affordable dwellings. The move to seek Affordable Rented tenure housing in lieu of Social Rented is not supported.
505 In terms of housing need, the Strategic Housing Market Assessment identifies that the significant majority (85%) of affordable housing need is for the Social Rented tenure, with the remainder split between the Affordable Rent and Intermediate tenures. Whilst the comment that the Affordable Rent tenure offers a better alternative to open market properties is accepted, for the communities of North Devon and Torridge, the Affordable Rented tenure remains unaffordable for the majority of those households unable to access open market housing. By seeking delivery of the Affordable Housing tenure, the Local Plan could be considered to not satisfactorily seeking to address the objectively assessed needs for housing as required by the National Planning Policy Framework. It is also considered that such an approach would reinforce the notion of benefit dependency, forcing many potential residents to make use of benefits to access suitable housing.
506 Furthermore, the Viability Assessment states that “Affordable Rent was never intended to make schemes more viable for developers”(38), going on to note that the inclusion of Affordable Rent rather than Social Rent should have no effect on the overall viability of a scheme.
507 In terms of deliverability, the National Planning Policy Framework requires that Plans should be deliverable, stating that the sites and scale of development identified within the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened(39). As such, the affordable housing requirements set out within the Local Plan will need to be demonstrated to be broadly viable and deliverable in association with all other requirements placed upon development. To this end, the tenure requirements will have been tested, alongside all other development requirements in the Local Plan, to ensure that that are generally deliverable and will not make the Plan as a whole undeliverable. The Viability Assessment has carried out its modelling on the assumption of a tenure mix of 80% Social Rent and 20% Intermediate housing. It is recommended that the appropriate tenure mix of affordable housing should be informed by the findings of the Viability Assessment, recognising the findings of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and the identified need to prioritise the provision of Social Rented accommodation.
508 Should a specific development proposal be demonstrated to be unviable, flexibility is offered within Part (5) of the Policy, along with Part (3) of DM20 and Part (f) of DM21 to enable the tenure of the affordable housing sought on it to be varied on that basis. These clauses are considered appropriate to address the criticism directed by respondents that the policy does not offer sufficient flexibility to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework(40). The policies as framed are considered to offer flexibility, both in terms of responding to viability and also responding to the precise housing needs of individual communities.
509 Respondents have sought clarification of tenure requirements and for these to be set out explicitly through Policy. On the basis of evidenced affordable housing need(41), the recently completed Viability Assessment recommends that a target tenure split of 80% social rent and 20% intermediate tenure is established as the starting point for negotiation and that this should be set out as a clear
38 Paragraph 2.9.10, Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013) 39 Paragraph 173, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012) 40 Paragraph 50, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012) 41 Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012)
130 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
policy target(42). It goes on to recognise that policy should also recognise that the mix should not be rigidly applied and that the appropriate mix should be dependent upon site specifics and a balance between affordable housing need and viability.
510 The Viability Assessment has tested this tenure mix and has concluded that, considering all policy burdens imposed on development, such a mix would be broadly viable for delivery where the affordable housing requirement is set at 30% and a Community Infrastructure Levy of £60 per square metre is applied towards housing developments.
511 Under current arrangements, the starting point for North Devon Council and Torridge District Council is to seek 75% Social Rented and 25% Intermediate housing. Whilst the Viability Assessment indicates that an 80% / 20% split is deliverable for the Local Plan on the basis of viability, it is considered that it may be appropriate to seek a revised 75% / 25% split. Such an approach continues an established and successfully delivered tenure split. It would also enhance deliverability, as an increase in the provision of intermediate housing in place of rented housing improves the viability for developers and enhances the financial position for Registered Providers.
512 It is recommended Part (3) of Policy DM20 be amended to set out that the starting point for negotiation on affordable housing tenure for affordable housing provided through market housing developments will generally be a target split of 75% Social Rent and 25% Intermediate and that variation may be agreed on the basis of identified housing need and development viability.
Private Rented Sector
513 It was presented through a response to the consultation that home ownership should be sought as a preferred option over the provision of dwellings in the private rented sector, citing that landlords can often exploit tenants. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment considers the role of the private rented sector, noting that it has both a positive impact, by increasing the supply of affordable rented housing, as well as a negative impact, reducing the supply of financially accessible homes for first time buyers(43). It is important to note that the development plan cannot influence or control the use of open market housing for private rented use. As such, no change to the Local Plan is recommended on this basis.
Percentage of affordable housing on Development Sites
514 A range of responses was registered in relation to the appropriate percentage of affordable housing that should be sought from development sites. Respondents offered both support and logged objection to the requirement to provide 25% affordable housing on development sites, with some citing the percentage as being an acceptable, considering it to be a generally deliverable target, whilst others considered that it was not achievable, citing that recent proposals have only managing to deliver around 20% affordable housing. A further respondent advocated a two tier requirement, to seek 20% on sites of 6 to 15 dwellings and 30%-40% on sites of 15 or more dwellings.
515 It is considered that the percentage requirement for affordable housing sought through open market housing development proposals should be established on the basis of robust evidence. The affordable housing policy requirements presented in the Consultation Draft of the Local Plan were only provisional and identified as being potentially subject to change on the basis of the findings of
42 Recommendation 5, Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge 43 Paragraph 7.21, Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 131 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
the recently completed Viability Assessment. It is recommended that the appropriate level of affordable housing provision sought through development proposals be established on the basis of the outcomes of the Viability Assessment and that the representations proposing alternatives are noted.
516 The recently completed Viability Assessment has appraised a significant number of policy scenarios, reflecting various affordable housing requirements and potential Community Infrastructure Levy charges. On the basis of the recommended Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charge of £60 per square metre, the Viability Assessment recommends that an appropriate headline policy target would be to seek 30% on-site provision of affordable housing on sites of 12 or more dwellings(44). In coming to this recommendation, the Viability Assessment has tested the ability of development to accommodate such a requirement, when taken in combination with other policy requirements placed upon development. The Viability Assessment does however indicate 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(45).
517 It is considered that the recommendation within the Viability Assessment provides a robust basis for establishing the appropriate level of affordable housing to be sought from market housing schemes. Recognising that there is an overwhelming need for affordable housing across northern Devon, and that the level proposed is considered to be viable, it is recommended that Part (1) of Policy DM20 be amended to reflect a target requirement for 30% of all net new dwellings on development schemes to be affordable homes.
518 The Viability Assessment goes on to highlight the opportunity to secure a higher percentage of affordable housing from developments of 12 or more dwellings on Greenfield sites. In doing so it recommends that an appropriate policy target on such developments would be to seek 40% on-site provision of affordable housing. The Viability Assessment considers that it is possible for such a requirement to be imposed upon development and that the residual land value will exceed a figure somewhere in the range of £100,000 to £400,000 per hectare. The report considers that such a range equates to a reasonable agricultural uplift value that should be expected in northern Devon for agricultural land that comes forward for residential development(46).
519 The Viability Assessment demonstrates that it is theoretically possible to seek 40% affordable housing from developments of 12 or more dwellings on Greenfield sites. This, combined with evidence of an overwhelming need for affordable housing(47) presents a strong case for including such a requirement within the Local Plan.
520 However, it is recognised that current evidence of development schemes across northern Devon demonstrates that such a level of delivery is being rarely achieved at the present time. Furthermore, the imposition of such a requirement within the Local Plan may be perceived as being detrimental to the aspiration to show that northern Devon is ‘open for business’. It is also recognised that whilst the residual land values identified as being achievable with the imposition of a 40% affordable housing requirement should in principle offer a reasonable return to a willing land owner, this may not be the case in reality and that there is a risk that such a requirement may impact on deliverability of development and the provisions of the Local Plan as a whole.
44 Recommendation 1, Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013) 45 Paragraph 4.2.4, Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013) 46 Paragraph 3.3.4, Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013) 47 Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Torridge and North Devon Update (Housing Vision, December 2012)
132 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
521 Recognising the advice of the Viability Assessment that indicates 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(48), it is recommended that members advise Officers as to the acceptability of seeking 40% affordable housing on development schemes of 12 or more dwellings on Greenfield Sites.
522 Requirements for Smaller Sites (including windfalls) and Potential for Financial Contributions
523 A respondent has advocated that the draft Local Plan places a high reliance on windfall sites to deliver the required level of housing, and that the requirements in Policy ST18 for ‘smaller’ sites to contribute to the provision of affordable housing may undermine delivery of the proposed levels of housing. This is contested.
524 Firstly, the draft Local Plan does not place any reliance upon windfall development to deliver the required level of housing provision, The full extent of housing that is sought for delivery through the Local Plan is provided for through completed dwellings, existing commitments or new proposed allocations. Secondly, the requirement for affordable housing contributions from development sites will be established having regard to the viability of development to adsorb such requirements, in line with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework for Local Plans to be deliverable(49).
525 The recently completed Viability Assessment provides such evidence and has reviewed the opportunity for seeking affordable housing contributions from ‘smaller’ sites. The Assessment has found that on viability grounds, the size of site (i.e. number of dwellings to be delivered) makes no significant difference to the ability of development schemes to contribute towards affordable housing provision. As such, the Assessment recommends(50) that the Councils do not apply an affordable housing policy site size threshold, advocating that the requirement for provision apply to all new housing. In doing so the report states that the preference should always be for meeting this need on-site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified(51).
526 The recommendation goes on to state that if there are compelling local factors and evidence that points to the unworkability or sustainability of providing the affordable units on site then schemes of fewer that 12 dwellings should alternatively provide a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value towards the provision of affordable housing. The Viability Assessment does recommend that it may be appropriate to seek an alternative to on-site affordable housing provision (for example, the use of financial contributions) on sites in the range of 1-11 dwellings.
527 The approach of seeking affordable housing provision on-site unless the case for off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified is advocated within the National Planning Policy Framework(52), and is further supported by Housing Officers of both Councils.
528 As such, it is recommended that Part (1) of DM20 be amended (with consequential amendments to relevant supporting text) to:
48 Paragraph 4.2.4, Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013) 49 Paragraph 173, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012) 50 Recommendation 3, Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013) 51 Paragraph 4.1.12, Economic Viability Assessment of Housing Development in North Devon and Torridge (Adams Integra, September 2013) 52 Paragraph 50, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2013)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 133 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
i. Seek the delivery of affordable housing from all development schemes which provide for a net gain in open market housing; ii. Require provision to be made on-site unless it is either not mathematically possible or off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified by exceptional circumstances; and iii. Where a fraction of an affordable dwelling is required by policy, seek such provision through a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value.
529 A further respondent has sought clarification of the definition of ‘smaller sites’, as set out in paragraph 7.27, which is currently provided to establish the scale of site whereby financial contributions will be routinely collected in lieu of on-site provision. This is noted and it is accepted that this supporting text is imprecise and does not appropriately quantify the threshold of site where such provisions will be supported. The recommended changes to the Policy approach, as identified above, may make this element of supporting text redundant.
530 Dependent upon the amended policy approach in terms of on-site vs off-site vs financial contributions, it is recommended that paragraph 7.27 of supporting text is either deleted, or amended to fit with the precise requirements stipulated through Policy.
Affordable Housing on Exception Sites (DM21)
531 A number of respondents raised the notion that the mechanism of releasing additional land for affordable housing should be a last resort, with one respondent questioning the point of development boundaries if they can be ignored. The purpose of the affordable housing exceptions provision, as enabled through Part (4)(c) of Policy ST18 and Policy DM21, is to enable the delivery of affordable housing to meet local identified local needs where there is no other mechanism to deliver the housing, essentially in the rural area. The detailed policy provisions for affordable housing on exception sites are set out within Policy DM21, with Part (4) of Policy ST18 simply providing signposting and strategic direction to the Policy. The explicit criteria set out in Policy DM21 are considered to adequately establish the exceptional requirements that need to be met in order to enable the release of additional land for affordable housing.
532 It has been highlighted that Part (4)(c) of Policy ST18 does not currently indicate support for the cross-subsidy of affordable housing on exception sites through the provision of an element of open market housing. Calls have been made for this to be rectified and for it to be made explicit within the Policy that such provision would be supported. One respondent noted that in omitting such provision they consider the policy to be out of conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework.
533 The National Planning Policy Framework(53) states that: ‘Local planning authorities should in particular consider whether allowing some market housing would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local needs’. This does not require local planning authorities to offer such an opportunity through their Local Plans but simply seek
534 them to consider whether it might be an effective mechanism to deliver affordable housing in rural areas. Whilst it is not accepted that the lack of such cross-subsidy would make the Policy out of conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework, it is an approach is already supported within the Local Plan through Part (f) of DM21. It is accepted that the approach is not appropriately cited within Part (4)(c) of Policy ST18 and as such, it is recommended that, if retained as either part
53 Paragraph 54, National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012)
134 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
of Policy ST18, or alternatively as supporting text, the content of Part (4)(c) of Policy ST18 be amended to make reference to the opportunity for cross-subsidy of affordable housing through the provision of an element of market housing.
535 Following on from the principle of cross-subsidy, respondents have advocated that the Local Plan should not seek to restrict the level of cross-subsidy from market housing so as to require the majority of provision to be affordable dwellings. This is considered to be an appropriate stance and reflective of the principle set out within the National Planning Policy Framework that advocates allowing some market housing to facilitate provision of significant additional affordable housing. As such, no change is recommended on this basis.
536 A respondent has sought provision of additional detail within the Local Plan as to the acceptability of tenure on exception sites for affordable housing. Part (5) of Policy ST18 and Part (c) of Policy DM21, along with a range of paragraphs within the supporting text currently establishes the approach in terms of the required mix of housing.
537 It is recognised that affordable housing delivered through the exceptional release of land should be provided to meet the identified local needs of the community. As such, it is considered that the tenure mix should be responsive to these identified local needs. Whilst recommended change is being suggested to Policy DM20 to establish a target tenure mix for affordable housing delivered on open market housing sites, it is not considered appropriate to establish such requirements for delivery through exception sites.
Settlement Hierarchy and provision of affordable housing
538 The policy framework within the Consultation Draft of the Local Plan currently enables the provision of affordable housing within or at the settlements set out in Policy ST06: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon (i.e. the Sub-Regional Centre, Strategic Centre, Main Centres, Local Centres and Villages). Representations have called for a more flexible approach to the range of rural settlements at which affordable housing may be delivered, allied to the introduction of a lower tier of Rural Settlements (i.e. smaller villages) within the hierarchy (for which support has been provided).
539 It is necessary to consider whether the scope of enabling the exceptional release of sites for affordable housing should be extended to include Rural Settlements. These settlements are not considered to be generally sustainable locations where growth should be promoted and provision of affordable housing to meet the wider needs of the Parish would not conform with the strategic objective of ‘rural housing needs for all localities to be met in sustainable locations’. It is rather the role of Local Centres and defined Villages to meet this wider affordable housing need.
540 It is however recognised that it may be appropriate for modest development proposals to come forward at Rural Settlements. It is therefore the intention that Policy will be introduced, outside of the scope of DM21: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites, to enable proposals to be supported, subject to a range of criteria on matters such as the proposal relating to the needs of the immediate local community, being supported by the community, modest and proportionate in scale and in keeping with the existing built form / local character.
541 Policy DM21: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites currently enables the exceptional release of land to deliver affordable housing at locations adjoining or well related to all of the settlements set out in Policy ST06: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon (i.e. the Sub-Regional Centre, Strategic Centre, Main Centres, Local Centres and Villages). The purpose of such an approach was to enable a flexible policy basis for meeting unmet affordable housing need.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 135 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
542 However, on review, it is considered that enabling the exceptional release of affordable housing through Policy DM21 may not be appropriate at the Sub-Regional Centre, Strategic Centre or Main Centres. Paragraph 54 of the National Planning Policy Framework ties the geographical use of exception sites to deliver affordable housing to rural areas. It is not considered that the Local Plan approach of enabling such provision at the Sub-Regional Centre, Strategic Centre or Main Centres conforms with this provision. Rather, it is considered that the provisions are intended to be applicable to only rural settlements, such as those established as Local Centres and defined Villages.
543 Furthermore, at the Sub-Regional Centre, Strategic Centre or Main Centres, it is considered that the scale of required growth is best delivered in a planned manner through the allocation of sites and enabling the provision of windfall development within the defined settlement boundaries. It is not considered necessary or appropriate for additional greenfield land to exceptionally be made available for development to deliver further housing. It is considered that such an approach introduces the risk that policy could be inappropriately used to release additional land for development, recognising that it is likely to be possible to demonstrate an overwhelming need for affordable housing at these settlements, even though there is a strategy in place to deliver the appropriate scale of housing.
544 As such, it is recommended that the scope of qualifying settlements where Policy DM21: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites is applicable be amended to include only Local Centres and defined Villages.
Evidence of Housing Need
545 A respondent suggested that the rigorous assessment of affordable housing need is of paramount importance. This is accepted and the Local Plan policy approach for affordable housing is based upon a positive strategy of delivery to meet identified needs. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment provided detailed evidence about the scale and nature of housing need and demand that is considered to be required over the Plan Period, providing details of affordable housing need in terms of scale, tenure and dwelling type / size. Policy ST17: A Balanced Local Housing Market and ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing together seek to respond to this approach whilst seeking to provide flexibility to respond to changing circumstances over time.
546 In terms of delivery of affordable housing on exception sites, Part (c) of Policy DM21 requires development proposals to respond to the identified local housing need of the ‘community’. Paragraph 12.124 goes on to define the extent of that community as ‘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, the surrounding adjacent parishes’.
547 It is considered that the definition is modified to place an emphasis on the parish in which the site resides, whilst still allowing housing need from surrounding parishes to be considered. At the present time, as drafted, the definition would provide no mechanism to prioritise provision to the parish where the need is generated, or direct need from adjoining parishes to be met directly in those parishes if this is more appropriate.
548 It is considered appropriate to allow flexibility to allow housing need from a parish to be met in an adjoining parish, however it is not considered that this should be indicated as the preference. It is therefore recommended that paragraph 10.124 is amended to state that proposals should respond to the specific identified affordable housing needs within the parish whilst having regard to identified housing need within adjacent parishes.
Locational requirements for Exception Sites
136 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
549 The criteria that define acceptable locations for affordable housing exception sites currently supports development on sites “adjoining or well related to the boundary of a defined settlement”, with ‘well related’ defined within the glossary. It is considered that it is appropriate to provide additional supporting text to Policy DM21 so as to avoid the potential for subjective interpretation that could lead to the delivery of affordable housing proposals in inappropriate locations. As such, it is recommended that supporting text is added to support DM21 and recognise that proposals should generally adjoin the principal built form of the settlement but recognise that there may be reason to apply flexibility on the basis of local character and circumstance.
550 Consequential changes are also required to Policy ST18 and DM21 to reflect the change in approach to Local Centres and defined Villages that will allow the extent of these settlements to be defined either by a settlement boundary or criteria. It will be necessary to amend the policy criteria that establish appropriate locations for affordable housing exception sites to reflect this revised policy approach. It is recommended that the policy wording of Part (4)(c) of ST18 and Part (a) of DM21 is amended to relate the location of sites to:
the defined settlement boundary, where the settlement is subject to such a boundary; or the extent of the contiguous built form, where the settlement is not subject to such a boundary.
Occupancy Conditions
551 The affordable housing policies within the draft Local Plan are currently silent on the matter of occupancy restrictions for affordable dwellings. It is considered that such provision should be provided within the Local Plan to ensure that affordable housing provision is only accessible to those in identified affordable housing need. In the case of affordable housing
552 A respondent has advocated that it is important that affordable housing provision is harmonised with the community when it is provided. This is noted and is recognised as being important. The concerns are considered to be addressed appropriately by elements of Policy DM20 and DM21. Where affordable housing is sought through open market housing schemes, Policy DM20 seeks that provision is delivered on-site unless there are robust and compelling reasons for off-site delivery.
553 Furthermore, Part (5) of DM20 requires the affordable housing to be integrated into the wider development proposal with individual affordable dwellings indistinguishable from the provided market housing.
554 Policy DM21 which enables affordable housing to be exceptionally provided on land adjoining defined settlements, requires that the provision is proportionate to the scale and nature of the existing settlement and that there is a local community need for the provision that is being considered.
555 Furthermore, Part (4) of Policy ST04: Improving the Quality of Development requires early and meaningful engagement with the Local Planning Authority and local community through pre-application discussions on development proposals. This should enable development proposals to be shaped and respond to the views of local communities. Together, these elements are deemed to offer appropriate tools to help ensure that that the affordable housing is harmonised with the community.
Perpetuity Arrangements
556 Calls are made through representation for the Local Plan to be amended to require that affordable housing provision is retained in perpetuity through the use of legal agreements. Part (6) of Policy ST18, along with Part (e) of Policy DM21 requires that arrangements are made to ensure that the provided affordable housing, or broadly equivalent provision, remains available in perpetuity.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 137 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Paragraph 7.31 provides further detail about the mechanisms that may be used to secure such provision, including the potential use of legal agreements. In general, these elements of the Local Plan are considered to sufficiently address this matter.
557 There is the opportunity to reduce duplication within the Local Plan, and as such, it is recommended that the requirements are retained but rationalised and located within only the most appropriate strategic Policy.
Overall Affordable Housing Target
558 A range of responses were received in objection to the target for affordable housing provision as set out in Part (3) of the Policy. It was highlighted that there is inconsistency between the advocated target of 7,927 additional affordable dwellings and the scale of achievable delivery that the overall level of planned housing will support. As such, the respondent sought revision to either ST07: Scale and Distribution of Development, to increase the overall level of housing being planned for to enable the full scale of affordable housing need to be met, or alternatively, reduce the target for the amount of affordable housing sought, to reflect the overall scale of housing growth planned. In a similar vein, a further respondent considers the policy to be contrary to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, in that the policy does not support the full, objectively assessed needs for affordable housing to be met. A similar response is also provided, advocating that the policy isn’t proactive, and that there is a need to increase the overall level of housing being planned for, so as to meet the full affordable housing need.
559 It is recognised that there is inconsistency between the target provided within Part (3) of Policy ST18 and the level of likely achievable level of affordable housing delivery supported through the wider provisions of the draft Local Plan. The Local Plan is seeking to take a pro-active approach to positively delivery affordable housing to meet identified needs. The target of seeking provision of 7,927 additional affordable homes was established using the emerging findings of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update and equated to the identified level of affordable housing need for northern Devon over the plan period. The final version of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update now identifies a need for 8,656 affordable houses across northern Devon between 2011 and 2031 and should Policy ST18 seek to remain a target on this basis, then it would be necessary to modify it to reflect this figure.
560 This figure equates to approximately 58% of the 14,520 houses identified as being required in total to meet need and demand across that period. The figure was provided within Policy as an aspirational target allied to the premise of seeking to maximise opportunities for meeting the identified affordable housing need. It is recognised that the advocated Policy approach is not likely to enable delivery of such a scale of affordable housing.
561 The Councils are placed in a difficult position in relation to meeting the scale of identified affordable housing needs. The National Planning Policy Framework, clearly states that Local Planning Authorities should: “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 this Framework…”.
562 As such, there is an obligation upon the Council to pursue a strategy to seek delivery of the full scale of identified affordable housing need (i.e. the 8,656 affordable dwellings). However, the opportunities for delivering this scale of affordable housing are restricted.
563 One of the key tools for delivery is to seek development schemes of market housing to contribute towards the provision of affordable housing. Such requirements do however need to be demonstrated to be viable and deliverable and not jeopardise the overall delivery of required housing. The Viability
138 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Assessment has tested the opportunity for seeking affordable housing delivery on market housing schemes across northern Devon and has established that development viability will generally support the requirement to deliver 30% affordable housing (with the theoretical possibility of extending to 40% on larger greenfield sites where planning permission has not already been granted). Using this delivery mechanism, and assuming that all housing development will be able to contribute 30% affordable housing, it would be necessary to increase the scale of overall housing delivery sought across northern Devon to at least 28,800 houses.
564 Provision of such a scale of housing delivery over the plan period is not considered to be a realistic proposition. The draft Local Plan is seeking delivery of housing in the range of approximately 16,000 – 17,000 dwellings. This is a figure above the identified level of full, objectively assessed need and demand for housing. Such a level has been established having regard to a range of matters; and fundamentally seeks to balance delivery of housing to meet needs and demands with other considerations such as economic opportunities, infrastructure capacity, environmental sensitivities and community aspirations. In seeking delivery of this level of housing, part of the justification for doing so is to help meet the overwhelming need for affordable housing. Delivery at a scale significantly above that proposed is however likely to lead to a significant over provision of market housing and unlikely to be realistically supported by a proportionate increase in economic development (i.e. jobs).
565 Further to the housing delivery explicitly planned for through sites identified within the Local Plan it is recognised that additional housing will come forward on a windfall basis. Following the advocated policy approach for affordable housing, which will seek a contribution towards affordable housing from all market housing proposals, irrespective of the number of dwellings proposed, additional affordable housing will be delivered to help contribute towards identified needs.
566 In addition, the policy framework enables the exceptional release of additional land, adjacent to defined settlements, to meet an identified need for affordable housing where this cannot be met elsewhere. This source will further supplement the supply of affordable housing.
567 The Local Plan, through Part (4)(f) of ST18 supports the approach of the Councils proactively working with a range of partners to deliver additional affordable housing. Paragraph 7.32 goes on to provide additional detail on this approach. It is considered that this further provides an opportunity to increase affordable housing delivery to help meet identified needs.
568 Calls have been made through representation on the draft Local Plan to set out how public sector funding such as the New Homes Bonus, proceeds of Land Sales and receipts from the Right to Buy should be used to support the provision of additional affordable homes. The Local Plan is not considered to be the appropriate vehicle for establishing such matters. There are likely to be many significant and competing demands placed upon these financial sources over the lifetime of the Local Plan. Decisions on the spend of such monies is likely to be influenced by a range of factors. Whilst spending such monies on affordable housing may be a legitimate call, and one that may be followed, it is not possible to establish with any degree of certainty the extent to which such funding will be committed to delivery. Furthermore, there is no certainty that such funding streams will remain over the lifetime of the plan. As such, it is not considered appropriate to set out in detail the particular funding mechanisms that will be utilised to support wider affordable housing delivery. It is considered that Part (4)(f) of ST18 provides sufficient opportunity to enable the delivery of affordable housing through the use of public sector funding.
569 Overall, it is considered that the affordable housing delivery mechanisms enabled through the draft Local Plan do provide a positive framework for affordable housing delivery. Whilst it is accepted that the Plan does not meet the full, objectively assessed needs for affordable housing, it is considered that there is a legitimate justification for why this is cannot be reasonably achieved.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 139 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
570 It is recognised that the target set out within Part (3) of Policy ST18 is not likely to be realistic or offers any value to the policy framework. It is considered that there is no appropriate alternative figure that can be established on the basis of robust evidence and as such, it is recommended that no specific numerical affordable housing delivery target is provided within Policy ST18.
571 It is therefore recommended that Part (3) of Policy ST18 be deleted to remove the identified numerical target from Policy. It is recommended that an alternative plan wide target seeking a specific percentage of all new housing to be affordable be provided in Policy ST17 (with the percentage equal to that sought from development proposals).
572 It is further recommended that in lieu of providing a numerical target equating to the scale of housing need, that supporting text be inserted to add reference to the scale of affordable housing need identified through the Strategic Housing Market Assessment.
Policy ST19: Providing Homes for the Travelling Communities
Total number of responses 6
Total number of responses in support 2
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Total number of responses in objection 2
Total number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.24
573 Comments made in response to Policy ST19 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
Summary of Key Issues
Travellers do need accommodation both to stop at when travelling and if they decide they wish to have a permanent base. Their way of life differs from the rest of the community and any accommodation must be sited sympathetically for both parties.
The policy, unlike others does not require ‘no damage to the environment’ or to provide a net gain to biodiversity. This is not therefore in the interests of the local settled community or a consistent approach.
The travelling community receive beneficial/special treatment which is beyond the consideration given to other members of the settled community.
No comment can be made whilst the extent of the requirement remains undefined.
Para 7.44 states that the specific scale, nature and location of allocations for traveller accommodation are yet to be determined and will be subject to a separate targeted consultation. The respondent would like to be consulted on this aspect of the Local Plan.
140 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Officer Comments and Recommendations
574 The policy has received support as a whole, and the twin requirements for transit accommodation and permanent sites for the different traveller groups. Condition (4) is backed in terms of proposals needing to have regard to the interests of the settled community at the same time when assessing potential sites.
575 A suggested incorporation of environmental safeguards, as contained in some other policies is not fully accepted. The policy should be considered in conjunction with DM28 –Sites for Traveller Accommodation which contains appropriate conditions that take account of those concerns, including ‘(c) it does not have an unacceptable landscape, visual or environmental impact’. In addition, all development proposals will be subject to the provisions of Policy DM05-Design Principles, which emphasizes the importance of retention and integration of existing landscape features and biodiversity to enhance networks and
576 promote diversity and distinctiveness of the surrounding area. On balance, therefore, no change to the policy is required.
577 National planning policy seeks to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers (as contained in ‘Planning Policy for Traveller Sites’, DCLR, March 2012) which clearly sets out that local planning authorities should develop strategies to meet identified need through the identification of land for sites. It is therefore unfair to somehow suggest the travelling community receive special treatment, compared with members of the settled community. By failing to plan for traveller needs, the councils would be potentially excluding a certain element of society from having their housing needs considered. Moreover, condition (4) of the policy states development proposals for traveller accommodation must ‘meet an identified need whilst respecting the principles of sustainable development and having regard to the interests of the settled community.’
578 The importance of producing information on the extent of the requirement for gypsy and traveller pitches and travelling show people plots is acknowledged. (as outlined in paras 7.37 & 7.38 of the plan) A joint survey is under way with other Devon district councils to establish strategic requirements and will provide evidence on traveller accommodation needs and demands. When complete next year it will inform a revision of the policy base which will be consulted upon.
579 On a similar basis, the Councils will consult widely with adjoining local authorities (including ENPA) on any proposed allocations for traveller accommodation to be contained in a Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document, following completion of research identifying and assessing land that has the potential to be developed as traveller accommodation.
Agreed Actions
1. Supporting text in paras 7.37 and 7.42 will be revised accordingly, to provide an up-dated reference to a joint survey being currently undertaken with other Devon district councils to establish strategic requirements and evidence on traveller accommodation needs and demands. The study will be completed in mid-2014 and subsequently, a Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document produced to allocate sites (if need is shown) and ensure that a 5-year land supply is maintained.
Notation
ENP – Exmoor National Park
GTTC – Great Torrington Town Council
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 141 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Policy ST20: Managing the Delivery of Housing
Total number of responses 27
Total number of responses in support 5
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 8
Total number of responses in objection 9
Total number of responses providing a general comment 5
Table 5.25
580 Comments made in response to Policy ST20 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
Summary of the Key Issues:
581 Comments made in response to Policy ST20, including the supporting text.
The commitment to transparent monitoring is welcomed, so that progress from the current position to a more balanced housing market in accordance with ST17 can be monitored. Alignment of population and housing projections to census dates is valued as a key enabler to the plan, monitor and manage approach.
It is good management to have a policy aimed at ensuring the supply of homes are delivered in a timely fashion and important that housing density is not applied universally throughout the plan but site by site and design by design.
Support for the policy.
Support ST20 for the positive development management approach to help secure the effective and timely delivery of high quality housing development in sustainable locations.
Sites for community self-build housing should be identified and energy-efficient, self-build schemes encouraged, if possible allocating council owned land.
Items (1)-(4) of the policy are supported. A fifth should be added, stating no new housing development of more than 10 residences will be allowed within 2 km of an industrial sized wind turbine. (over 50m in total height) Due to the increased risk of ill health to the new residents caused by the turbine.
The ‘manage’ part of the policy requires clarification and what the term ‘take steps’ means and under what powers these steps will be taken. Supporting text in para 7.56 is noted.
Support the policy setting out how the Councils will manage the delivery of housing pro-actively.
Policy ST20 should contain an affordable housing trajectory as per para 47 of the NPPF.
The respondent is largely supportive of the policy, however greater clarity should be provided in supporting text to explain what would constitute a significant under performance in housing delivery. LPA’s need to boost significantly the supply of housing in line with the NPPF. (para 47)
142 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Item (1) of the policy should refer to meeting the ‘full objectively assessed needs of the area’ rather than the ‘needs of communities across northern Devon’.
In relation to item (4), the LPA should seek to ensure that any sustainable sites which already benefit from planning permission but which have not been implemented are developed. This approach would also ensure that potentially less sustainable sites are not brought forward until they are necessary.
The policy provides for development monitoring over twenty years of the Plan but it is uncertain how the local authority can regulate house building so as to prevent a developer, once given planning permission, from just building at his own pace and in order to sell those once built to finance those yet to be built. The authority requires a legally binding and enforceable policy of ensuring that it withholds planning permission until its monitoring process allows for the next phase to proceed.
The policy needs to be supported with a charter which specifies standards that developers, applicants and agents can expect to be provided from the LPA.
A reference to the ‘existing committed development for housing’ (para 7.50) should be provided so that it can be easily identified; these may change resident’s views on land that is being considered in the policy maps for the Local Plan. There is a lack of clarity about the space allocated for housing on the policy maps.
‘Additional housing’ in the final sentence of para 7.51 requires clarification, if the local plan has covered need then what requirement is there for it, does it include extensions to existing properties.
Para 7.51 seems to provide a means by which any developer can bypass the local plan. Land does not appear as windfall, there are no indications of where these sites can be. Development may be adjacent to existing settlements or anywhere, beyond the boundary of any policy map is implied.
It is impossible to obtain the levels or values of financial contributions for a development site at pre-application stage. (para 7.52)
The necessity for Councils to ‘prepare regular rigorous and transparent assessments of five year deliverable housing land supply’ (para 7.55) is questioned. A sufficient supply of land for housing should be contained in the plan and marked on the policy maps.
Developers may manipulate what is set out in para 7.57 by not fully pursuing developments and engaging with councils to deliver the required numbers in time. The resulting under achievement of housing targets could enable developers to propose land they hold in their land banks for more profitable developments with central Government support.
The statement in para 7.57 (second sentence) ‘…Councils may exceptionally consider supporting proposals for housing that would not normally be enabled for development …’ indicates developers put forward land they want to be develop. If the deficit is that bad then the Councils got it wrong in the first place.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 143 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
The Local Plan needs to be completed. Such alternatives in para 7.58 could be driven by vested interest and/or central government interference. They could open the floodgates and is too vague to be acceptable.
The Policy Maps indicate areas set aside for housing which also provides boundaries on what may be developed. At least some parts of North Devon are safe from destruction by developers.
Officer Comments and Recommendations
582 The policy has received a balanced level of support, with particular emphasis on seeking to ensure the supply of homes are delivered in a timely fashion and importance that housing density is not applied universally throughout the plan but site by site and design by design.
583 Community self-build housing provides a potential valuable dimension to the range of housing types which can be developed in northern Devon. Such housing can be taken up as part of neighbourhood plans if desired by local communities and through existing housing policies in the local plan.(including ST17-A Balanced Local Housing Market) There is however no particular advantage with incorporation into ST20, which is focused on maintaining housing delivery in order to meet housing targets.
584 A suggested additional item, to show distance thresholds for new housing development from industrial sized wind turbines is unnecessary and falls outside the ambit of the policy. Further, there is no requirement to quote separation distances in the Local Plan, given existing regulations administered by the Council’s own Environmental Health Services and Health and Safety Executive. The general point about risk to health is taken up under the provisions of Policy DM02-Environmental Protection.
585 Going further with explanation of ‘manage’ is noted. In terms of specifics, supporting text in para 7.56 (as acknowledged by the respondent) combined with paras 7.57 and 7.58 provides adequate information on ‘take steps’ to facilitate the expedient delivery of appropriate housing development, referenced in item (4) of ST20.
586 There is no stated requirement in the NPPF (para 47) to provide an affordable housing trajectory in the local plan; although the local planning authorities must provide the housing trajectory for the plan period in a relevant format to supplement the plan. Para 7.54 of the plan states: ‘Housing trajectories will be published on a regular basis to take account of levels of completed housing and have regard to up-to-date information on commitments and the availability of potential future housing allocations.’ Relevant information on overall housing trajectory is shown in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and affordable housing component in Annual Monitoring Reports.
587 A need to provide more explanation about what would constitute a significant under performance in housing delivery is not accepted. Such a position will become readily apparent from regular rigorous assessments of five year deliverable housing land supply that will be published and made widely available (see also point 4 above).
588 An amendment to item (1) to state ‘full objectively assessed needs of the area’ rather than the ‘needs of communities across northern Devon’ is not necessary. Although the suggested wording is taken directly from the NPPF, (para 47) it is too general and does not reflect or base the requirement in the subject area of northern Devon which the existing text refers to.
144 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
589 Recognition of the value of sites which already benefit from planning permission before other potentially less sustainable sites being brought forward, in the context of item (4), is acknowledged. The point is already covered in para 7.56 (second sentence) that states: ‘In doing so, the Councils will initially seek to provide support to enable existing allocations and outstanding planning consents to be realised.’
590 Policy ST20 sets out a framework for actively managing housing delivery over the plan period, relevant monitoring and assessment processes are explained in supporting text. (paras 7.53-55). In reality though, the planning system does not allow for local authorities to stipulate timings over completion of individual sites by developers in the way presented by the respondent. A slow pace of development of some sites will always be an integral feature of the local housing market. In any case, a 15% non-implementation rate is applied to small sites that contribute to the land supply through unimplemented consents. Using phasing in the way suggested would not be particularly helpful or fit with present national planning policy.
591 The idea of producing a charter which specifies standards to be met by the local planning authorities, particularly in relation to item (3) of the policy is noted. In this context it should be emphasised the councils will promote and support the use of Planning Performance Agreements for major planning applications, to help improve the quality of development and decision making (para 7.52 refers).
592 Details of ‘existing committed development for housing’ (para 7.50, final sentence) is provided in supporting technical evidence accompanying the plan, in particular the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. It is unnecessary to depict individual sites with outstanding residential permission on the Policies Maps alongside site allocations, as suggested. The plan is forward looking covering the period up to 2031.
593 A reference to ‘additional housing’ in para 7.51 (final sentence) is reasonable, in the sense that the Local Plan must be flexible enough to allow for further sites to come forward from neighbourhood plans, as contained in Policy ST23. Such plans, containing housing proposals, will in the majority of circumstances emerge following adoption of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan and therefore it is necessary to allow for some possible additional housing growth beyond the planned provision level shown in Policy ST07. Part of the mix may include extensions to existing properties where these result in additional self contained units of accommodation, but general extensions or ancillary development would not be counted against the northern Devon housing target of 16,000 dwellings.
594 Different alternative sources for houses beyond residential allocations, such as unidentified windfall sites and exception sites is explained in para 7.51. These do not mean a developer can bypass the local plan as contended. Development of such sites is managed by individual policies, including DM04-New Development within Local Centres and the Countryside and DM21-Affordable Housing on Exception Sites and the general approach supported by the NPPF.(para 17)
595 The challenge of obtaining levels of financial contributions at pre-application stage is noted. Para 7.52 actually states: ‘The Councils will engage in constructive pre-application discussions to ensure that potential issues are addressed early in the development process and all opportunities are taken to maximise the positive benefits of development.’ No reference is made concerning financial contributions.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 145 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
596 A major reason for preparing regular assessments of five year deliverable housing land supply (as referenced in para 7.55) is to monitor progress as the plan moves forward and is entirely consistent with national policy guidance. (NPPF para 47 refers) It is unrealistic to imply that the supply of land for housing identified in the plan should be left without further on-going monitoring following adoption.
597 16. Potential manipulation of the housing supply by developers in order to bring forward additional sites from land banks beyond those already identified in the plan is unlikely, given the collaborative working framework between the Councils and representatives of the local development industry, public sector bodies and community. Regular up-dates of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment will be supported by a stakeholder panel. The terms set out in para 7.57 represent a valuable instrument for adjusting housing delivery, if necessary, and does not signify that housing provision and development proposals contained in the spatial strategy to be wrong as suggested.
598 The statement in para 7.58 is factual in terms of presenting options of ‘partial review of the Local Plan’ or ‘additional development plan document’ in order to address any significant deficit in housing delivery performance in the future. They should be viewed as a rider to delivery of housing in the plan which illustrates the Councils’ on-going commitment. Therefore, pointing to some form of ‘vested interest or central government interference’ behind the options is not accurate.
599 The respondent’s comments about housing site allocations shown on the Policies Maps are noted.
600 It would be beneficial to amend and condense some of the supporting text in order to improve clarity, in particular paras 7.48, 7.49, 7.53 & 7.54, that includes an introductory dimension to managing housing delivery, performance and housing trajectories.
Agreed Actions
1. Deletion of supporting paras 7.48 and 7.49. 2. Revise and combine paras 7.53 and 7.54 which cover housing delivery performance and housing trajectories as follows: 3. ‘The Councils will carry out robust monitoring of housing delivery performance, producing a range of housing performance data to ensure that the delivery of housing can be robustly and transparently appraised. Housing trajectories will be published on a regular basis to take account of levels of completed housing and have regard to up-to-date information on commitments and the availability of potential future housing allocations’. Policy ST21: Community Services and Facilities
Total number of responses 14
Total number of responses in support 5
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 5
Total number of responses in objection 2
Total number of responses providing a general comment 5
Table 5.26
146 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
601 Comments made in response to Policy ST21 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
Summary of the Key Issues
602 Comments made in response to Policy ST21, including supporting text:
Support
General support (x4) Support policy, in particular clauses 2 and 3 (ENPA) Support the policy in principle (DCC) Support (Theatres Trust) Support method to protect pubs, in particular, from avoidable closures Support the recognition that market forces cannot dictate provision and therefore existing community and cultural facilities need safeguarding and support to expand
Support Subject To Amendment(s)
Define how ‘needs’ will be identified in criterion 1. A developer-initiated survey would have an inherent bias, and so be open to challenge (CPRE)
Objection
Lack of strategic guidance on the provision of open space, recreational facilities and green infrastructure, which is a major concern. Propose that the policy is amended to incorporate strategic guidance on the provision of open space, recreational facilities and green infrastructure Requirements of private and public / community operated facilities are not clear. Paragraphs (a) to (d) are stated to relate to public/community owned facilities and services only. The requirements for commercial operators are not stated (ND+) Unduly restrictive on the change of use of existing facilities. Risk breaching human rights. Unreasonably prescriptive in the method, price and timescale, with adverse impacts on property values (x2) Policy duplicates the provisions of the Localism Act, which allows communities to protect facilities of local value through a local list. The Act should take precedence Paragraph 8.11 mentions a further requirement for commercial operators, which does not make sense in isolation (ND+)
General Comment
There is little point supporting a plan that fails to recognise the holistic needs of various centres (x2) Making better use of existing resources contributes to sustainable development objectives by reducing the need for additional facilities and the potential loss of scare resources such as open space (Sport England) The practice of making school sports facilities available to wider community use is already well established (Sport England) Where the facility/service is no longer viable, the local plan should support the conversion or new build for residential purposes Clause 3(b), suggest that the alternative local provision should at least equal community benefit to that which is lost Critical to ring fence facilities that make communities viable
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 147 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
North Devon Theatres Trust has a strategic role in community development through its work with all sectors of the community – it would like to have the opportunity to further expand this role. The requirement to submit 3 years trading accounts presumably does not apply to community or publicly operated facilities, which is the precursor to this section In view of section four of the policy the LP must have in mind needs identified through mechanisms other than parish plans or equivalents (CPRE)
Other Key Issues identified
Localism Act and the community right to bid powers North Devon Council’s community right to bid policy £17 million Community Right to Build fund, which is intended to help communities bring forward all types of projects, e.g. a shop, a new leisure facility or commercial space.
Officer Comment
603 This strategic policy received comparatively fewer representations when compared against other strategic policies. DCC, ENPA and the Theatres Trust support the principle of the policy.
604 The Devon branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England raised a number of points. In response to their first query, the policy seeks to support community facilities that reflect local community requirements and aspirations. For example, facilities that support the immediate needs of the local community and the role of the settlement (principles of sustainable development) will be supported. The policy would not benefit from defining what constitutes a ‘need’ as this would be overly prescriptive. In response to their second query, whilst the responsibility is with the applicant to provide a survey, the role of the Council is to objectively assess the survey’s findings.
605 Several representations raised concerns about the lack of strategic guidance on the provision of open space, recreational facilities and green infrastructure. Similar comments have been made against policies ST03, ST11 and DM08. It is recognised that the Local Plan should be clearer with its Green Infrastructure strategy, however these issues are explored under Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change.
606 Two representations (inc. ND+) consider the policy to be unduly restrictive on the change of use of existing facilities. Conversely, several representations called for local services and facilities to be ring fenced. It is accepted there are inherent difficulties trying to balance the need to protect valued community services whilst simultaneously reducing the burden of regulation on the free market to reuse buildings. However it is believed the draft policy offers an appropriate balance. The policy supports the reuse of a building where it can be evidenced that the existing facility/service is no longer economically viable, subject to other material considerations. The draft policy is not considered to be unduly and unreasonably restrictive.
607 The policy does not duplicate the Localism Act, which allows communities to protect facilities of local value through a local list. The policy supports provisions made in the Localism Act, however it is accepted that the policy should make reference to the Act and the Councils’ respective “Community Right To Bid” policies.
608 ND+ have identified an error in paragraphs 8.10 and 8.11. It is accepted that the last sentence that introduces the bullet points should delete the word “community” and replace with the word “commercially”. References made to “commercial facilities” should be updated to read “commercially operated facilities”.
148 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Officer Recommendations
1. Clarify the green infrastructure strategy and issues as part of the response to representations to Policy ST03. 2. Add references to the respective Councils’ community right to bid policies within the reasoned justification to clarify and ensure consistent references to the Localism Act. 3. Amend paragraphs 8.10 and 8.11 to correct identified errors by replacing “community” with “commercially” and referring to “commercially operated facilities”. Policy ST22: Infrastructure
Total number of responses 34
Total number of responses in support 4
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 6
Total number of responses in objection 6
Total number of responses providing a general comment 20
Table 5.27
609 Comments made in response to Policy ST22 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
Summary of the Key Issues
610 Comments made in response to Policy ST22, including supporting text:
Development should help to provide the infrastructure it contributes to the need for; There are various specific elements of infrastructure that respondents would like to see referred to in greater detail, such as health care, certain roads, rail, flood defence and recreational/leisure provision; There are concerns expressed that obligations should not be set at too high a level so that development is made unviable or to be punitive; Any development that included some environmental improvements would be enabled, even if it caused considerable environmental damage on other fronts; Various infrastructure providers undertake to work with the Councils on delivery; Concern that an area not experiencing growth will not get new or enhanced infrastructure; Concern about the absence of an infrastructure delivery plan (IDP); and Provision needs to be timely and certain.
Additional Issues identified
Councils cannot use s106 agreement to secure infrastructure after April 2014 without a regulation 123 list; and Confusion about status of Rejected Option 3.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 149 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Officer Comments and Recommendations
611 There is broad support for a presumption that infrastructure should be contributed towards or provided by the development that increases the need for it, which is welcome as this principle underlies this policy. Even those who argue against setting the required level of contributions too high and raise concerns about the viability of development do not dissent from this principle.
612 It is recognised that the level of contributions required should not inhibit the overall deliverability of the plan by adversely impacting on viability. It is however necessary to remember that if development takes place that increases the need for infrastructure and that development does not cover its cost then there are two alternatives – the infrastructure is not delivered, resulting in a sub-standard pattern of development, or the taxpayer funds the infrastructure. Whilst the public purse will inevitably make a contribution to provision, local taxpayers are unlikely to take kindly to paying to support excessively high land prices or developer margins. The balance therefore needs to be struck very carefully.
613 In view of the need to balance viability and adequate infrastructure funding, it should be considered very carefully whether facilities provided by private businesses should be publicly funded through CIL/s106. Whilst it may be necessary and appropriate to secure land within a development for a facility such as a doctors’ surgery, it should be remembered that its practitioners will own the practice, which is funded through NHS payments based on patient levels and treatments.
614 The Local Plan document is designed to cover a 20 year period and be capable of accommodating a range of changing scenarios during that period. It is unwise therefore to go into too much specific detail concerning particular pieces of infrastructure. If the broad categories requiring provision are identified then the appropriate mechanisms for detailed delivery are supplementary planning documents, master plans, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, the CIL charging schedule/Reg. 123 list and potentially neighbourhood plans or area action plans.
615 CIL will facilitate a wider ability to prioritise infrastructure delivery according to need rather than having to maintain a specific link between the infrastructure and the development. Areas with low growth potential will therefore be less, rather than more likely to get the infrastructure they need.
616 Rejected option 3 is not actually rejected. It is an observation about how more certainty can be introduced into infrastructure delivery and needs working back into the main text.
617 The representation relating to the inability to use of s106 after April 2014 is incorrect, because the date of 6th April 2014 refers to the provisions of paragraph (3) of Reg. 123 relating to pooling of contributions, rather than paragraph (2) relating to the securing of relevant infrastructure by s106 agreement. The operative date for paragraph (2) is the date when the charging authority’s first charging schedule (CIL) takes effect.
618 It is considered inappropriate to include this level of detail in the Local Plan because there have been various amendments to the CIL regulations since first published (2010) and the Government has consulted on the possibility of further changes. Some of these changes relate to the interaction between CIL and s106 obligations and possibly delaying the pooling provisions until April 2015. The regulations as applicable at the relevant time will be adhered to.
Agreed Actions:
1. Amend supporting text to clarify the issue of balancing adequate funding for infrastructure provision with viability in light of the guidance of the NPPF.
150 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
2. Amend text to make clear how the broad requirements for infrastructure provision will be detailed appropriately and quantified through other documents. 3. Integrate the reasoning behind the Rejected Options into the main text, most particularly point 3. Policy ST23: Neighbourhood Planning
Total number of responses 30
Total number of responses in support 7
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 6
Total number of responses in objection 7
Total number of responses providing a general comment 10
Table 5.28
619 Comments made in response to Policy ST23 and supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
Summary of Key Issues
Support
General Support (x8) Decisions should reflect the considered opinion of the parish / town council or neighbourhood fora Ensure policy is adhered to in its entirety to avoid the negative impacts of nimbyism constraining growth
Support Subject To Amendment(s)
As a mater of principle, there is a presumption that District Councils will defer to local decisions where the weight of evidence and public opinion is clear and transparent Policy criteria (2) alludes to the misunderstanding that cannot reduce the quantum of development, however this policy would benefit from explaining these issues further (x2) Include a biodiversity audit so that locally important sites and species are identified and protected Add greater clarity about the status of neighbourhood plans in the planning system, and what support the District Council is planning to provide Can neighbourhood plans be adopted after the Local Plan is adopted? (x2)
Objection
Localism supports local communities, so why is the Council not listening to local people. For example Tawstock PC objection to Larkbear Does this mean that developers cannot put forward plans that are outside the policy maps of local plans? Criterion 2 is at odds with paragraph 7.51 that states neighbourhood plans may identify additional housing above and beyond that provided through the local plan
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 151 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
A neighbourhood plan is all about creating something particular for the parish, and therefore will not conform to the policies for the whole area – this policy directly attacks the idea of a neighbourhood plan Propose amendment to reflect that neighbourhood plan will form part of the development but not the local plan as currently specified in part 3 of the policy It seems to steer parish councils to deliver facilities under the Localism Act. It appears not to support landowners who might want to develop the land separately, contrary to the Localism Act
General Comment
Reflects provisions found in the Localism Act and NPPF Consideration may need to be given to those parishes split by the boundary of the NP where neighbourhood planning is proposed It is unclear which comes first in Policy ST23, between the Neighbourhood Plan and Local Plan Question if sufficient resources exist to support all parish and town councils and neighbourhood that wish to undertake neighbourhood planning (x2) Planning proposals for substantial changes to the highway network should be supported by appropriate technical evidence and consultation (DCC) Consideration should also be given to funding options and how any schemes would be delivered. Stakeholder agreement is considered crucial especially where on-going responsibility for proposals will eventually pass to another stakeholder (DCC) Advocate the use of ‘toolkit for sustainable rural communities’ Explain how the Council will decide whether they accept any comments from the Parish Council regarding the Neighbourhood Plan
Other Key Issues identified
Representations to Chapter 13 (part 3) village plans will be reported separately from this report. The Planning Advisory Service has produced a guide for Councillors on Neighbourhood Planning – attached to report. Locality, a network of community-led organisations, has also produced a simple guide to neighbourhood planning for local communities.
Officer Comments and Recommendations
620 There is general support for this policy, however it is evident there is some confusion over the status given to a neighbourhood plan and its role with in the Development Plan (local plan). Better clarification and explanation is required.
621 The Localism Act 2011 introduced new rights and powers to allow local communities to shape new development by coming together to prepare neighbourhood plans. Neighbourhood planning can be taken forward by town and parish councils or 'neighbourhood fora'. Neighbourhood fora are community groups that are designated to take forward neighbourhood planning in areas without parishes. It is the role of the local planning authority to agree who should be the neighbourhood forum for the neighbourhood area.
622 Neighbourhood fora and parish councils can use new neighbourhood planning powers to establish general planning policies for the development and use of land in a neighbourhood. These are described legally as neighbourhood development plans. In an important change to the planning system, communities can now use neighbourhood planning to permit the development they want to see without the need for planning applications. These are called neighbourhood development orders
152 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
623 Importantly, North Devon and Torridge District Councils set the strategic context (within a Development Plan) within which neighbourhood development plans will sit. Neighbourhood plans need to be in general conformity with strategic policies in the local plan.
624 Neighbourhood development plans or orders do not take effect unless there is a majority of support in a referendum of the neighbourhood. They also have to meet a number of conditions before they can be put to a community referendum and legally come into force. These conditions are to ensure plans are legally compliant and take account of wider policy considerations (e.g. national policy).
625 Several representations argue decision-making should reflect the considered opinion of the parish / town council or neighbourhood. Questions were also raised as to why a neighbourhood plan has to be in conformity with the local plan. Conversely other representations requested greater clarity to ensure neighbourhood plans cannot reduce the quantum of development identified in a Local Plan. Clarification and explanation of these issues is required.
626 It is clear that the status of neighbourhood planning is misunderstood and needs to be explained within the supporting text. To clarify, the Localism Act 2011 stipulates that neighbourhood development plans or orders must: a. have regard to national planning policy b. be in general conformity with strategic policies in the development plan for the local area (i.e. North Devon and Torridge Local Plan) c. be compatible with EU obligations and human rights requirements.
627 The issue of resources available to parish and town councils and neighbourhood fora to undertake neighbourhood planning is raised. In May 2013 the Government announced £9.5m funding for a “Supporting communities in neighbourhood planning programme” to help communities across the country produce neighbourhood plans. This Supporting Communities in Neighbourhood Planning programme will support groups developing neighbourhood plans in two ways: a. Direct support – advice and support, with an average value of equivalent to £9,500, tailored to meet the needs of supported neighbourhoods; and b. Grant payments – up to £7,000 per neighbourhood area, to contribute to costs incurred by the group preparing a neighbourhood plan or order.
Agreed Actions
1. The “Localism Act 2012” is incorrect and should read “Localism Act 2011”. The original bill received Royal Assent on 15 November 2011; 2. Explain in plain English, the role and status of neighbourhood planning, how they sit alongside local plans and the provisions made in the Localism Act 2011; and 3. Members should note:
the PAS guide for Councillors on Neighbourhood Planning; and the ‘supporting communities in neighbourhood planning’ funding programme.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 153 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Town Strategies: Barnstaple
Total number of responses 682
Total number of responses in support 95
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 75
Total number of responses in objection 405
Total number including total number of additional promoted sites 9
Total number of responses providing a general comment 107
Table 5.29 Responses to Barnstaple Town Strategy
628 Comments made in response to Barnstaple Town Strategy and all supporting text can be found via the online planning portal
Policy Bar: Barnstaple Spatial Strategy
Summary of Key Issues
629 Comments made in response to Policy BAR: Barnstaple Spatial Strategy, including supporting text regarding The Place, Evidence, The Future, The Development Strategy and Development Proposals:
Number of responses 95
Number of responses in support 12
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 13
Number of responses in objection 38
including total number of additional promoted sites 9
Number of responses providing a general comment 31
Table 5.30
Support the recognition Exmoor within the Plan (ENPA) Support expansion of Petroc as a university level resource (ENPA) Support the spatial vision for Barnstaple (x3) Support the strategy in relation to flooding and the provision of natural green spaces (EA) Support the provision of additional strategic footpaths and cycleways which forms part of the Barnstaple Transport Strategy (DCC) Support the strategic allocation at Westacott (BAR01) Supports the exclusion of housing development off Goodleigh Road Generally supports the focus for development on Barnstaple but sustainable transport must be improved alongside development (HA)
154 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Generally supports the spatial vision for Barnstaple and the level of growth proposed but the Plan should delete reference to the delivery of 200 dpa The housing numbers proposed for the town should be amended so that the provision is to deliver ‘at least’ in response to the requirements of the NPPF Additional housing sites should be identified for the smaller local developers through amendments to the existing development boundary Support the recognition that land to the north of the town is considered a sustainable location for comprehensive development General support for housing growth in Barnstaple but there are concerns with development to the north of town (BAR05) Support for the inclusion of housing at Westaway Plain (BAR05) Re-assess the proposed housing numbers for BAR05 and BAR06 Support vision for housing growth but do not consider development should be focused to the south of town without justified evidence (x2) Support for housing growth to the south and south-east of the town Development to the south of the town offers the most sustainable location in terms of access to transport rather than further development to the north of the town Build new houses on brownfield sites such as Anchorwood Bank (BAR12) and Evans Transport (BAR14) rather than more supermarkets Trayne Farm is prime farmland and within land of outstanding natural beauty; the site has protected trees and wide diversity of wildlife Development of 800 plus houses for Larkbear (BAR02) is excessive and an over development of the site that will have a detrimental effect on Barnstaple and existing infrastructure (x3) The level of development proposed for Barnstaple will have a devastating impact on this historic and unique market town (x2) Would question how much of the new housing will be affordable for local people and concerns that the affordable housing is allocated to families outside the District The strategy does not provide sufficient housing for Barnstaple and it should be merged with Fremington as a single spatial strategy Sites allocated on the northern and eastern periphery of the town are prominent in the wider landscape and may be considered unacceptable when scrutinised. Other allocated sites will not deliver the growth strategy and therefore not meet the objectives of the Plan and will not deliver a 5 year housing land supply Non-strategic sites should be allocated rather than be treated as windfalls The redevelopment of large previously developed sites should be deleted unless evidence would show a scheme is viable Extra care housing should be considered economic development and not residential Only 2.8 hectares of land has been promoted for employment development as part of BAR04 Whiddon Farm should be included within the development boundary Some of the density assumptions are questioned and infrastructure requirements will impact on deliverability as they are not considered viable Development at Glenwood Farm (BAR09) is supported but it should be identified as a mixed-use development as the current allocation is too inflexible The park at Whiddon Valley should not be developed to provide a road for any potential development at Westacott (BAR01) The implications around future traffic movements from the developments with Barnstaple should be considered as a whole (D&C Police) All strategic development sites in Barnstaple will be required to contribute toward additional primary and secondary education provision (DCC)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 155 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
The spatial strategy 1(c) is too prescriptive and should be more flexible in terms of the provision for a new primary school Recognition is required in the evidence that the spatial strategy and transport strategy have been informed by traffic modeling which has helped identify specific network improvements. Modeling has also been used to assess alternative options (DCC) Concerns over the level of development in Barnstaple and it’s impact on services such as schools and hospitals (x3 including BTC) Questions whether additional infrastructure will include medical and healthcare provision The limited early years and youth provision in the town are a key consideration for Barnstaple and should be recognised accordingly. Development will be required to contribute toward youth facilities (DCC) The strategy is very aspirational with no indication as to how it will be delivered; it pre-supposes a major economic upturn (NDH) Local and national retailers are struggling, partly caused by the incursion of supermarkets; this issue needs addressing (x2) NDC does not fully support local retailers by allowing free parking and reduced rates Culture is a key part in Barnstaple’s regeneration and major developments should contribute toward improving such facilities Add wording in the vision to recognise ‘the need to protect the health of the town centre’ Protection of vitality and viability of the town centre should stand alongside the aims of expansion The Plan does not recognise Pottington Business Park needs regeneration (x2) The Plan talks about supporting future employment but gives no evidence as to how this will be delivered (x3) The high dependency on state benefits in the town will be exacerbated by additional housing developments due to the lack of employment opportunities Provide the jobs before housing North Devon will only ever retain a small number of qualified people as most will still move to other areas with higher salaries and greater employment opportunities (x2) The Plan should highlight the need to encourage entrepreneurship, start-up and relocation (x2) The proposed level of employment land proposed is too high, particularly at Roundswell and Glenwood Farm (BAR09) If northern Devon can develop green industries then a more buoyant economy may materialise The Plan recognises there is a shortage of equipped play areas in the town but the proposed Westacott development (BAR01) proposes a new road through the park Would oppose the loss of general landscaping in Barnstaple (BTC) There is no connection between the town and river users due to the lack of facilities The Plan makes no provision for dealing with flood defence issues that restrict development on great swathes of brownfield land. Land around Mill Road could include a flood-gate The Plan does not protect green spaces but it will lead to their destruction Explicit reference should be made to the historic environment and the conservation of heritage assets. Potential to improve the historic environment (EH) Additional housing site proposed on land at Trayne Farm by amending the existing development boundary (see plan) Additional housing site proposed on land at Maidenford by amending the existing development boundary (see plan) Additional housing site proposed on land at Goodleigh Road by amending the existing development boundary (no site identified) Additional housing site proposed on land north of Goodleigh Road by amending the existing development boundary (see plan)
156 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Additional housing site proposed on land west of Mead Park, Bickington by amending the existing development boundary (see plan) Additional housing site proposed on land at Bickington by amending the existing development boundary (see plan) Additional site proposed on land at Hollamoor Farm for a waste recovery facility and additional employment land by amending the existing development boundary (see plan) Additional employment site on land east of Brynsworthy Lane, south of the A39 for by amending the existing allocation (BAR10) (see plan)
Other Key Issues identified
Table 10.5 can be updated to a 31 March 2013 base date to show commitments over the last year Further guidance for English Heritage recommends the need for effective conservation to secure the future of Barnstaple's distinctive historic environment and heritage assets, and the need to promote its proper maintenance including investigating opportunities for grant schemes An outline planning application (56047) has been submitted at Trayne Farm for up to 80 residential dwellings An outline planning application (55479) has been approved in principle for up to 1,394 m2 of employment use and up to 92 dwellings at Glenwood Farm, Roundswell (Policy BAR09) which includes housing on proposed employment land A planning application (55640) has been submitted off Goodleigh Road for erection of 62 dwellings following planning application (53348) being dismissed on appeal Early indications from the updated ‘Employment Land Review’ highlights that the Plan has an over provision of employment land to meet the anticipated demand. The implications of this will be considered under Policies ST07 and ST14 but ELR recommendations could have implications for several sites.
Officer Comments and Recommendations
630 There is support for the Barnstaple Spatial Strategy and vision, particularly from some of the key stakeholders such as Exmoor National Park, Devon County Council, Environment Agency and to a lesser extent the Highways Agency. There is a mixed response to the housing growth strategy for Barnstaple, some supporting the concentration of development to the south and south-east of the town whereas other responses consider more development should be focused to the north of the town. It is not accepted that the Plan recognises that this area can or will deliver comprehensive development due mainly to access and environmental constraints but the area will deliver a small percentage (about 6.5%) of Barnstaple’s overall housing growth. The focus to provide the majority of development on the southern side of the town is considered to be the most sustainable and deliverable strategy as the area has good access to the strategic road network, North Devon Link Road (A361) and Atlantic Highway (A39) and it is where the majority of employment opportunities will be delivered. The overall strategy is in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which underpins the NPPF.
631 It is accepted that the spatial strategy should recognise the need within Barnstaple for increased early years and youth provision, which will be supported by new development. It is implicit in Policy ST22: Infrastructure that the strategic and non-strategic housing sites will be expected to provide or contribute toward the timely provision of physical and social infrastructure such as additional primary and secondary education provision. One objector considers the strategy to be too inflexible where it relates to the location of new primary provision within the town. It should be noted that the current planning applications for development at Larkbear (54762) and Tews Lane (53881) both propose a
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 157 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
site for a new primary school. Whilst the Plan currently considers the sites at Larkbear and Westacott to be the most appropriate locations to deliver the new primary provision for the town, it is accepted that the strategy could be more flexible in terms of recognising that a ‘new primary school should be delivered to the south-west of the River Taw’.
632 It is accepted that in the previous Core Strategy, Fremington and Yelland were considered an option for growth in order to help meet some of the housing required by the draft RSS for the South West (a housing requirement of 10,900 in North Devon), including an excessively 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 2012 SHMA update has informed a new housing target for North Devon, which Policy ST07 indicates as approximately 8,400 homes over the Plan period. Overall housing numbers and distribution are addressed through comments to Policy ST07, which will identify the appropriate level of growth for each main town. Fremington and Yelland is considered a Local Centre and a separate settlement from Barnstaple as the sub-regional centre. Barnstaple has sufficient land to deliver the level of housing growth required over the plan period, therefore it is considered neither appropriate nor necessary for Fremington and Yelland to accommodate any of Barnstaple’s growth.
633 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 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 4,000 dwellings through specific strategic and non-strategic site allocations is not contrary to the requirements of the NPPF.
634 The other main towns have been amended to delete reference to an annual build rate. For consistency it is recommended that the wording ‘of about 200 dwellings per year’ be deleted which will allow a degree of flexibility for the delivery of housing and infrastructure in Barnstaple over the Plan period. One representation considers that the development boundary should be drawn more loosely in order to provide greater opportunities for smaller developers. 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 ST07: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon. However, the draft Local 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. It should also be noted that additional housing could be delivered outside of the current development boundary for Barnstaple where it meets the criteria set out within Policy DM21: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites.
635 The NPPF clearly sets out within its core planning principles that Plans should ‘encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value’. This principle is further advocated at paragraph 111. The previously developed sites allocated for housing in the Plan for Barnstaple are considered viable so there is no intention to delete these from the Plan. The Anchorwood Bank site has an extant planning
158 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
permission (55809) that includes the erection of 350 dwellings and a supermarket on this previously developed site, although residential uses are not considered acceptable on the Evans Transport site where the land is at extreme risk of flooding but there is an outstanding planning application (52842) for a supermarket that has yet to be determined by the Council. Both applications must be considered on their own merits, based on the adopted development plan and the NPPF. However, it is accepted that the emerging policy for Anchorwood Bank (BAR12) should be amended to reflect the development within the extant planning permission. Also, the reuse of previously developed land is a key aspect of delivering sustainable development, but is not explicitly recognised as a policy objective, which should be addressed within Policy ST02: Principles of Sustainable Development.
636 Land at Trayne Farm has not been proposed as a site in the emerging Local Plan to meet the housing need in Barnstaple over the Plan period to 2031. It is accepted that the boundaries of the site do contain a number of protected trees and hedgerows that have some wildlife importance and should be protected and enhanced where appropriate. However, the land is not within an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) although the upper slopes are considered to be visually prominent in the wider landscape where the spatial vision for Barnstaple seeks to ‘protect the green hills around the town’. The Council is currently dealing with a planning application for the erection of 80 dwellings (56047) on this site which must be determined on its own merits based on policies within the development plan and the NPPF. The site has also been promoted as part of the SHLAA process (SHA/PWE/119) where the stakeholder panel considered ‘the site was developable but would not be delivered within the first 5 years. It was also felt that development of the whole site would not be appropriate but a scheme up to the track should be considered’. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires that local planning authorities should identify a supply of specific deliverable sites, sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements, with an additional appropriate buffer included, dependent on past delivery.
637 The delivery of affordable housing in both North Devon and Torridge is a priority for the Plan and the type and size of affordable housing built should meet that local need, although it should be noted that affordable housing in Barnstaple will help meet the District’s need and not just the needs of Barnstaple. The most up to date evidence on development viability would suggest that a minimum of 25% affordable housing should be delivered on allocated and non-allocated sites. However, the Plan cannot control how the allocation of affordable housing is structured, which is a function of the local housing authority, Devon Home Choice and central Government policy.
638 The non-strategic housing site contribution of 200 dwellings in Barnstaple is based on evidence gathered through the SHLAA process of developable brownfield sites within the existing development boundary. Each of these sites is expected to deliver less than 50 dwellings so it was not considered necessary to allocate them within the Plan. However, they are not considered as being windfall sites as the availability of specific sites for housing development is known. It is accepted that the supporting text could recognise how the figure has been derived. The Plan at paragraph 4.18 makes it clear that no allowance is given for windfalls, although yields from such sites have made a significant contribution to historic development rates and are still likely to do so over the Plan period to further extend development opportunities beyond that required to meet the housing target.
639 The requirement to deliver extra care housing, as part of the strategic and non-strategic sites, are considered to meet a recognised affordable housing need where the units are self-contained, which could be more explicitly stated within Policy ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing. However, it is accepted that where the extra care provision is not self-contained and more communal facilities are provided then these should not count toward the overall housing growth strategy for northern Devon.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 159 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
640 It is accepted that the density of development and the delivery of infrastructure, including community facilities and affordable housing is subject to viability. It is implicit in Policy ST22 that developments will be expected to provide or contribute toward the timely provision of physical and social infrastructure including additional cultural, healthcare and primary school provision although it is considered that viability issues on a particular site would be assessed at the time of any planning applications. All the statutory providers have been consulted as part of the plan, including Devon County Council and the Health Authority. Evidence would suggest there is a need for additional primary schools to be built as part of the strategic extensions but the existing secondary schools have sufficient spare capacity, or room to accommodate it (BAR18) to meet the proposed growth. To ensure the necessary infrastructure is delivered at the right time in tandem with development both Councils will continue to work in partnership with the appropriate bodies to identify the expected needs and determine the most effective means of infrastructure delivery through the implementation of an ‘Infrastructure Delivery Plan’.
641 All issues concerning Westacott (BAR01), Mount Sandford Green (BAR04), Westaway Plain (BAR05), Glenwood Farm, Roundswell (BAR09) are considered under the relevant policy references.
642 The Plan recognises the importance of Barnstaple as a historic town but it is not accepted the town is so unique that it should not be developed further in recognition of its sub-regional status. However, it is accepted that paragraph 10.3 could be re-worded to recognise that Barnstaple is a historic market town. Amended wording could include: ‘Barnstaple is a historic market town with the core being within a large conservation area…..’. The spatial vision could also be amended to better reflect the need to protect the historic environment of the town whilst also capitalising on its built heritage.
643 The Plan intends to be aspirational but realistic in terms of the growth strategy over the period to 2031, in accordance with the NPPF (paragraph 154). It is considered to be positive with a clear intention to deliver sustainable development that reflects the vision and aspirations of local communities across North Devon and Torridge. It is accepted that under the current economic climate, some policies in the emerging local plan may appear to be un-achievable with delivery uncertain. However, it is a 20 year Plan that has been extensively evidenced through the SHLAA and ELR in terms of land availability with a number of planning applications currently being considered by the Council on sites within the emerging plan. The economic conditions are likely to change over the Plan period. Delivery of development will be further clarified through the emerging ‘Infrastructure Delivery Plan’.
644 It is accepted that the implications of future traffic movements around Barnstaple from future development sites should be considered holistically. This work has been carried out by Devon County Council as the strategic highway authority and the implications of the evidence gathered has been included within Policy ST10: Transport Strategy as well as through the transport requirements for each site proposal. Further evidence will be set out within the Barnstaple transport master plan. It is accepted that DCC has undertaken extensive transportation modeling work to identify specific network improvements as well as assessing alternative options around the town. It is accepted that the Barnstaple chapter could cross refer to Policy ST10.
645 It is accepted that retailers within High Streets throughout the country are struggling due to the economic downturn, out of town shopping opportunities and the growing market of internet sales. The Retail and Leisure Capacity Assessment by Peter Brett Associates (September 2012) has recognised a need over the Plan period for approximately 22,000m2 comparison floorspace and approximately 3,000m2 convenience floorspace within Barnstaple. The proposed Asda store at Anchorwood Bank, which was recently granted planning permission in principle will deliver approximately 2,200m2 convenience floorspace towards the overall need, which will leave an additional requirement of approximately 800m2 over the Plan period. However, a supermarket is considered to
160 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
be a town centre use where the NPPF at paragraph 23 seeks to ‘promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer’. It would be difficult to resist a new supermarket in a town centre location as there would be no requirement on the developer to undertake a sequential test to site selection or consider an impact assessment on the town centre. It is accepted that the vision and supporting text under the future of Barnstaple should recognise the need to promote a healthy town centre. The Plan already recognises the need in the strategy that expansion of the town centre should 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 not for the Plan to consider matters regarding free car parking in the town centre or reduced business rates; this is a matter for the Council.
646 It is accepted that the Plan could provide some additional wording to paragraph 10.14 to recognise that Pottington Business Park requires regeneration, which could include environmental enhancement to increase opportunities for additional job creation. The Plan should also highlight in Policies ST14 and BAR10 the importance of promoting entrepreneurship in the area and the need to deliver suitable start-up space and grow-on space for existing businesses to relocate within the area. The Plan is very supportive to promoting additional employment growth and Policy ST07: Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon is proposing approximately 45 hectares of additional employment land in 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. An amended version of the economic strategy will be subject to public consultation when the Plan is published in early 2014.
647 The delivery of new housing over the plan period is based on robust evidence through the Northern Peninsula SHMA. These new dwellings will help to meet the needs of the local community although it is recognised that a proportion of the new housing will meet the needs of the economically inactive, but this should be balanced against the additional employment opportunities the Plan is seeking to create. The whole thrust of the Plan is to create sustainable development and the delivery of new housing should be alongside employment opportunities to allow people to live and work in the same place and to accommodate economic growth. It is accepted the Plan can only provide the opportunities for improved education, skills levels and seek to improve wages, it cannot ensure that young qualified people will be retained in the area. However, without emerging policy supporting these opportunities it is likely that an even larger number of young qualified people would leave the area.
648 The renewables industry is a growing economy, and in January 2012 the South West was launched as a ‘Marine Energy Park’ that will ‘provide a focus for industry and investment to generate jobs and business opportunities for the regional economy’ within this particular sector. The South West Marine Energy Park prospectus (May 2013) also recognises that the ‘North Devon coast has a number of ports which are perfectly placed to act as operation and maintenance bases for marine energy deployment in the Bristol Channel, as well as the new 1500 MW Atlantic Array offshore wind farm’. It should be noted the ports that have been recognised include Appledore, Bideford, Ilfracombe and Yelland. It is accepted that the importance of the renewables sector within the emerging northern Devon economy could be recognised more explicitly within the Plan under Policy ST14: Delivering Employment and Economic Development as well as the Northern Devon Economic Strategy.
649 Land to the south-west of the River Taw and the eastern edge of Barnstaple around Newport and 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. Policy relating to Critical Drainage Areas throughout northern Devon will be included within ST03: Adapting to Climate Change. The supporting text within those proposed developments that fall within this extensive area
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 161 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
should refer to being in a CDA and therefore the developments should provide additional water storage areas to be created within the sites compared to the normal SUDS design, thereby contributing to a reduction in flooding downstream. The issue of implementing a proposed flood-gate has been considered under Policy BAR15: Land South of Braunton Road. It is accepted that a number of the previously developed sites in Barnstaple are constrained from being re-developed to residential uses due to flood risk. The North Devon and Torridge Strategic Flood Risk Assessment indicates that northern Devon will be liable to increased fluvial flooding in a number of locations, including large areas of Barnstaple. However, paragraph 3.13 makes it clear that additional detailed flood risk assessments will determine the appropriate nature and siting of development in areas that are of known flood risk, most significantly in respect of opportunities for development in Barnstaple where sustainability benefits will include regeneration objectives. The spatial vision recognises that ‘development will also prioritise the re-use of existing buildings and previously developed land whilst safeguarding these areas from the risks of flooding’ although such protection is likely to be very expensive and could impact on development viability, especially if a site is only delivering a limited number of houses.
650 The concern that the town has no connection with the river and does not facilitate opportunities for new or enhanced riverside sport and leisure facilities is recognised. The potential importance of the Taw is also recognised in the spatial vision where it seeks to ‘maximise the potential of Barnstaple’s waterfront’. Several representations identified opportunities for a slipway / pontoon and water sports activities in the Mill Road area (Policy BAR15). Such uses would be supported by this policy. Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy also supports opportunities for new tourism and leisure development within towns and resorts, which could include water sport facilities within the river Taw.
651 There will be some loss of greenfield land around the town due to the need to deliver approximately 4,000 houses in Barnstaple over the plan period. However, it is important to note that by way of mitigation, the development of strategic and non-strategic sites within Barnstaple will be required to deliver enhancements and make connections to existing networks of local and strategic green infrastructure including the provision of new footpaths, cycleways, public open spaces, wildlife corridors and recreation facilities.
652 A number of alternative and additional sites were promoted as part of the spatial strategy, which are listed towards the end of this report. The location of these sites is shown on the Map attached to this report. Officer commentary on the key issues for each promoted site is set out below.
653 The site promoted on land at Trayne Farm has been submitted as part of the SHLAA process (SHA/PWE/119). The SHLAA stakeholder panel concluded part of the site was developable. There is no technical reason against this site being developed for housing and it could be delivered early in the Plan period as the Council is currently considering a planning application for 80 dwellings (56047). More detailed commentary has been provided above under paragraph 7.
654 The site promoted on land at Maidenford has been considered as part of the SHLAA process under reference SHA/BAR/069. The SHLAA stakeholder panel concluded the site was developable for about 100 units. The site should also be developed comprehensively with SHA/BAR/074 and SHA/BAR/307 which will provide an acceptable access road’. Those objecting to land at Westacott, considered that development north and west of Whiddon Valley was a sensible option. Officers are concerned regarding the visual prominence in the wider setting of Barnstaple and only limited peripheral development could be accommodated on the lower slopes.
655 The site promoted on land off Goodleigh Road has been considered as part of the SHLAA process under reference SHA/BAR/067 and SHA/BAR/068, albeit the site promoted as part of the local plan process is smaller than the SHLAA sites and better reflects the current planning application
162 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
55640. The SHLAA stakeholder panel concluded the site was developable. The appeal inspector on application 53348 for 182 dwellings concluded, ‘the harm caused to the landscape setting of Barnstaple, and to Gorwell House, would be sufficient to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed development. When the harm caused to the landscape character of this part of Goodleigh Road and the adverse impact upon the significance of Tollgate Cottage are added to the balance, along with the loss of some “best and most versatile” agricultural land and the more limited weight that attaches to the erosion of the heritage significance of Well Close, the clear conclusion is that planning permission should be refused’. The current planning application 55640 is pending a decision but has attempted to address a number of concerns highlighted in the recent appeal decision. A further site was promoted off Goodleigh Road but the objector did not include a location plan so the specific site boundaries are unknown and therefore no further consideration is given to that site promotion. However, it should also be noted that a representation to Policy BAR01 proposes to extend the site allocation north to Goodleigh Road.
656 The site promoted on land west of Mead Park, Bickington has been considered as part of the SHLAA process under reference SHA/FRE/132. The SHLAA stakeholder panel was satisfied with the overall assessment and concluded the site was developable for about 250 units, but should also be developed comprehensively with SHA/FRE/135. This site lies to the immediate south-west of the proposed site. There is no technical reason against this site being developed for housing, although it would erode the strategic gap between Bickington and Fremington.
657 The site promoted on land west of Oakland Park South, Bickington has been considered as part of the SHLAA process under reference SHA/FRE/133 and SHA/FRE/314. The SHLAA stakeholder panel concluded the site was developable and the potential capacity of the site will be determined by the width of Lower Cross Road. Officers have considered that if this site were to be developed then it is important to ensure that any housing sits below the prominent ridgeline that is important to the setting of the Taw estuary. The Council is currently dealing with a pre-application proposal for this site. There is no technical reason against this site being developed for housing.
658 The site promoted on land at Hollamoor Farm, south of the A39 is proposing a development for a waste recovery facility and additional employment land. In terms of the new waste facility, this is a matter for the emerging Devon Waste Plan to consider and not the joint North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. As highlighted above, the early draft of the ELR has considered that the Plan has an over provision of employment land to meet the anticipated demand. Barnstaple is already accommodating approximately 45 ha of additional employment land over the plan period as part of the strategic urban extensions as well as through the expansion of Roundswell Business Park of about 20 ha. Such an approach to land allocation is considered to be consistent with the NPPF and the delivery of sustainable development. Therefore, it is not considered that any additional employment land is required at Hollamoor Farm over the plan period.
659 The site promoted on land east of Brynsworthy Lane, south of the A39 is also proposing additional employment land. The site is well located in relation to land south of the A39 (Policy BAR10), although the early draft of the ELR has considered that the Plan has an over provision of employment land to meet the anticipated demand.
660 The site promoted on land at the Civic Centre has not been considered as part of the SHLAA process so its availability is unknown. Permitted development rights introduced by the coalition Government in May 2013 will allow the change of use of buildings from B1(a) (offices) to C3 (dwelling houses), subject to a prior approval process by the local planning authority (LPA). However, as availability is unknown and the land is within an indicative flood zone, where more vulnerable uses such as housing should be avoided by directing them areas at lower risk. The Councils’ Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) and the Level 2 SFRA for Barnstaple has identified parts
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 163 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
of the existing car park to be within an area of extreme flood hazard with the remainder of the site being within a moderate to significant risk of flooding. The Civic Centre is not considered appropriate for housing.
661 If there is need to identify additional housing land for Barnstaple within the local plan then several of these promoted sites are considered to be more realistic in terms of deliverability, accessibility and minimising environmental impacts:
Land at Trayne Farm Land off Goodleigh Road Land west of Oakland Park South, Bickington
Policy BAR01: Westacott Strategic Extension
Summary of Key Issues
662 Comments made in response to Policy BAR01 including supporting text:
Number of responses 222
Number of responses in support 9
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 12
Number of responses in objection 192
Number of responses providing a general comment 9
Table 5.31
Limit extent of allocation to south of Westacott Park and the proposed road (parallel to Link Road) (x2) Development area too large (x5) Density of development proposed too high Creation of urban sprawl (x2) Enlarge allocation up to Goodleigh Road Lower density development towards the Landkey end of the proposed area Increase density and extent of BAR02 site (Larkbear) and delete the BAR01 allocation Reduce number of dwellings (x4) Object to destruction of allocated AONB land (x6) Build on brownfield sites instead (x4) Object to building on green fields (x2) Develop alternative sites elsewhere instead (x5) Loss of wildlife habitat (x4) Object to any development visible from link road (x2) Designate buffer protected from future development around Harford Provide wildlife / GI corridor between A361 and proposed development Support safeguarding of historic setting of Acland Barton Would destroy landscape setting of Westacott Object to enlarging development boundary to facilitate new building Have a ‘green corridor’ between Whiddon Valley and any new development (x5)
164 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Object to loss of TPO trees (x2) Provide more open space (x4) Our estate agent told us this land would never be built on, so it shouldn’t be – ever Unacceptable highway safety impact (x32) Unacceptable increase in highways congestion (x28) The cycle path shown along Westacott Road is not a cycle path, just a white line which narrows the carriageway forcing vehicles to cross the line when passing anyway Speeding cars Access exclusively off the Link Road, not through Whiddon Valley (x31) Re-route access from part to Castle Park Road (x52) Access via Castle Park is a poor choice Identify alternative access routes Support proposed access Cycle lanes (protected by barriers) along the A361 should be provided Re-route access from the existing pedestrian route to Westacott Road Bus access via Castle Park, private traffic via link-road only (x2) Any access via Whiddon Valley should have a weight limit to prohibit HGV’s 2 accesses should both be off of the Link Road and both via new traffic islands (x3) Discourage use of private car Encourage public transport use Change ‘Car Park’ to ‘Park and Change’ (DCC) Improve existing roads in Westacott Access to Whiddon Valley should be pedestrian / cycle route only (x2) Air pollution from increased traffic (x4) Noise pollution from increased traffic (x6) Larkspur Gardens (a dead-end road well away from the site boundary) will become a noisy polluted and busy rat-run Reasonable to have two entrances to Whiddon Valley area for improved access and traffic flow Text states road via park area but plans show a footway/cyclepath; the document is inconsistent (x3) Development creates a ‘rat run’ (x17) Proposal will increase reliance on the private car The only vehicular access from the new area to Whiddon Valley should be barrier controlled for park and ride buses Totally separate access for the new residential and commercial areas, both via the link road (x3) Pedestrian footpaths result in muggings and are unsafe Add a 3rd lane to the link road from Landkey to Portmore Object to loss of park area (x131) Provide new parks for the new estate Extend the existing park Relocated park would be too far away (x7) Access to new park would be unsafe (x2) On site or commuted sum for sport and recreation Site school near existing park and extend park Alternative play-space should be delivered Public Open Space (the park) should be shown as Green Infrastructure No industrial units should be sited in a residential area There are no jobs in North Devon (x6)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 165 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Existing commercial shop units in Whiddon Valley were unviable, so no more are needed No demand for employment space element of the allocation (x2) Housing won’t be affordable (x2) Support building west of Whiddon Valley as a sensible option We don’t need new homes (x5) Local people aren’t buying new homes Merge North Devon & Torridge and make the Civic Centre into flats to address the region’s housing needs Existing property will be devalued (x2) Improve empty council houses elsewhere in the town Impact on amenity of existing dwellings from overlooking (x2) Ensure separation of housing and employment within allocation Ensure separation of new employment and existing housing Car Park will be a poor visual gateway to the town Some sites appear to require considerable investment in infrastructure – this needs consideration Site should provide healthcare facilities Development will exceed capacity of existing schools and medical facilities Provide new secondary school on site The proposed school won’t be built (x2) Nursery and Children’s Centre needed in addition to primary school Upgrade sewers Ensure appropriate infrastructure is delivered. Build infrastructure before houses (x3) Provide for an all-weather, floodlit full size rugby / football pitch on the site Impact on Critical Drainage Area needs consideration (x3) General support Delete the entire policy BAR01 (x5) This site will not deliver within 5 years Repeat all consultation (x4) Inadequate consultation (x4)
Other Key Issues identified
The Council is looking to engage with ATLAS (Advisory Team for Large Applications) in order to produce a draft masterplan for the site in consultation with the local community and the multiple ownerships The whole of this site is within a ‘Critical Drainage Area’ as identified by the Environment Agency Early indications from the updated ‘Employment Land Review’ highlights that the Plan has an over provision of employment land to meet the anticipated demand. The implications of this will be considered under Policies ST07 and ST14 but ELR recommendations could have implications for this site
Officer Comments and Recommendations
663 The NPPF (paragraph 52) states ‘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 BAR01 will help to deliver land for employment and business uses and the necessary physical and community
166 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
infrastructure required in the town. It is not considered to be ‘ribbon development’ or ‘urban sprawl’ but a strategic urban extension along a principal highway with good connectivity to an extensive network of cycle routes.
664 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 capacity of site allocations is based on a realistic assessment of each site through the SHLAA. Policy BAR01 does not identify minimum or maximum housing numbers to be achieved but is flexible in that it will not prevent higher or lower housing numbers being delivered if a well designed scheme is presented that meets the policy requirements and delivers the specific development requirements as set out in Policy BAR01. Considering there is a planning application currently with the Council for Larkbear it is unlikely that Policy BAR02 could be extended to provide additional land.
665 It is not accepted that the density of development is too high. The total site area of the Westacott extension is approximately 70 hectares (gross) with a net developable area for housing of about 35 hectares. With an overall requirement to deliver approximately 1,100 dwellings, this equates to a density of about 31 dph, which is similar to the adjoining housing development on Whiddon Valley. This is not considered to be an over intensive form of development, and will require an appropriate landscaping scheme being delivered and existing site features being retained. However, in order to deliver the proposed number of houses required for North Devon, in accordance with the SHMA, it is unlikely that a strategic site such as this being deleted from the Plan. Therefore, if the developable land for BAR01 were to be reduced to an area south of Westacott Park then the delivery of 1,100 houses would require a more intensive form of development and the level of community facilities would be reduced or additional greenfield sites would need to be allocated around the town. As such, the spatial strategy for the Westacott site delivering approximately 1,100 dwellings is not contrary to the requirements of the NPPF. However, it is accepted that housing delivery is unlikely to be within the first five years of the Plan and is more likely to be delivered in the latter phases.
666 If additional housing is required to meet the need within Barnstaple then Policy BAR01 could be extended northward to Goodleigh Road as the land is considered to be available and developable in principle through the SHLAA. It is accepted that through extensive master planning work and in consultation with the local community any housing development to the east of the site near the Landkey junction and the proposed ‘park and ride’ facility could be of a lower density.
667 Land at Westacott is not within an area of outstanding natural beauty. This national designation is confined to the coastal areas of northern Devon. However, the upper slopes are considered to be visually prominent in the wider landscape where the spatial vision for Barnstaple seeks to ‘protect
668 As stated above at paragraph 6 within the spatial strategy, development of brownfield land is supported by the NPPF and the reuse of previously developed land is a key aspect of delivering sustainable development. The Plan supports housing development on previously developed land such as Anchorwood Bank (Policy BAR12), which will deliver 350 houses as well as the non-strategic contribution of 200 dwellings, which equates to approximately 14% of the overall requirement of 4,000 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 is 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 will be recognised as a policy objective within Policy ST02: Principles of Sustainable Development.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 167 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
669 It is accepted that the loss of a greenfield site could be considered as the loss of a wildlife habitat. The report of local nature conservation sites and biodiversity networks in North Devon, prepared by the Devon Biodiversity Record Centre in June 2001 has identified the woodland along the stream as ‘Acland Wood County Wildlife Site’, a broadleaved semi-natural woodland, watercourse, species-rich hedge bank. Part of this woodland is also covered by a tree preservation order. In order to deliver a comprehensive development it is inevitable that part of the wider biodiversity network would be lost but the Plan is clear at paragraph 10.18, ‘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’. Also development should ‘enhance and make connections to the existing network of local and strategic green infrastructure through and around the site’. Through extensive master planning work and public consultation, it is considered the development could enhance and provide additional wildlife networks rather than compromise existing networks. Policy ST11: Enhancing Environmental Assets requires development as a whole to provide a net gain in biodiversity.
670 Acland Barton is a Grade I listed building with two adjoining barns being Grade II listed. The principle of safeguarding the historic setting of these listed buildings is supported. However, it is accepted that reference should also make to protect the setting of the listed buildings at Westacott House (Grade II) and Thornfield Barn (Grade II). Land around Harford is outside of the development boundary and considered to be in the open countryside where the principle of additional housing will not be acceptable. Therefore, there is no intention to provide an additional designation protecting Harford from development. It is accepted that the landscape setting of Westacott will change with this proposed development but the Plan makes it clear that ‘as a new gateway to the town, 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’.
671 Whilst Policy BAR01 does not specify the amount of open space to be provided as part of the development there will be a requirement to deliver open spaces throughout the site. Paragraph 10.18 requires ‘the public open space and sports facilities to be located toward the eastern end of the development, apart from a new play area to replace that lost by the new link road through to Westacott, which should be provided as close as possible to the existing play area to serve the residents of Whiddon Valley’. It is accepted that Policy BAR01 should make a more explicit reference for the need to provide formal and informal open space and recreation facilities.
672 It is accepted that in the current adopted local plan (July 2006) and previous local plan (December 2000) the land adjoining Westacott was outside of a defined development boundary and therefore located in the countryside. However, local plans are generally reviewed every 5 years and additional housing allocations are required over the plan period. The northern Devon housing target (2011 to 2031) is set at approximately 16,000 dwellings with North Devon providing about 8,400 houses and Barnstaple, as the sub-regional centre, delivering about 48% of the district’s housing growth. Whilst an estate agent was technically correct a decade ago they were unable to declare that the site would ‘never’ be built on as development boundaries will be reviewed over time and developable land adjoining an existing settlement will often experience development pressures.
673 There was some support for the proposed access arrangements to serve the development at Westacott but the overwhelming majority was objection, particularly to the new road through the existing park off Westacott Road. Whilst these concerns are valid, a development of this scale will require at least two access points. The preferred option was for a principal access on to the A361 as a new roundabout at the Landkey junction with a secondary access on to Westacott Road, which would also deliver a new route for the existing houses on Whiddon Valley, which would not be considered as a ‘rat-run’. A secondary route is considered important to ensure the site remains safe
168 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
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.
674 Devon County Council (DCC), as the local highway authority are considering all the detailed highway matters regarding site access and impact on the adjoining highway network as well as exploring whether alternative options are feasible such as access through Castle Park Road, a secondary access on to the A361 or deleting vehicular access through the park at Westacott. Until such time as the technical advise from DCC is received, Policy BAR01 should retain a vehicular route through the park at Westacott.
675 The Plan cannot demand that end users of a particular development will leave their private motor car at home and utilise public transport or walk / cycle as part of their journey for work or recreation, but it can encourage and facilitate alternative options. Policy BAR01 requires a new park and change facility with improved public transport links between Landkey, Whiddon Valley and the town centre. Policy BAR01 should refer to the requirement for a ‘park and change’ facility rather than just referring to a new car park. For consistency, paragraph 10.17 should also be amended to read ‘……as well as provision of a new park and change facility close to the A361 junction to provide use of enhanced public transport links in to Barnstaple town centre’. It is accepted that more explicit reference should be made in the upper case policy to improved links to the town centre.
676 The Plan will also provide a permeable network of footpaths and cycleways through the development to improve connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists to the existing rights of way network as well as contributing to an enhanced cross-town cycle link across Barnstaple. Figure 15.2 (Policies Map for Barnstaple) clearly shows a vehicular / pedestrian / cycle route through to Westacott Road although it is accepted that Figure 10.2 only identifies a new or improved cycleway / pedestrian route. However, this plan was for illustrative purposes only and not intended to identify all policy requirements. Therefore, the Policies Map and text within BAR01 are not inconsistent.
677 It is unlikely that the A361 between Landkey and Portmore will provide a third lane. However, further engagement with DCC has identified their desire to safeguard land adjacent to the A361, especially in existing urban areas, to ensure future development alongside these roads does not prejudice potential road improvements or future opportunities for widening/enhancement of these roads. Policy BAR01 could cross refer to Policy ST10: Transport Strategy where more specific mention is made to recognise the importance of safeguarding land alongside the A361 so as to not prejudice opportunities for future road improvements.
678 It is accepted that any new buildings within this area will generate an element of noise, air pollution and potential overlooking from construction through to the end user. Whilst the concerns are valid it is considered more appropriate to assess longer-term impacts within Policy DM01: Amenity Considerations and through licensing. The supporting text could cross-refer to this policy.
679 It is not accepted that consultation on the emerging local plan was inadequate. It should be noted that the North Devon Journal (31st January 2013) and the North Devon Gazette (16th January 2013) ran extensive articles regarding the local plan and future growth of northern Devon to 2031. Similar interviews were broadcast on local radio as well as officers and Members from North Devon
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 169 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Council and Barnstaple Town Council attending a public meeting at the Guildhall on 17th Februrary 2013 and at Barton Road Community Centre on the 8th March 2013 where approximately 140 individuals attended. Further public consultation on the emerging local plan is scheduled to take place in January 2014.
680 It is accepted that under the current economic climate there is potentially spare capacity within existing employment / commercial properties in the Whiddon Valley area. 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 period to 2031. The Plan currently proposes the employment land to be located adjacent to the existing commercial premises at Castle Park Road. However, in order to allow a degree of flexibility in terms of the most suitable location for employment development it is considered appropriate to delete the wording ‘adjoining Castle Park Road’ from the policy and paragraph 10.16. Detailed master planning work with the developer and local community will determine the most appropriate layout for the development.
681 The delivery of affordable housing in both North Devon and Torridge is a priority for the Plan and the type and size of affordable housing built will meet that local need, although affordable housing in Barnstaple will help meet the District’s need and not just the needs of Barnstaple. However, the Plan cannot control how the allocation of affordable housing is structured, which is the responsibility of the local housing authority, Devon Home Choice and central Government policy. The perception that development will de-value existing property prices is not a matter for the planning system to address.
682 It is implicit in Policy ST22 that developments will be expected to provide or contribute toward the timely provision of physical and social infrastructure although it is considered unreasonable for a development to make significant upfront payments to pay for infrastructure before houses are sold since this could undermine viability. Paragraph 10.18 recognises the need for the development to deliver public open spaces and sports facilities which could include a full size all-weather floodlit football / rugby pitch. There is no evidence from the local education or health authority to suggest that a further secondary school or medical centre is required in Barnstaple to meet the growth strategy to 2031 as both Park School and Pilton Academy and the existing medical centres in town have some spare capacity. Also, the new schools in Bideford are also predicted to free-up some further capacity in Barnstaple over then plan period. The Plan recognises there are opportunities to expand Park Community School (Policy BAR18) if additional accommodation is required. However, the scale of the development generates need for a new primary school, which could also deliver a nursery school and children’s centre if required. The need to deliver a new primary school as part of a neighbourhood hub is a requirement of Policy BAR01, and there is no evidence to suggest that the school will not be built.
683 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. It is accepted that the policy and supporting text should refer to this area of Barnstaple being in a CDA and therefore the development should provide additional water storage areas to be created within the site contributing to a net reduction in flooding of the Coney Gut and further downstream.
684 Any development must meet the requirements of Building Regulations (which will change over time) and therefore cross-reference should be made to the requirements set out within Policy ST05: Sustainable Construction and Buildings. In order to be consistent with the proposed changes in the other main towns, it is accepted that achieving ‘exemplar’ and ‘radical’ thresholds within the vision
170 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
for the Westacott strategic extension may be ambitious, but it is a vision rather than policy. It would be appropriate to replace the word ‘radical’ with ‘incorporate measures that will reduce carbon emissions’.
685 Paragraph 10.16 does require the Westacott strategic extension to provide predominantly family housing including a proportion of affordable housing. However, for consistency with the Larkbear extension (Policy BAR02), it is accepted that the wording could be amended to seek a ‘mix of house types including a proportion of affordable housing’ which would better reflect the criteria set out in Policy ST17. Include additional wording to Policy BAR01 to cross refer to Policy ST17: A balanced Local Housing Market.
Policy BAR02: Larkbear Strategic Extension
Summary of Key Issues
686 Comments made in response to Policy BAR02, including supporting text:
Number of responses 50
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 5
Number of responses in objection 31
Number of responses providing a general comment 13
Table 5.32
687 Comments made in response to Policy BAR02, including supporting text:
Will result in increased carbon emissions Increased pollution from traffic (x2) Unacceptable on grounds of light pollution (x2) The principles of the ‘Localism Act’ are ignored Development breaches the ‘Human Rights Act’ (x2) New accesses from the A361 and A39 should be avoided as they disrupt traffic on arterial routes Access will cause congestion (x12) A good site with good access via the A361 The policy only shows “New or Improved Cycleway/Pedestrian route” not a new signalised road linking to the A361 The plan shows an access to the rear of Petroc which is not wanted There should only be a bus pick up point for the college Additional traffic movements will disrupt existing residents A secondary vehicular access onto Old Torrington Road is required (DCC) Contribution to improvements on A39 Roundswell Roundabout and Rumsam Roundabout (DCC) Land contribution along the A39 boundary sufficient to allow future widening (DCC) Improvements to Lake access lane to allow bus routes between the site and Seven Brethren. A traffic free cycle route as in BAR20b must be delivered Network rail want to be consulted on proposed footbridge over the A361 and rail line (NR) No prospect of the employment element being delivered on this site
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 171 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
The ELR is 7 years old and should not be relied upon as part of the evidence base There are no employment opportunities in North Devon (x6) Businesses will not locate in Devon as its remoteness makes it financially unviable The site is not available for employment use as the owner will not release it for such use There is already enough housing Incomers will mostly be dependent on benefits Greatly reduce number of units on site According to population growth figures all of these houses need to be suitable for pensioners Houses will not be affordable to unemployed locals Houses will all be taken by retired ‘incomers’ (x2) Only build local needs housing in Devon Provide a higher level of affordable housing on this site (x2) Support for on site physical infrastructure, community facilities and green infrastructure There is inadequate healthcare provision for this number of new homes (x3) There is inadequate school provision for this number of new homes (x3) Unacceptable impact on services (x3) Support proposal for new school A Nursery facility (52 place) and Children’s Centre are also required (DCC) Consider planning for the future relocation of Petroc to a single campus with room for growth On site sport and recreation facilities should be provided, or an off-site contribution made Lack of response on sewerage concerns previously submitted Sewerage systems cannot accommodate housing growth (x2) Cost of delivering infrastructure will harm deliverability Saying that issues will be dealt with through ‘detailed design’ is a fudge to hide the unacceptability of the site and force development through Who will deliver the infrastructure? This development will see no delivery of any promised infrastructure (x3) This area cannot accommodate 800 houses Loss of good agricultural land (x5) Development will increase risk of flooding (x5) Unacceptable wildlife impact (x11) Object to development of Greenfield sites (x8) Develop brownfield land instead (x3) Object to development of Greenbelt land Develop this site instead of that in BAR01 (Westacott) Site is outside the development boundary and therefore unacceptable Larkbear is a ‘green hilltop’ and should be protected Larkbear should be made a nature reserve Development of this site was previously refused by the Planning Inspectorate Development would “destroy” Lake, Tawstock and Tower View Unacceptable landscape impact (x4) Unacceptable impact upon the setting of Lake (x2) There should be a minimum separation of 150 metres from the village of Lake (x3) The setting of Lake will be protected by buffer zones (x2) Proposal would urbanise a rural area (x3) The development of this land will be to the detriment of North Devon Current consultation inadequate This development is not required (x3)
172 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Change “Predominantly family housing, with a proportion of affordable housing” to “A mix of housing types” Footpaths separated from vehicular traffic increase the incidence of muggings and violent crime, omit them Unacceptable impact on quality of life for residents of outlying parishes Sticklepath Court will be cut off from the rest of the parish Development will deter tourists from Barnstaple Object to the residents of the new houses feeling they have a right to walk over my land Development is ill-conceived I object on environmental grounds Section 2(b) should explicitly state all required development Larkbear is a fait accompli
Other Key Issues identified
An outline planning application (54762) has been submitted for the erection of up to 820 dwellings on land north & west of Lake village. The application is scheduled to be considered by Planning Committee on the 24th October 2013 A planning application (56232) has been submitted for erection of 46 dwellings together at Brynhyfryd, Old Torrington Road. The application is undetermined and is currently out for public consultation Early indications from the updated ‘Employment Land Review’ highlights that the Plan has an over provision of employment land to meet the anticipated demand. The implications of this will be considered under Policies ST07 and ST14 but ELR recommendations could have implications for Policy BAR02 Devon County Council have identified budget in place to fund improvements to the Roundswell roundabout which is scheduled to be completed during 2014 The western part of Barnstaple 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. Policy relating to ‘Critical Drainage Areas’ throughout northern Devon will be added to ST03 (Adapting to Climate Change). The supporting text should refer to being in a CDA thereby contributing to a reduction in flood risk downstream.
Officer Comments and Recommendations
688 There is some support for the development of Larkbear as it is considered to be a good site with potential vehicular access off the A361 and it will help deliver the physical, social and green infrastructure for the town. However, the overwhelming majority of responses to the Larkbear policy are ones of objection.
689 It is accepted that any new buildings within this area will generate an element of noise, light and air pollution. These concerns would be considered under Policy DM01: Amenity Considerations and could be addressed through planning conditions and other legislation.
690 Figure 15.2 (Policies Map for Barnstaple) and Policy BAR02 clearly identify a vehicular route through to the A361 with a new pedestrian / cycle link across the A361, connecting to the existing network although it is accepted that Figure 10.2 only identifies a new or improved cycleway / pedestrian route. However, this plan was for illustrative purposes only and not intended to identify all policy requirements, which is for the detailed Policies Map (Figure 15.2) to identify. Therefore, the policies map and text within BAR02 are not inconsistent.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 173 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
691 It is not considered appropriate for a development of this scale to be accessed off existing estate roads through Sticklepath. The Plan makes it clear that ‘there will be no vehicular links between the development and Elizabeth Drive / Philip Avenue’. Therefore, a new vehicular access that takes all traffic off the A361 to the development and is designed to an acceptable standard to reduce traffic congestion is the most suitable transport strategy for this site and is supported in principle by DCC as the local highway authority. The benefits of delivering a new vehicular access to Petroc is recognised to reduce traffic congestion at the Sticklepath roundabout and reduce on-street parking in the surrounding residential streets to the south and west of Petroc. It is accepted that a secondary vehicular access off Old Torrington Road could be provided as an alternative route to the primary access off the A361, which is already shown on the planning application. It would improve access to the proposed primary school from the Roundswell area. Paragraph 10.22 should be amended accordingly to recognise that this route should be for all vehicles and not just a bus route. It could also be amended to indicate that the development will be accessed by a new junction on the A361 as the first phase of development, which will facilitate the delivery of a vehicular access to Petroc. All issues relating to highway matters and future bus lanes are being considered as part of the current planning application (54762).
692 It is implicit in Policy ST22 that developments will be expected to provide or contribute toward the timely provision of physical and social infrastructure, including the upgrading of the existing sewerage system if required (subject to the response of SWW to the planning application). Where new infrastructure capacity is needed, developers will be expected to provide, fund or contribute towards it. However, there needs to be a balance between delivering new homes and infrastructure to the town and viability of the development in general, as indicated in ST22. The balance between achieving sustainable development and viability is a key consideration of the NPPF (paragraph 173) with delivery clarified through the ‘Infrastructure Delivery Plan’. If improvements to Roundswell and Rumsam roundabouts are required then such contributions should be sought as part of the current planning application. Policy BAR02 is not being developed up to the A39 within the Larkbear Plantation, which is covered by a woodland tree preservation order (TPO322). Therefore, it is not considered appropriate for the Plan to seek land to be safeguarded for the expansion of the A39 here as part of Policy BAR02 as it falls outside of the land allocated for housing.
693 All the statutory providers have been consulted as part of the plan, including Devon County Council and the Health Authority. Evidence would suggest there is spare capacity in Barnstaple’s secondary schools to meet the proposed growth but there is a need for a new primary school to the south of the River Taw, which should also deliver a 52 place nursery school and children’s centre. The policy and supporting text should recognise the need for this expansion to the school. The health authority has indicated a need for a new medical centre to the west of the town, which will be facilitated within a new neighbourhood hub as part of the Larkbear strategic extension.
694 Petroc have not indicated they are seeking to re-locate their campus to a new single site as any funding they had previously when they considered moving to Seven Brethren has been withdrawn. However, the Plan does make provision for new business and employment opportunities that could relate directly to Petroc to facilitate growth of higher value sectors of the North Devon economy. Also, Policy BAR17 will support the delivery of enhanced educational and training facilities to help raise skill levels, facilitate a university level resource and opportunities for partnerships with high-tech businesses.
695 Policy BAR02 incorporates the strategic green infrastructure link covered by Policy BAR20b. This is a cross-town cycle route from the Tarka Trail (at Fremington) towards Landkey through Bickington, Roundswell, Larkbear, Newport, Whiddon Valley and Westacott. There will be no conflict between the pedestrian and cycle route and vehicular traffic generated from the Larkbear development. The Policy makes it clear that the development will be required to ‘create a distinctive, safe, high
174 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
quality urban extension’. There is no intention for the proposed footpath / cycle link running through the site to be routed through private land. However, the route identified in the Plan is indicative. Future detailed planning applications will provide a more detailed route where such objections could be lodged. For accuracy, paragraph 10.23 should be amended to recognise the cross-town route is Policy BAR20b and not BAR20c.
696 It is accepted that the current ‘Employment Land Review’ (GVA Grimley – July 2006) is now 7 years out of date and should not be relied upon as the most up to date evidence base for future employment growth in northern Devon. For this reason, both North Devon and Torridge Councils have commissioned a further ELR, currently being undertaken by GL Hearn. This document will provide an updated evidence base of employment need for northern Devon over the Plan period to 2031 and will help to shape future policy. It is also accepted that the employment allocation east of Old Torrington Road is unlikely to be developed for employment purposes with the landowner indicating the land is not available for employment purposes (see responses to BAR10), which is further evidenced by the current undetermined planning application for 46 dwellings (56232). Paragraph 22 of the NPPF states ‘policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities’.
697 The land around Brynhyfryd has been included within the SHLAA (SHA/TAW/122 and SHA/TAW/399), where both sites have been considered as developable. There is no technical reason against both these sites being developed for housing and part could be delivered early in the Plan period with the undetermined planning application for 46 dwellings (56232) on SHA/TAW/122. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the employment land east of Petroc will not be delivered considering it forms part of the current planning application (54762). If the employment allocation (BAR02) is to be deleted, the land east of Old Torrington Road could be amended to a housing allocation Under Policy BAR10, it is also proposed to delete the employment allocation on land west of Old Torrington Road where residential development has already been approved.
698 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’ Northern Devon Economic Strategy and key partners for both North Devon and Torridge to deliver the employment growth and job creation over the period to 2031.
699 The emphasis throughout the NPPF is the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. The core planning principles within the NPPF (paragraph 17) set out that the planning system should be ‘genuinely plan-led to empower local people to shape their surroundings with succinct local and neighbourhood plan setting out a positive vision for the future of the area’. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF shows a clear requirement ‘for a five-year supply of housing land’ and the corresponding injunction in paragraph 49 that ‘policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if a five-year supply cannot be demonstrated’.
700 In a recent High Court judgment against the Secretary of State’s decision to allow a planning application for housing development in Tewksbury. The judge stated ‘The functions previously carried out at regional level would either be abolished or, to the extent that they were not, would be transferred to local planning authorities. But there was nothing in the Act to suggest that relevant national policies would no longer apply, or that the Secretary of State would no longer perform his function in determining planning application appeals applying (so far as relevant to this case) the same principles and policies as before. In particular, the policies relating to a five year housing land supply and the principle of
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 175 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
prematurity were expressly reaffirmed in the NPPF. It cannot sensibly be suggested, therefore, that those policies were intended to be swept away.’ The judge summarised ‘I reject the submission that the Localism Act has brought about a fundamental change in the proper approach to planning.’ Therefore, it is considered that the principles of the ‘Localism Act’ have not been ignored but they do not override the fundamental principles of supporting sustainable development as set out in the NPPF. Also, it is not considered the development of land around Larkbear would breach the ‘Human Rights Act’, although specific matters will be balanced in parallel to the planning application. The Plan has been prepared in accordance with the legislation set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
701 Any development must meet the requirements of Building Regulations (which will change over time) and therefore cross-reference should be made to the requirements set out within Policy ST05: Sustainable Construction and Buildings. In order to be consistent with the proposed changes in the other main towns, it is accepted that achieving ‘exemplar’ and ‘radical’ thresholds within the vision for the Larkbear strategic extension may be ambitious, but it is a vision rather than policy. It would be appropriate to replace the word ‘radical’ with ‘incorporate measures that will reduce carbon emissions’.
702 The overall level of growth and its distribution across the two districts is addressed through Policy ST07, informed by up-to-date evidence such as the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2012). The large majority of this housing growth will be delivered in the main towns, including Barnstaple in recognition of the town’s sub-regional status and consultation responses to alternative sites identified through the draft Core Strategy. The importance of creating new and sustaining existing jobs in the town is a key component of the Barnstaple Spatial Vision. The delivery of new housing must meet the needs of the local community although it is recognised that a proportion of the new housing will meet the needs of the economically inactive. It is accepted that there is an ageing population and northern Devon is popular for retirees and any new homes may need to be adaptable to cater for this group of potential homeowners. Policy ST04: Improving the Quality of Development seeks to deliver a proportion of the new houses on major sites, such as Larkbear to meet ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards. However, there have been objections to this policy so it could be amended to state this requirement ‘will be subject to development viability’. Policy DM05: Design Principles requires new development to be adaptable in order to respond to changing demographic conditions and be flexible to meet changing lifestyles and circumstances such as occupants getting older and decreasing health.
703 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 capacity of site allocations is based on a realistic assessment of each site through the SHLAA. The strategy does not identify minimum or maximum housing numbers to be achieved but is flexible in that it will not prevent higher or lower housing numbers being delivered if a well designed scheme is presented that meets the spatial vision for Larkbear and delivers the specific development requirements as set out in Policy BAR02. Considering there is a planning application currently with the Council for Larkbear to deliver up to 820 dwellings then it is unlikely that an alternative scheme will need to be considered unless planning permission is refused.
704 The delivery of affordable housing in both North Devon and Torridge is a priority for the Plan and the type and size of affordable housing built will meet that local need, although it must be noted that affordable housing in Barnstaple will help meet the District’s need and not just the needs of Barnstaple. However, the Plan cannot control how the allocation of affordable housing is structured, which is a function of the local housing authority, Devon Home Choice and central Government policy. Also, the Plan cannot insist that any new housing in northern Devon must meet a local need and not
176 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
allow a development to deliver housing for the ‘open market’. Policy DM20 requires that any development over 7 dwellings, including the Larkbear strategic extension, should provide (subject to viability) at least 25% of the new housing to be affordable to meet the local need. However, further viability work is expected that will establish an appropriate level of affordable housing viable across northern Devon as a whole.
705 Policy BAR02 already recognises the need to deliver additional sport and leisure facilities as part of the development. However, it is accepted that there needs to be consistency with the policy and supporting text in terms of whether the development is delivering ‘informal open space and recreation facilities’ (policy) or ‘additional sport and leisure facilities’ (supporting text). Detailed design work on the Larkbear site through the planning application will establish a development that incorporates a level of GI that respects the site’s location and landscape setting.
706 North Devon does not have any land designated as ‘Green Belt’. The NPPF (paragraph 112) seeks to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land (grade 1, 2 and 3a), which is supported by Policy ST11: Enhancing Environmental Assets within the Plan. The land at Larkbear is a mix of grade 2 (very good), grade 3 (moderate) and grade 4 (poor) agricultural land, although the vast majority of the site is grades 3 and 4. The Grade 2 land around Herton is not proposed for development within the current planning application.
707 It is accepted that in the current adopted local plan (July 2006) and previous local plan (December 2000) the land at Larkbear was outside of a defined development boundary and therefore located in the countryside. It is also accepted that the Inspector at the previous Local Plan Inquiry agreed that the site was not required to meet the housing need over the plan period (1995 to 2011). Local plans are reviewed approximately every 5 years and additional housing allocations are required for the new plan period to 2031. The northern Devon housing target (2011 to 2031) is set at 16,000 dwellings with North Devon providing about 8,400 houses and Barnstaple, as the sub-regional centre, delivering about 48% of the district’s housing growth. When seeking to identify sites to deliver the housing growth required, brownfield sites are examined first, but in this instance they are not of a quantum so as to provide for this. This then requires the identification of greenfield sites that requires the amendment of the previously identified development boundary.
708 As stated above at paragraph 6 within the spatial strategy and paragraph 6 of the Westacott strategic extension, development of brownfield land is supported by the NPPF and the reuse of previously developed land is a key aspect of delivering sustainable development. The Plan would support housing development on previously developed land such as Anchorwood Bank (Policy BAR12), which will deliver 350 houses as well as the non-strategic contribution of 200 dwellings, which equates to approximately 14% of the overall requirement of 4,000 dwellings in Barnstaple over the Plan period. This figure would appear to be relatively low but North Devon and Torridge, due to their 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 is within an indicative flood zone where houses are considered a more vulnerable use and therefore sequentially preferable sites should be sought. The contribution from previously developed land will be recognised as a policy objective within Policy ST02: Principles of Sustainable Development.
709 It is accepted that a greenfield site will make a contribution to wildlife habitat. The report of local nature conservation sites and biodiversity networks in North Devon, prepared by the Devon Biodiversity Record Centre in June 2001 has identified the Larkbear site as forming part of the wider biodiversity network. Also, the Larkbear Plantation to the south is covered by a tree preservation order. The report also identifies a number of ‘Key Network Features’ within the site, along the existing watercourse and woodland as well as a number of smaller areas of land. In order to deliver a comprehensive development it is inevitable that parts of the wider biodiversity network would be lost
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 177 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
but the Plan is clear at paragraph 10.24, ‘the existing hedgerows throughout the development should be retained and enhanced, especially along the eastern boundary to enhance the green infrastructure network’. Also development should ‘create linkages with existing biodiversity networks in the area’. Policy ST11: Enhancing Environmental Assets requires development as a whole to provide a net gain in biodiversity. Through extensive master planning work, it is considered the development could enhance wildlife networks.
710 The site would not meet the prescribed tests of a local green space as set out within paragraph 77 of the NPPF. The development of the allocation would have limited visual impact from public vantage points given its topography and backdrop of existing development at Andrew Road and Philip Avenue which has already compromised the hilltop.
711 The policy and supporting text makes it clear that development will be required to incorporate a comprehensive sustainable drainage system that does not increase the rate of surface water run-off and does not increase flood risk in Lake or elsewhere in Barnstaple. The policy should cross-refer to Policy ST03 and the site’s location within a critical drainage area.
712 Paragraph 10.20 does require the Larkbear strategic extension to provide predominantly family housing including a proportion of affordable housing. However, it is accepted that the wording could be amended to seek a ‘mix of house types including a proportion of affordable housing’ which would better reflect the criteria set out in Policy ST17. Include additional wording to Policy BAR02 to cross refer to Policy ST17: A Balanced Local Housing Market.
713 The policy and supporting text makes it clear that development will be required to ‘protect the setting of Lake village and conservation area’. The Plan also requires the development to ‘complement its landscape setting and provide a transitional boundary with the adjacent countryside that reflects the local landscape character’. It is accepted that the green buffer around Lake could be extended on the Policies Map (Figure 15.2) to better reflect the current site layout within the planning application, which may equate to 150 metres but the minimum dimensions are not for the Plan to indicate. It is accepted the Larkbear site is within Tawstock parish but functionally residential properties on Sticklepath and Roundswell (Fremington parish) have very strong links with Barnstaple that acts as the significant strategic centre for shopping, education, healthcare, work, leisure and social facilities to those surrounding suburbs. It would justify sites in Tawstock parish being considered in conjunction with Barnstaple as a complementary settlement, which could accommodate a proportion of the town’s growth. It would not isolate Sticklepath Court from the rest of the parish. The land is on the southern urban edge of Barnstaple, the largest settlement in northern Devon with major arterial routes to the south (A39) and the east (A361) so this site is not considered to be a ‘rural area’.
714 It is not accepted that consultation on the emerging local plan was inadequate. It should be noted that the North Devon Journal (31st January 2013) and the North Devon Gazette (16th January 2013) ran extensive articles regarding the local plan and future growth of northern Devon to 2031. Similar interviews were broadcast on local radio as well as a public exhibition organised by Barnstaple Town Council at the Guildhall. Officers and Members from North Devon Council also attended public meetings with regard to the current planning application. Further public consultation on the emerging local plan will take place in January 2014.
Policy BAR03: Tews Lane Roundswell
Summary of Key Issues
715 Comments made in response to Policy BAR03, including supporting text:
178 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Total number of responses 17
Total number of responses in support 4
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Total number of responses in objection 8
Total number of responses providing a general comment 5
Table 5.33
Support – a natural extension of existing developments (x2) Concern that clay pits bordering the site might be lost Will spoil from the development be dumped in the claypits and if so what impact will this have on future use? Roundswell residents should be consulted over the future of the claypits Potential for minerals (clay) extraction to recommence on the remainder of the site should be built into the scheme (DCC) Major concerns over site drainage and flooding (x2) Vehicular link with the A39 is supported as part of a scheme of works for access and to reduce queuing on the A39 Road link described at (a) will cause unacceptable congestion at Cedars Roundabout A new Roundabout on the A39 will simply move the current congestion at Roundswell to this new roundabout Improvements to the Roundswell Roundabout will only result in other routes becoming congested A complete highways review of the town is required in light of all the proposed developments Tews Lane and Old Bideford Road are not designed to provide adequate access for a development of this scale Change policy to show that this development could be brought forward prior to delivery of the infrastructure providing a new roundabout on the A39. The highways link between Tews Land and Bickington Road may not be required; it was identified as a borderline requirement only under certain development scenarios (DCC) Increased traffic will make walking along Tews Lane dangerous Development will create a ‘rat run’ along Tews Lane A large green wedge should be provided between the proposed development and Bickington Trees and Hedgerows should be retained Section 106 monies should be secured to complete the Tews Lane Sports Changing / Community Centre Clarification is required on the need for a primary school on the site No school should be built here Policy should state that delivery of infrastructure, community facilities and affordable housing will be subject to overall development viability Allocation should provide on-site sport and recreation facilities or make an off-site contribution Development density proposed is too high Bickington doesn’t need any more houses (x2) The peripheral nature and infrastructure demands of the site make viability for 350 houses questionable The policy does not identify the full extent of the site covered by the planning application – amend the policy to show the full site
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 179 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Extend the boundary for BAR3 up to the flood zone boundary to the west Bickington to Old Bideford Road development should be enlarged Enlarge allocation to include the old clay pit access road and an adjacent area of land giving more naturally defined boundaries
Other Key Issues identified
An outline planning application (53881) has been submitted for 350 dwellings, a primary school & associated public open space & infrastructure on land West of Tews Lane. The application was approved in principle by Planning Committee subject to the completion of a S106 agreement The western part of Barnstaple is located within a ‘Critical Drainage Area’ (CDA).
Officer Comments and Recommendations
716 Planning permission has now been granted in principle on this site, subject to the completion of a S106 agreement (53881). Whilst the issues raised above were relevant at the time, they were also considered as part of the planning application. The proposed development only has outline approval in principle so a policy needs to be retained to inform any reserved matters application, as well as any amended or alternative application that may be submitted. It is accepted that the land allocated within the Plan should reflect more accurately the extent of the site with planning permission.
717 It is also accepted that clarification is required as to the preferred site for the new Primary school as the Plan currently allocates a site at Larkbear (Policy BAR02) where a planning application (54762) is currently being considered by the Council. If a new school is developed at Larkbear as the preferred site then it would not be unreasonable for the land safeguarded on the Tews Lane site to be developed for additional housing outside of the area subject to flood risk.
718 It is accepted that the delivery of development and supporting infrastructure, including community facilities and affordable housing is subject to viability. It is implicit in Policy ST22 that developments will be expected to provide or contribute toward the timely provision of physical and social infrastructure although it is considered that viability issues on a particular site would be assessed at the time of any planning application.
719 The western part of Barnstaple 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. Policy relating to ‘Critical Drainage Areas’ throughout northern Devon will be added to ST03 (Adapting to Climate Change). The supporting text should refer to being in a CDA thereby contributing to a reduction in flood risk downstream.
Policy BAR04: Mount Sandford Green
Summary of Key Issues
720 Comments made in response to Policy BAR04, including supporting text:
Total number of responses 16
Total number of responses in support 2
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 5
Total number of responses in objection 6
180 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Total number of responses providing a general comment 3
Table 5.34
Avoid any highway changes which affect the free flow of traffic on the A39 and A361 Proposed access roundabout will cause congestion at the nearby Portmore and Bishops Tawton roundabouts Traffic movements will disrupt existing residents At this location the A39 has been reclassified as the A361 since construction of the Western Bypass (DCC) The A361 junction design must have regard to the strategic function of the route. There has been no economic assessment and no design assessment so DCC cannot endorse the junction without this data (DCC) Access from A361 is dangerous Site should contribute towards enhancement of local bus services to the town centre Site access should be via Portmore roundabout with improvements (x2) Extend allocation to include land at Whiddon Farm and Landkey Road or allocate these separately for residential use (x2) Site should facilitate a walking route from the allocation to Landkey Primary School Sites south of A361 lack integrity with Barnstaple. Support principle of development (x2) Critical Drainage Area requirements need to be considered On-site sport and recreation facilities should be provided, or off-site contribution made Cost of infrastructure links will impact on viability, particularly new A39 junction and pedestrian / cycle links over A39 The site has no footway / cyclepath linkages across the A39 Development must not reduce playability of Portmore Golf Course Business advertising at the access will be a distraction to motorists. Support a natural extension of existing housing developments nearby Loss of wildlife & habitat
Other Key Issues identified
An outline planning application (54923) has been submitted for 250 PassivHaus dwellings together with 2.8 ha innovation park on land west of Portmore golf course (known as Mount Sandford Green). The application was approved in principle by Planning Committee subject to the completion of a S106 agreement
Officer Comments and Recommendations
721 Planning permission has now been granted in principle on this site (54923). Whilst the issues raised above were relevant at the time they would have been considered as part of the planning application. The proposed development only has outline approval in principle so a policy needs to be retained to inform any reserved matters application, as well as any amended or alternative application that may be submitted.
722 It is accepted that the land allocated within the Plan should reflect more accurately the extent of the site with planning permission. Policy BAR04 is allocating approximately 9.5 ha of mixed use development land including housing and business uses. However, the policy is seeking approximately 5 ha of land for business uses when the planning permission has only granted 2.8 ha. Policy BAR04(1b) and paragraph 10.28 should be amended accordingly.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 181 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
723 The proposed development boundary should be amended to include the existing residential uses at Whiddon, which has also be submitted as a SHLAA site, although it is not necessary to identify the additional land as part of Policy BAR04.
724 The change in road names between the Portmore roundabout and the Lake roundabout has been noted. The policy wording and supporting text should be amended to recognise that the main road to the immediate west of the site is now the A361 and no longer the A39.
725 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. It is accepted that the policy and supporting text should refer to this area of Barnstaple being in a CDA and therefore the development should provide additional water storage areas to be created within the site contributing to a reduction in flooding of the Coney Gut and further downstream.
726 There is a listed building at Whiddon and a new criterion (2h) is considered appropriate to ‘safeguard its historic setting.
Policy BAR05: Westaway Plain, Pilton
Total number of responses 92
Total number of responses in support 9
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 4
Total number of responses in objection 72
Total number of responses providing a general comment 7
Table 5.35
Summary of Key Issues
727 Comments made in response to Policy BAR05, including supporting text:
Broad support for allocation Support for site specific criteria in section 2 of policy “Wrong development in the wrong place” Land is outside of the development boundary so should not be developed Development should only be allowed on land between Northfield Lane and Shearford Lane Site is not sustainable and delivers no tangible benefits Unacceptable ribbon development Other allocations (BAR9 as example) could deliver much higher density than proposed eliminating the need for the BAR5 allocation (x2) This proposal should be removed from the plan Additional land will be required to deliver the agreed master-plan Site is distant from shops, schools, social services, employment opportunities (x5) Pilton is losing facilities so there are no facilities here for new houses Inadequate capacity at existing schools (x21) Site is within easy walking distance of both primary and secondary schools (x4) No new schools are proposed in Pilton so housing shouldn’t be here either (x2)
182 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Insufficient capacity at Hospital (x6) Retired incomers will place an unacceptable burden on the local Hospital Local services cannot cope with housing growth Cuts to police budget make policing a larger population impossible Support due to the acute need for housing and affordable homes (x7) Support subject to inclusion of a high proportion of affordable homes (x2) Development may address the current unaffordable nature of housing in the Pilton Area Support site to avoid imbalance because the town should be expected to grow in all directions Site is encircled by housing so makes sense as a housing allocation The development is not large in size or housing numbers People occupying recent developments have added nothing to Pilton – no more homes for incomers! Loss of privacy and security for existing residents (x5) Site cannot accommodate this number of houses (x2) New housing should not have access via existing areas of housing (x2) Brian Greenslade said this site was unsuitable for housing in March 2010 New houses will destroy the sense of community amongst locals No need to screen development west of Shearford Lane if of good quality A site near the hospital has had consent for years and has never been developed, clearly there is no real demand for housing (x2) Question the need for any extra housing (x2) Where are all these extra people going to come from? When it snows this part of town is the last place where snow melts requiring extra energy to heat home. No employment growth will mean new homes full of unemployed (x7) Working age incomers will be unemployed as there are no jobs locally (x2) Housing needs to be delivered alongside new employment opportunities Development will attract ‘low-income’ families who won’t contribute to the village economy Development site is distant from transport networks (x2) The north side of Barnstaple has poor transport infrastructure and is thus unsuitable for development Congestion at hospital junction – improvements / alterations will be needed to facilitate this development (x2 including D&C Police) Development of 160 homes will not support costs of junction improvements Area has good highways links and these could always be improved via s106 contributions (x3) Development proposal increases reliance on the car (x2) Increased congestion, which is already an issue (x8) Will cause congestion at the Hospital junction (x8) Increase in traffic through Pilton (x25) Northfield Road will be used more as a ‘rat run’ (x8) Narrow roads are difficult for buses and emergency vehicles – the area is not safe for development (x2) Increase in noise and air pollution from vehicles (x3) Impact on highways safety (x2) No form of improvement could allow the hospital junction to function adequately for this level of traffic Existing roads cannot be widened without unacceptable loss of historic Devon banks and hedges (x3)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 183 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Highways infrastructure such as junctions and access splays will spoil the character of the area Access to site is weak (x3) Infrastructure is inadequate and incapable of improvement (x2) There are no footpaths on the road near the hospital making walking there dangerous Development in Barnstaple should focus on the A361 / A39 corridor for accessibility (x2) Plan must avoid ambiguity – there is no Northfield Road: does this refer to North Road or Northfield Lane? Improved links to both North Road and Northfield Lane would be beneficial (DCC) A ‘Park and Change’ facility should be provided near the site (DCC) Support for transport policies in section 3 Enhancements to local bus services should form part of section 3 Pilton is a sustainable location suited to walking into town for work / services / public transport links (x7) Pilton has good footpath links into surrounding countryside for recreation (x2) Harm to local wildlife (x11) New households will own cats which eat wildlife Harm to the biodiversity of Shearford Lane County Wildlife Site (x10) Loss of hedgerows as wildlife habitats (x5) Object to loss of trees on site (x4) Add text to explain how local nature and wildlife sites will be protected (NE) Devon Wildlife Trust want involvement in the planning process (DWT) Unacceptable loss of high quality agricultural land (x4) Support development that proceeds in accordance with recommendations from wildlife and habitat surveys Unacceptable impact on the Pilton Conservation Area (x10) Negative impact on setting of listed buildings (x9) Land south of Westaway House should remain as open countryside Green spaces within housing developments serve no purpose as the housing spoils the quality of the green area This entire field should be preserved as green space Too little green space is proposed for a housing development of this size You can’t propose ‘green space’ on areas which couldn’t be built upon anyway due to steep slopes Harm to natural facilities for families and dog walkers at Bradiford Valley / Sherford Lane / Mannings Pits (x3) Public open space is never maintained so children play in the road Access to the countryside will be restricted by this development Unacceptable loss of open space (x2) Support for proposed open space provision The site cannot be used as open recreational space as it would cause noise nuisance to local residents The site presently has no public access and is not special to the community and as such should not be considered as green infrastructure Land to the north intended to serve as open space should in included within the site allocation (x2) Support public footpath links which promote healthy living and interaction with the environment (x3) Structure planting to northern boundary may be out of character (x2)
184 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Structure planting cannot enhance an area already despoiled by building on it Boundary of proposed development should be further North and related to physical features in the landscape (x2) Development linearly along Lynbro Road will be out of character in its context Conflict between maps in Figures 10.2 and 15.2 Unacceptable increase in flood risk (x26) Surface water can and should be controlled through use of SUDS Adverse impact on local landscape value (x20) Impact upon views of the setting of Pilton / Barnstaple (x4) Unacceptable loss of local rural character (x5) Development will change local character (x2) Boundary of proposed development should be further North and related to physical features in the landscape (x2) Existing stone faced banks and walls should be preserved
Other Key Issues identified
DCC have undertaken work to design a comprehensive solution to improve the capacity to the Hospital junction, which could be delivered by and provide additional capacity to accommodate a number of allocated sites and current planning applications in the Pilton area; it may require a small section of land at Trayne Farm An outline planning application at Trayne Farm (56047) for up to 80 dwellings is currently undetermined
DCC are considering an additional park and change site near the Hospital (A39) suitable for visitors traveling from Ilfracombe and Lynton areas
Officer Comments and Recommendations
728 There is a wide range of objections to this policy, which are covered below, but also some support for particular aspects. The need for housing and especially affordable housing in the Pilton area was recognised. The need for some housing on the North side of town is noted to help support the needs of different communities, although other responses indicate it is the wrong place for housing. This does not conflict with the broad distribution of housing set out within the spatial vision and spatial strategy, which focus growth on the south and south-eastern side of Barnstaple. Others sites being able to accommodate more growth should not justify deletion of this site if it is otherwise acceptable.
729 The suitability of the site is supported by it being surrounded for development and its relatively small scale whilst others consider it to be ribbon development. The site can potentially accommodate the proposed scale of development (160 homes). Potential amenity and privacy considerations for residents of nearby properties will be addressed by Policy DM01: Amenity Considerations.
730 Concerns were raised about ‘incomers’ not adding anything to Pilton. Whilst there is no employment land proposed as part of this policy, there is good access to employment opportunities elsewhere in the town so it does not mean new homes will be occupied by the unemployed nor attract low-income families. The local plan cannot control who lives in new homes, apart from affordable housing. The overall levels of housing growth within the town are set out under Policy ST07. There is no mechanism for the planning system to control population growth as a consequence of Police budgets.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 185 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
731 The site is not unacceptably distant from shops, schools and services. There is an existing bus service close to the site and it is no more distant from the town centre than other allocated sites on the edge of Barnstaple. The capacity of existing schools is a valid issue but additional education provision is required for pupils across Barnstaple. All residential development will be required to contribute towards new schools and expansion of existing schools through CIL / section106.
732 The junction of Westaway Plain and the A39 by the Hospital has no spare capacity to accommodate additional traffic, but there is an opportunity for this junction to be improved. This may need to be funded by several development sites or through CIL. There is also an opportunity to provide an alternative access to the Hospital for emergency vehicles, as discussed under Policy ST06. There is already a bus service through Pilton and along Westaway Plain and a regular service between the Hospital and the town centre.
733 There is a response from DCC suggesting an additional park and change facility near the site. This site itself is not suitable because it would need to be sited along an existing regular bus route, although provision in the area adjoining the Hospital may be more appropriate if an additional park and change facility is required.
734 Traffic congestion and rat-running through Pilton are raised in a range of responses with particular safety issues from walking to the local schools and the Hospital. DCC support improvements between North Road and Northfield Lane, which this site could help to facilitate. It is accepted that there should be no vehicular access between the site and Lynbro Road. The draft plan does not propose any link, but the supporting text could be clarified to confirm this.
735 There were also concerns raised about widening the single width stretch of Northfield Lane, with particular fears of rat-running along Northfield Lane to access the local schools. The existing junction on Westaway Plain is dangerous and cannot accommodate more traffic. Policy BAR05(3b) proposes to block up this junction and provide a new road link through the western part of the site between Westaway Plain and Northfield Lane, which would improve highway safety, access for emergency vehicles, retain the existing historic stone-faced hedgebank and potentially reduce traffic along The Rock. The reference to Northfield Road in paragraph 10.31 should be corrected to Northfield Lane. An alternative would be to develop each site as a cul-de-sac with no new through link, although it would not improve the existing junction and would not necessarily restrict rat-running through Pilton.
736 Responses indicate harm to Shearford Lane county wildlife site but the plan has already been worded to retain and enhance it with no vehicular links through Shearford Lane. Existing hedgerow boundaries are also to be retained. Policy ST11(a) proposes a net gain in biodiversity through positive management and enhanced green infrastructure networks, whilst paragraph 10.32 clarifies how local green infrastructure networks will be enhanced. No further explanation is considered necessary.
737 The setting of Westaway Cottage is already recognised in Policy BAR05(2e) and paragraph 10.31, which will minimise the impact on its setting. The relevant listing building entry refers to Westaway and Westaway Cottage as separate properties covered by a single listing. For clarity it would be helpful to ensure that both Westaway and Westaway Cottage are mentioned explicitly in paragraph 10.31 as part of this listed building. This site is outside Pilton conservation area and only the southern edge of the site south of Mear Top is visible from the conservation area. Development is unlikely to have any significant adverse impact on the conservation area’s character and appearance, and Policy ST12 would control any potential impacts.
738 The site is grade 3 agricultural land and is not higher quality than most alternative sites around Barnstaple, which range from grades 2 to 4 agricultural land. There is a value for open spaces within residential developments, although it is accepted that these areas should be multi-functional and
186 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
suitable for using as open space and not just the areas not suitable for building. It is set out in paragraph 12.64 that developments must indicate how and by whom open space will be delivered, managed and maintained.
739 There are objections to unacceptable loss of open space but no existing public open spaces are being lost. One response requests the whole field west of Shearford Lane being preserved as green space, whilst another indicates the northern half of the field, outside the current allocation, which is likely to provide open space and/or SUDS, should be included within Policy BAR05. It is more appropriate for a site boundary to following a physical feature in the landscape and the northern half of the field could be included within BAR05, albeit it should be providing SUDS and green infrastructure only to ensure no increase in flood risks downstream. The requirement for structural planting along the northern boundary would remain, albeit along a different boundary.
740 There are a large number of objections relating to increases in flood risk, presumably referring to Bradiford Water, but Policy ST03 and criterion 2(f) require the developments to incorporate SUDS to prevent any increase in flood risks downstream.
741 The proposed open space south of Westaway Plain currently has no public access and the landowner has indicated that the site is unlikely to be delivered unless the whole site is identified for housing. The site as a whole is not suitable for topographic reasons and access for residential use would be difficult across the site frontage. Many of the objections from impacts on residential amenities came from properties adjoining this site. There was also conflict here in that Figure 10.2 showed the whole site as public open space whilst Figure 15.2 shows frontage development facilitating open space behind. In view of these factors, and the potential for the site north of Westaway Plain to deliver the identified 160 dwellings, then land south of the road could be deleted from BAR05. However, the site would remain within the development boundary so could be considered as a windfall site against Development Management policies should it be proposed in the future.
742 Several responses refer to impact on local landscape value and loss of rural character. The site is not prominent from outside Bradiford valley and the proposed structural planting would help to screen the development from the north. All greenfield sites on the edge of Barnstaple are likely to have some impact on local landscape character.
Policy BAR06: South of North Devon District Hospital
Total number of responses 15
Total number of responses in support 1
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Total number of responses in objection 9
Total number of responses providing a general comment 3
Table 5.36
Summary of the Key Issues
743 Comments made in response to Policy BAR06, including supporting text:
No objection to development south of the Hospital. Adverse impact on traffic along the A39 (x6)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 187 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Major road improvements are already required to alleviate congestion (BTC) Profit from 100 houses will not deliver junction improvements
Development will increase use of ‘The Rock’ as a ‘rat run’ (x2) Increase in pollution from vehicles Increased highways safety risk from extra vehicle movements Increased traffic through Pilton’s residential streets (x2) Increased queuing at the Hospital junction (x2) No justification for lack of pedestrian access to North Road or via the existing footpath west of Roffes Cottage Any pedestrian access should be via Green Valley (adj. Meadow View) (x2) Private lane to south of site is unsuitable for access and unsafe for pedestrians (x2) Concerns over unauthorised pedestrian access along a private road accessing 2 existing properties Further details of vehicular access and traffic impact are required (D&C Police) Delete paragraph 2(f) unless it is unclear that evidence indicates that land ownership makes this possible Adverse impact on school capacity in Pilton (x2) Additional education provision needs to be delivered locally to Pilton Pilton is losing local services so not sustainable The nature of “community facilities” is not specified Community facilities should be delivered through s106 contributions Paragraph 1(b) does not need to indicate ‘required by the development’ Adverse impact on existing residential properties Loss of privacy and security for existing residential properties (x2) Will have less impact upon historic environment that BAR05 proposal Unacceptable impact upon Pilton Conservation Area (x2) Concerns about how layout and style of new development will fit into a valley setting Policy should read ‘reduce’ rather than ‘restrict’ carbon emissions Paragraph 2(d) should be removed as these matters are controlled through Building Regulations Care needed with SUDS and in drainage design to avoid increased flood risk (x3) Amend paragraph 2(b) to provide a sustainable water strategy to reduce water usage and avoid increasing the risk of flooding elsewhere in Barnstaple Development will increase flood risk (x2) Loss of trees with negative aesthetic impact, environmental impact and increased surface water run-off A leat runs through the allocation, usually requiring a 7m buffer free from development either side (EA)
Other Key Issues identified
DCC have identified the opportunity for an access to this site to deliver an alternative access to the Hospital for emergency vehicles DCC have undertaken work to design a comprehensive solution to improve the capacity to the Hospital junction, which could be delivered by and provide additional capacity to accommodate a number of allocated sites and current planning applications in the Pilton area; it will require a small section of land at Trayne Farm
188 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Officer Comments and Recommendations
744 The new road junction on the A39 could incorporate a new vehicular access into the Hospital for use of emergency vehicles, which would reduce pressures at the hospital traffic lights. Any new junction will need to be of an appropriate design. The acceptability of any impacts on existing junctions at the top and bottom of North Road will need to be assessed and where appropriate addressed. These are discussed in more detail under representations to Policy BAR05.
745 Criterion 2(f) of the policy requires a footpath across the site between North Road and Raleigh Road, and there is an existing footpath link at the western edge of the site between North Road and Higher Raleigh Road. The site extends down to and along the Raleigh Road frontage but there is no opportunity here to deliver a new footpath link on to this private lane.
746 Increased capacity for education has been considered within the town as a whole in consultation DCC as the local education authority. The need for ‘infrastructure required by the development’ is to ensure that the development helps to provide infrastructure on site as well as contributing to offsite infrastructure. It is intentionally flexible as the range of requirements may not be evident until an application has been submitted, for example improvements to existing junctions on North Road.
747 The development of this site is neither within nor visible from the Pilton conservation area. There is scope for a development to be designed to fit within a valley setting and there are relatively few existing properties adjoining this site whose amenities would be affected. Potential amenity and privacy considerations for existing residents will be addressed by Policy DM01: Amenity Considerations.
748 It is accepted that criterion 2(c) could be amended from ‘restrict’ to ‘reduce’ carbon emissions. Good practice on sustainable construction techniques is stronger than reliance on Building Regulations, which would represent the bare minimum for sustainable construction techniques. It is considered appropriate to retain this criterion to encourage sustainable construction, although it may be helpful to add a cross-reference to Policy ST05: Sustainable Construction and Buildings to clarify what is meant by this requirement.
749 A number of responses raised concerns about flood risks, particularly in view of flooding along the river Yeo before Christmas. Criterion (2c) already requires a sustainable water strategy to incorporate SUDS and manage surface water runoff to avoid increasing the risks of flooding elsewhere in Barnstaple. In combination with Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change, no further changes are considered necessary. There is a leat passing east-west through the site and paragraph 10.35 could recognise the need to retain a buffer free from development.
Policy BAR07: North Lane, Bickington
Summary of the Key Issues
750 Comments made in response to Policy BAR07 including supporting text:
Number of responses 9
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Number of responses in objection 4
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 189 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.37
No new houses are needed in Bickington Development should be limited to 40 dwellings in recognition of the scale of the existing village Scale of development should be limited due to poor access, limited amenities and low-lying ground at risk of flooding North Lane is unable to facilitate access to a development of this size The site allocation leaves an area ripe for future development; this should be planned for as part of the proposed development Small scale of development and infrastructure / access improvements will make the site financially unviable Need to consider impact on surrounding transport infrastructure of additional vehicle movements generated Need to address congestion issues at Cedars roundabout Support proposal to provide off-street parking for Union Terrace residents Access via North Lane will require enhancement and likely require demolition and property acquisition, it is unclear if these matters are within the developers control (DCC) Development would make a neighbouring farm unviable due to proximity to residential development Local farmer unwilling to make land shown blue available unless land shown in red is also allocated to facilitate enough profit from land sale to purchase a new farm
Other Key Issues identified
Devon County Council has identified budget in place to fund improvements to the Roundswell roundabout, which is scheduled to be completed during 2014.
A hybrid planning application (56351) has been submitted for part demolition of Tremar, erection of 16 residential units, associated community benefits together with associated highway works & outline application for residential development of up to 70 units, Land off North Lane, Bickington. The application is undetermined and is currently out for public consultation.
Officer Comments and Recommendations
751 The main issue concerns the scale of the development. Some responses seek a maximum level of development reflecting access restrictions at North Lane and increased traffic movements in the locality. However, the landowner has indicated that the land can only be delivered if all of the farm were included (south of the local green space proposed by BAR19(3)) north of Lower Cross Road and Mead Park. Its inclusion could potentially help to release land north of the ridgeline for delivering the local green space down to the Tarka Trail. This proposed extension is considered in greater detail as a promoted site at the end of this report.
752 The land allocated within the Plan does not accurately reflect the extent of the site with planning application (56351), particularly in the south-east corner of the site adjacent to North Lane. The draft Plan shows this area to be an area of open space but the application shows a mix of housing including a village green. Therefore, it is proposed to delete the area of green on the southern boundary but to require provision somewhere on site.
190 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
753 The proximity of dwellings to North Down Farm should not affect the farm’s viability. Any residential development would be considered against Policy DM01: Amenity Considerations where new residential development should not be permitted within close proximity to potentially un-neighbourly uses.
754 The western part of Barnstaple 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. Policy relating to ‘Critical Drainage Areas’ throughout northern Devon will be added to ST03 (Adapting to Climate Change). The supporting text should refer to being in a CDA thereby contributing to a reduction in flood risk downstream.
Policy BAR08: Former School Site, Roundswell
755 comments made in response to Policy BAR08 including supporting text:
Number of responses 8
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Number of responses in objection 1
Number of responses providing a general comment 4
Table 5.38
Summary of Key the Issues
756 Comments made in response to Policy BAR08, including supporting text:
Impact of development on local traffic congestion and local highways safety (x2 including D&C Police) Other sites should be considered for a school Land east of Sainsburys is not appropriate for education provision This site is ideal for housing in light of the alternate school site being identified Delivery is dependent on finding an alternative school site which is not guaranteed and will not result in delivery within 5 years Site is better suited for commercial use, possibly including a care home rather than housing DCC plan an extra care housing scheme on this site; the policy should reflect this (DCC) The site should deliver part of the high quality east-west cycle route as described in policy BAR20(b) (DCC) Site is a critical drainage area and will require a higher than normal level of SUDS (EA)
Other Key Issues identified
Devon County Council has an identified budget in place to fund improvements to the Roundswell roundabout, which is scheduled to be completed during 2014
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 191 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Officer Comments and Recommendations
757 There is broad support for residential development here provided that a suitable alternative school site can be identified and delivered. Alternative sites have been identified through the planning applications at Tews Lane (BAR03) and Larkbear (BAR02).
758 DCC’s plan for extra care housing on this site is already recognised in paragraph 10.39 as part of the 75 dwellings, but it is considered necessary to clarify and add detail within this policy. It is proposed that the site would be identified for extra care housing of approximately 50 self-contained units together with approximately 25 further dwellings.
759 The western part of Barnstaple 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. Policy relating to ‘Critical Drainage Areas’ throughout northern Devon will be added to ST03 (Adapting to Climate Change). The supporting text should refer to being in a CDA thereby contributing to a reduction in flood risk downstream.
760 Paragraph 10.39 already cross-refers to the cross-town cycle route and this development could help to provide a strategic link. It is considered appropriate for an additional site-specific development principle to be added to paragraph 2 to secure delivery the cross-town cycle route across this site. For accuracy, paragraph 10.39 should be amended to recognise the cross-town route is Policy BAR20b and not BAR20c.
Policy BAR09: Glenwood Farm, Roundswell
761 Comments made in response to Policy BAR09 including supporting text:
Number of responses 12
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 4
Number of responses in objection 3
Number of responses providing a general comment 4
Table 5.39
Summary of Key Issues
Additional junctions on the A39 should be avoided to maintain flows on this main arterial route New access road could become a ‘rat run’ between the A39 and Old Bideford Road Additional access to Roundswell would give route choices, relieve pressure and assist network resilience, and deliver a link from A39 to Bickington Road (DCC) Road safety issues at the roundabout between Sainsburys and Cedars Support excellent links to the A39 Has the cost of delivering the road links and junctions on the A39 been properly considered in terms of viability? Support this policy Support as best site for residential development in easy level walking distance of local facilities Ideally suited to mixed use development
192 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Support but amend to better reflect employment need, viability considerations, net developable area and need for flexibility – 1.1 hectares for employment / 250 houses Supported but it should be identified as a mixed-use development as the current allocation is too inflexible Roundswell doesn’t require any more houses Consideration must be given to the watercourse along the eastern boundary which will restrict development area and impact on the new road alignment (EA) Question viability given the need for highways work and serviced employment land A park and change site should be considered on this site (DCC) subject to conclusions in the emerging parking strategy
Other Key Issues identified
Early indications from the updated ‘Employment Land Review’ highlights that the Plan has an over provision of employment land to meet the anticipated demand. The implications of this will be considered under Policies ST07 and ST14 but ELR recommendations could have implications for this strategic employment site Devon County Council have identified budget in place to fund improvements to the Roundswell roundabout which is scheduled to be completed during 2014 An outline planning application at Glenwood Farm (55479) for up to 92 dwellings and up to 1,394 square metres of employment use was recently approved in principle subject to a s106 agreement
Officer Comments and Recommendations
762 The recent planning application (55479) differs from the Local Plan in that it proposes a larger area for residential development with less employment land on the eastern field within the site. The Plan is likely to over-provide employment land to meet the anticipated demand from the emerging ELR, so loss of employment land here would not undermine the spatial strategy. The capacity of this site and the Policies Map should be updated to reflect the current application. The westernmost fields of BAR09 were outside the recent application site.
763 There was some support for a new road link between the A39 and the Old Bideford Road, but also some concerns about traffic flows. The planning application (55479) safeguarded a route for this new road link, for which land will be passed to DCC as highway authority. DCC has requested consideration of a park and change site, although it is too late for its inclusion on this site given the recent approval of the planning application. A new park and change on this side of town may be appropriate but not through this policy.
764 The western part of Barnstaple 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. Policy relating to ‘Critical Drainage Areas’ throughout northern Devon will be added to ST03 (Adapting to Climate Change). The supporting text should refer to being in a CDA thereby contributing to a reduction in flood risk downstream. Issues regarding the watercourse along the eastern boundary have been resolved through the planning application.
Policy BAR10: Roundswell Business Park
Summary of Key Issues
765 Comments made in response to Policy BAR10 including supporting text:
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 193 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Number of responses 10
Number of responses in support 2
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Number of responses in objection 6
Number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.40
Land east of Old Torrington Road is not available for employment uses and should be identified for housing The highway implications are not explained (D&C Police) The site is suitable for mixed use development The existing business park is not restricted to B class uses; define for economic development in accordance with NPPF (PPA) No development south of A39 Extend site to Brynsworthy Lane Site is with critical drainage area where drainage higher standards are required and reference to SUDS (EA) Supports policy and proposed extension. The A39 Roundswell roundabout improvements are essential to enable development. Safeguarding land should be in accordance with DCC’s latest design drawing (DCC) The undeveloped nature of this site increases potential for district heating and support for such infrastructure would proactively encourage it to take place (DCC) Objects to allocations south of the link road
Other Key Issues identified
Planning permission was granted in August 2013 for St John’s Garden Centre to relocate to land south-west of the Roundswell roundabout (46453) Early indications from the updated ‘Employment Land Review’ highlight that the Plan has an over provision of employment land to meet the anticipated demand. The implications of this will be considered under Policies ST07 and ST14 but ELR recommendations could have implications for this strategic employment site Devon County Council have identified budget in place to fund improvements to the Roundswell roundabout which is scheduled to be completed during 2014 Devon County Council have recently consulted on potential sites around Roundswell for an ‘energy recovery from waste’ facility as part of their Waste Local Plan; consultation on a potential site around Brynsworthy Environment Centre was completed recently A planning application east of Old Torrington Road (56232) for 46 dwellings on allocated employment land is currently undetermined A planning application west of Old Torrington Road adjoining Windsor Gardens (54273) for 14 dwellings on allocated employment land gained planning permission in July 2013
Officer Comments and Recommendations
766 The potential oversupply of employment land across northern Devon, as set out in Policies ST07 and ST14 warrants a potential reduction in employment allocations. With planning permission already granted for residential development west of Old Torrington Road, this site and land to the
194 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
rear (adjoining Petroc’s Brannam campus) should be deleted from this policy. With a further application east of Old Torrington Road (albeit within Policy BAR02), that site should also be deleted. One of the landowners has indicated that the site will not become available for employment uses.
767 The NPPF defined economic development as development including those within the B Use classes, public and community uses and main town centre uses (but excluding housing development). It is accepted that there are already a number of businesses that are outside of the Use Classes B1, B2 and B8. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to allow a more flexible policy approach to proposed new employment uses. Town centre uses including retailing would be assessed against Policy DM16: Town Centres requiring sequentially preferable sites within or closer to the town centre to be considered before locating at Roundswell business park.
768 The western part of Barnstaple 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. Policy relating to ‘Critical Drainage Areas’ throughout northern Devon will be added to ST03 (Adapting to Climate Change). The supporting text should refer to being in a CDA thereby contributing to a reduction in flooding downstream. It is accepted that the policy wording should incorporate SUDS.
769 Devon County Council through their emerging Devon Waste Plan would be responsible for identifying any energy from waste facility in the Roundswell area. A site around the Brynsworthy Environment Centre is being considered, 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 policy and supporting paragraphs could be amended to enable this.
770 A site of 1.5 approximately hectares has been promoted to the south of the A39 between the existing allocation and Brynsworthy Lane. It is well related to identified employment land and could be included within an extension to BAR10, although there remains a potential oversupply of employment land within the Plan as a whole.
Policy BAR11: Queen Street / Bear Street
Summary of Key Issues
771 Comments made in response to Policy BAR11 including supporting text:
Number of responses 16
Number of responses in support 4
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 7
Number of responses in objection 2
Number of responses providing a general comment 3
Table 5.41
Supports the proposed development in principle (x5 including BTC, DCC, EH) Supports the policy if carried out carefully Supports extending and enhancing Barnstaple A new foodstore of 1,000 sqm could solve the town centre’s issues and provide all this is needed over the next 20 years
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 195 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Consider free parking or money-back vouchers to spend in BLISS shops 15,000 sqm of net retail floorspace is inconsistent with the 2012 retail study which suggests 12,000 sqm net floorspace Policy seeks appropriate mix of land uses given its location and Barnstaple town centre’s current role; it will deliver suitable floorspace to maintain and enhance Barnstaple’s role as a sub-regional centre (x2) Ensure the need is justified; Green Lanes currently struggles to maintain full capacity; provision of ample parking is most important Royal Mail has no objection to inclusion of their site but any redevelopment can only come forward once Royal Mail’s operations have been suitably relocated (x2) (Royal Mail) Need more parking and residential development; locate retail along river frontage How will the strategic vision for the town’s centre’s vitality and viability be enhanced by this development? How will development link to the existing centre and provide a better pedestrian environment across the town? Establish and sign a link between new development and the High Street Survival of Pannier Market by link between High Street and Queen Street could be forged by adding café to Queen’s Theatre Density covers 53% at ground level as it includes the existing frontages, but would otherwise be a lot higher and undeliverable (PAA) No particular access point has been identified (DCC) Amend paragraph 10.46 from Royal Mail sorting office to Royal Mail delivery office given the separation of Royal Mail and Post Office operations (Royal Mail)
Other Key Issues identified
The need to maintain an appropriate level of town centre car parking
Officer Comments and Recommendations
772 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 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.
773 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). There is no need to differentiate between provision of comparison and convenience floorspace here, with any total retail floorspace providing opportunities for both comparison and convenience goods as required. With the majority of convenience floorspace required within Barnstaple up to 2031 having been approved in principle already, there is no need to identify a site on which to locate it.
774 The proposed floorspace for this site (16,000 sqm gross and 12,000 sqm net) from the 2012 Retail and Leisure (paragraph 7.4.8) is sourced from the adopted development brief (2007) which supplements the current adopted Local Plan. The new local plan could include a higher figure if it can be designed and delivered, but the plan no longer needs to identify the site for a particular level of floorspace. It is within the town centre where there is no need to assess retail impact on the town centre and any retail development will support Policy DM16: Town Centres that seeks to focus town
196 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
centre uses in the town centres to enhance a town centre’s vitality and viability. Policy BAR11 could be more flexible to facilitate a mix of town centre uses that supports the vitality and viability of the town centre.
775 The need to facilitate the Royal Mail’s relocation is noted and this could be clarified in the supporting text. Paragraph 10.47 recognises that a phased approach to development is supported, so some development could occur prior to the Royal Mail’s relocation. The need to amend Royal Mail sorting office to delivery office is accepted.
776 There are alternative potential vehicular access points and there is no policy reason to specify a particular access. The supporting text could clarify the importance of establishing improved pedestrian links between the development and the High Street.
Policy BAR12: Anchorwood Bank
Summary of Key Issues
777 Comments made in response to Policy BAR12 including the supporting text:
Number of responses 17
Number of responses in support 5
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 5
Number of responses in objection 4
Number of responses providing a general comment 3
Table 5.42
The site is ideally suited to take advantage of its riverfront location Support comprehensive redevelopment for mixed use development which supports housing and employment growth Make it explicit that the development must deliver the 4 listed principles as part of initial; phases of work; piecemeal redevelopment is unacceptable Supports criterion 2a for community, artistic and cultural activities Supports comprehensive mixed use development including 350 dwellings, retail, leisure and community uses Need greater emphasis on importance for development to deliver new homes in accordance with the spatial strategy Housing should be high quality due to the site’s prominent riverfront situation (BTC) Include leisure, more parking and residential development, with retail along frontage to open the town to the river (PAA) Providing leisure facilities could be linked to BAR15 to enhance the use of the river for watersport activities A vision is needed to ensure the development delivers an environment to be proud of Add text supporting provision of wetland habitat (DWT) Consider how the development will ensure ecosystems are maintained. Policies BAR5, BAR12 and BID1 should be worded to account for this (NE) Welcomes the policy recognition of the site’s potential to meet the town’s future needs for retail, community and leisure facilities and strengthen the town’s role as a sub-regional centre
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 197 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Will enhance derelict area to offset the commercial dominance of Tesco Objects to the policy for 8,500 sqm net floorspace of comparison goods; remove reference to the extant approval [43599] and reflect the current proposals for the site Plan does not provide sufficient land for convenience retail in Barnstaple – just 10000 sqm proposed at Queen Street/Bear Street Need a sequential approach to demonstrate retail development cannot occur in town centre; the 2012 retail study has not endorsed the site for retail development and no impact assessment has been undertaken for this allocation, contrary to protecting town centres State the type and nature of retail floorspace e.g. large format retail warehousing for bulky comparison goods (as for extant planning permission); it must complement the role of the town centre; policy should make it explicit that convenience floorspace is not acceptable Anchorwood Bank is a critical part of the land supply for comparison goods floorspace in Barnstaple as a sub-regional centre Amend paragraph 10.51 to refer to scale and nature of retail floorspace proposed in the current application including convenience floorspace Current application is unlikely to harm the vitality and viability of the town centre and could increase linked trips through clawback of expenditure from out-of-centre superstores Supports policy especially sub-paragraphs 1d, 2c and 2d (EA) Contrary to ST03 as land is at risk of flooding; these houses should be delivered on other sites not at risk from flooding Supports retention of Oliver buildings and engineering works to minimise impact on flood risk Supports policy in principle; DCC are actively considering a new pedestrian and cycle bridge to allow the river crossing in a traffic free environment optimising accessibility between the town centre and Anchorwood Bank (DCC) Development will deliver a financial contribution towards a new footbridge rather than solely from this development Supports a foot/cycle bridge across the Taw, which might save a cyclist at the Halfords roundabout, but it may be unaffordable; the foundations of the curved railway bridge could be considered as foundations for a footbridge An increase in walking and cycling routes would be excellent but should be separated for safety reasons
Other Key Issues identified
The planning application for Anchorwood Bank (55809) has been approved in principle subject to a s106 legal agreement for a retail food store of 6820 sqm (gross) with a petrol filling station and an outline application for up to 350 dwellings, hotel of up to 60 beds, employment space of up to 4000 sqm (gross) floorspace, community facilities of up to 200 sqm, convenience retail/service of up to 1000 sqm, restaurants/cafes of up to 1300 sqm, public house of up to 400 sqm, hot food takeaway of up to 400 sqm, leisure uses of up to 1000 sqm, together with 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 and vehicle parking also demolition of buildings with the exception of the Oliver buildings
198 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Officer Comments and Recommendations
778 Whilst full permission is being granted for a new foodstore, the rest of the proposed development has only outline approval. This is a strategic previously developed site close to the town centre so a policy needs to be retained to inform any reserved matters application, as well as any amended or alternative application that may be submitted for retail use. A previous consent on this site (43599) was never implemented.
779 Many of the objections received relate to whether this site should provide retail floorspace outside the defined town centre, and if so whether it should be for comparison or convenience goods. In view of the Council’s decision to approve the latest planning application (55809) in principle including a new foodstore, most of these representations are no longer relevant. Criterion 1(b) of the policy and paragraph 10.51 should be amended to indicate the level of net floorspace the site can accommodate The planning application was for 6,820 sqm (gross) floorspace and up to 1000 sqm convenience retail and service uses. A total floorspace of 7,800 sqm (gross) is approximately 6,000 sqm (net). It is no longer necessary to restrict this floorspace solely to comparison goods.
780 Redevelopment of this large, prominent, brownfield site was broadly supported, including opportunities for leisure uses as included within the current planning application. There is no evidence to justify which leisure uses would or would not be appropriate on this site, which could change during the plan period, so it is inappropriate to specify leisure uses which would be allowed here. Any leisure proposals would be assessed against Policy DM16: Town Centres, which seeks to focus town centre uses in the town centres to enhance a town centre’s vitality and viability. Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy also supports opportunities for new tourism and leisure development within towns, which could include water sport facilities along the river Taw.
781 Whilst this site is at risk of flooding, the flood defence works and off-site works approved as apart 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 defences. The Environment Agency had no outstanding objections to the application and it supports criteria 2c and 2d relating to flood alleviation measures and balancing ponds to control surface water runoff.
782 DCC’s consideration of a new pedestrian and cycle bridge is welcomed and will be partly funded by the site’s redevelopment. Criterion 1(c) already supports enhanced pedestrian and cycle links over the river Taw. Paragraph 10.54 refers more specifically to links on the southern side of the Longbridge which needs amending to clarify the aspirational new pedestrian and cycle bridge. It should be included within Policy BAR20: Strategic Green Infrastructure Links as it provides an important connection for both the South West Coast Path and Tarka Trail avoiding the need for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the Longbridge. The local highway authority will determine whether pedestrian and cyclists should be separated for safety reasons. The route will need to be shown on the Policies Map.
783 Policies ST04 and DM05 require high quality design for all developments and paragraph 1 of BAR12 already specifically requires a high quality development so no more detailed guidance is required. However a cross reference to the design policies could be included within paragraph 10.53 in view of the site’s prominent waterfront location.
Policy BAR13: Seven Brethren
Summary of Key Issues
784 Comments made in response to Policy BAR13 including the supporting text:
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 199 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Number of responses 12
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 3
Number of responses in objection 3
Number of responses providing a general comment 5
Table 5.43
Supports the statement in respect of flooding (EA) NDC should investigate bringing new businesses to the area (BTC) The policy does not deal with derelict boats on the riverbank next to the leisure centre; either remove derelict boats or establish an area for houseboat mooring with proper facilities Traffic flow will be affected by future developments at Anchorwood Bank (D&C Police) Traffic trying to exit from the existing shops at Barnstaple retail park are frequently unable to exit the car parks (D&C Police) Policy is supported but it should add under part (3) that the bridge would be for walking and cycling and would be in two parts crossing both the railway and the A361 western bypass (DCC) Network Rail would be happy to discuss proposals to improve the transport interchange at Barnstaple station (NR) Expanding commercial activities might make traffic congestion worse; additional leisure and recreational uses would be ideal here Opportunities for additional comparison floorspace are supported to maintain the town’s sub-regional role and complement the primary shopping area Lack of clarity between BAR13 and BAR14 – no mention of retail uses within the policy but potential for comparison goods floorspace within the supporting text (x2) Amend paragraph 10.55 so any additional retail floorspace should be directed to the existing Barnstaple retail park in the first instance
Other Key Issues identified
The planning application for Anchorwood Bank (53302) includes flood storage measures to defend both Anchorwood Bank and Seven Brethren. Off-site works along the river frontage upstream from the Long Bridge to the Iron Bridge would preclude the flooding of the sites from water that has circumvented on-site defences
Officer Comments and Recommendations
785 Policy BAR13 supports new employment, recreation and leisure uses. Expanding commercial activities might make traffic congestion worse but the functioning of the highway network will be assessed against Policy ST10: Transport Strategy and a proposed new DM policy for highway considerations.
786 There is no need to allocate land here for additional retail floorspace to meet future needs within the plan period. Additional comparison floorspace could complement the primary shopping area by helping to maintain the town’s sub-regional role, but any retail proposal would be assessed against Policy DM16: Town Centres, which seeks to focus retail uses in all town centres to enhance town centre vitality and viability. As part of the sequential approach to site selection, if land at Seven Brethren were needed for future retail floorspace, the siting would need to be as close to the Longbridge
200 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
as possible to minimise distance to the town centre and maximise opportunities for linked trips. As such there is no need to propose retail uses specifically within Policy BAR13. Paragraph 10.55 could be amended to clarify that additional comparison floorspace on Seven Brethren should be directed to the Station Road area.
787 The strategic cross-town footpath and cycleway (Policy BAR20b) passes through Seven Brethren. The route is supported in principle but DCC seek clarification that the bridge would be for walking and cycling (rather than just a footbridge) and would be in two parts crossing both the railway and the A361 western bypass separately. It is accepted that both Policy BAR13(3) should be amended for clarity and accuracy.
788 Removal of derelict houseboats could be included under environmental enhancements to Seven Brethren, although they would be outside the policy boundary. Only a port authority has comprehensive powers to address the range of issues that houseboats raise. Demand for houseboats is limited and no potential areas have been identified to establish an area for houseboat mooring with proper facilities. If future evidence identifies need to establish an area then it would be appropriate to identify such areas under Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy.
Policy BAR14: Evans Transport, Two Rivers Industrial Estate
Summary of Key Issues
789 Comments made in response to Policy BAR14 including the supporting text:
Number of responses 15
Number of responses in support 4
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Number of responses in objection 7
Number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.44
Transport elements of this policy are supported (DCC) Support for footpath link to the Tarka Trail Walking and cycling links have improved and more links are welcome Barnstaple already has enough large supermarkets; there would be significant traffic impacts on the immediate area and traffic circulation at peak times Support retail uses – Morrisons can help satisfy the identified need for convenience floorspace in the town up to 2031 and enhance customer choice, introducing significant investment and job creation The site is acceptable for retail and commercial leisure uses, which would benefit from linked trips through creation of Park and Ride site Clarify which leisure uses are acceptable; demonstrate why they cannot be located within Barnstaple town centre Supports employment and leisure uses but not town centre uses which would fail to deliver linked trips The Park and Ride should provide an area for car boot sales, craft workshops and public toilets
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 201 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
The Park and Ride site is too far into town and should be west of the junction and should be deleted The proposed Park and Ride site should remain as leisure/open space with improvements to the Fairview / Mill Road / Rolle Street junction
Add new vehicular access for Pilton Community College from Braunton Road (near Hobarts) to alleviate parking and congestion along Chaddiford Lane at certain times Concern at traffic impact from development creating a bottleneck on Braunton Road (D&C Police) Include Gliddon and Squire site for residential development (x2) The area needs redevelopment and housing is not appropriate because of flood risks The design of any building should be of a high standard; the rest of the commercial estate needs attention to improve visual appearance A landmark building should be in the north-east of the site as there is wetland and highest flood risk in north-west corner (EA) Support enhanced sports facilities which could help with flood compensation required for any redevelopment (EA)
Other Key Issues identified
Undetermined planning application (52842) for erection of building 5398 m2 (use class A1), creation of new access and associated car parking, petrol filling station, servicing provision and landscaping at Evans Transport site, Braunton Road EA have indicated that lowering the existing sports pitches to increase flood storage capacity could enable other land to be raised to reduce flood risks to provide opportunities for development
Officer Comments and Recommendations
790 There is a current planning application for a supermarket on this site. Recent evidence indicates that the current planning application would not have an unacceptable impact on the vitality of the town centre. Opportunities for linked trips with the town centre could be increased if the park and change scheme were provided. The traffic implications of a supermarket and potential improvements to address them are currently being assessed. Concerns at traffic impacts along Braunton Road are noted. There is no need to allocate the site for retail use to meet future needs within the plan period. Any application would be assessed against Policy DM16: Town Centres, which seeks to focus retail uses in all town centres to enhance town centre vitality and viability.
791 Main town centre uses that require a sequential approach to site selection (NPPF paragraph 24) include most leisure and entertainment facilities including cinemas, restaurants, drive-through restaurants, bars, pubs, night clubs, casinos, health and fitness centres, bowling centres and bingo halls. Any such uses would be assessed against Policy DM16: Town Centres and delivery of the park and change scheme would also optimise opportunities for linked trips with the town centre. There is no evidence to justify which leisure uses would or would not be appropriate on this site now, which could also change during the plan period, so it is inappropriate to identify a list of leisure uses which would be allowed on this site.
792 The land for the proposed park and change is allocated in the adopted local plan (BAR17). Its location adjacent to the Tarka Trail is important to facilitate opportunities to walk towards the town centre and to access the strategic footpath/cycleway network around the town. The site could remain for leisure and open space uses without needing an allocation, although no alternative site has been considered (or proposed by DCC as local highway authority) for a park and change facility elsewhere along the A361 outside the town. The Environment Agency support enhanced sports facilities that
202 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
could help with flood compensation required for any redevelopment. Workshops and toilets could be accommodated within any park and change scheme without needing to be identified specifically within the policy.
793 It is accepted that more vulnerable uses (such as housing) should not be permitted in flood zone 3 in accordance with NPPF guidance. It is also accepted that a landmark building should not be at the north-west corner of the site where flood risks are more severe. Given the site’s prominence a high quality design addressing all of the views in to the site will be required. The building need not be sited in the north-west corner but should be designed so all prominent elevations provide an attractive frontage from all directions.
794 Policies ST04 and DM05 require high quality design for all developments and criterion 1(b) specifically requires a high quality design so no more detailed guidance is required. It is accepted that more vulnerable uses (such as housing) would not normally be appropriate in flood zone 3 in accordance with NPPF guidance.
795 The need for a vehicular access to Pilton Community College has not been identified through any engagement with the local education authority and is not within any identified capital programme to demonstrate its deliverability. It is outside of the allocation covered by BAR14, therefore it is inappropriate to propose it through the Local Plan. However, if proposed it would not be contrary in principle to Policy ST10: Transport Strategy and could be facilitated by the principles within a proposed new DM policy for highway considerations.
796 Policy BAR15 covers the Gliddon and Squire site, where responses promoting the land for residential development are considered in more detail.
Policy BAR15: Land South of Braunton Road
Summary of Key Issues
797 Comments made in response to Policy BAR15 including the supporting text:
Number of responses 10
Number of responses in support 6
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 3
Number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.45
The former Mill Road depot has been included, but should be removed as it is proposed for development and is in the Council’s capital programme Barnstaple lacks facilities to use the river for water sport activities; proposes a new slipway for launching and recovery of boats adjacent to the Rugby club and boatsheds for rental Supports new or enhanced sport, recreation and leisure facilities given flood risks Supports a water sports activity in this area from a new slipway or floating pontoon to allow better use of the Taw and bring investment into the town It will encourage use of the Tarka Trail and waterfront between the rugby club and Rock Park Strongly supports the area for recreation as it should not be developed for other higher risk uses
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 203 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Water based activity could be promoted as the area is at risk of flooding Flood defences along the Taw and Yeo require a maintenance corridor, with cycleway/paths for any new sections (EA) There is extant planning application for approval of reserved matters for residential development on the Gliddon and Squire site and the owners have no intention of releasing it for other uses. Lack of deliverability is contrary to NPPF (para 173). Residential use is appropriate on previously developed land close to the town centre and this site should be identified for commercial or residential purposes Stage 4 of the urban relief road could improve access to the town centre, improve impact and reduce congestion on Rolle Street, reduce air pollution in Braunton and reduce car dependency River Yeo defences may require enhancements with funding from other sources (e.g. CIL) (EA) The plan needs proposals for dealing with predicted increased risk of fluvial and tidal flooding; land at Mill Road offers the opportunity to install a flood gate allowing the flood waters to be released back in to the river once the high tide has passed, minimising the risk to life and the damage to property. It could be funded by the development of the adjacent land and provide an excellent opportunity to increase the access opportunities to the river for sport and leisure use
Other Key Issues identified
EA have indicated that lowering the existing sports pitches to increase flood storage capacity could enable other land to be raised to reduce their flood risks to provide opportunities for development Outline planning permission (9552) was approved for residential development in July 2004. There is a current undetermined reserved matters application (44195) for erection of 124 flats together with landscaping & related infrastructure works on the former Gliddon and Squire site
Officer Comments and Recommendations
798 There was broad support for new or enhanced riverside sport and leisure facilities given the area’s identified flood risks. Several representations identified opportunities for a slipway/pontoon and water sports activity in this area, which would comply with the existing policy. Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy also supports opportunities for new tourism and leisure development within towns and resorts, which could include water sport facilities along the river Taw.
799 The Gliddon and Squire site has an undetermined reserved matters application for housing, albeit the land is within flood zone 3 with significant and extreme flood hazard over the next 100 years. Any future uses for this site and the adjoining depot would need to be less vulnerable or water compatible uses to satisfy NPPF guidance on reducing flood risks. The landowner has indicated that the site is not available for sports uses and it should remain for commercial uses if residential use is no longer permitted. In view of its unavailability, this site could be removed from Policy BAR15, although proposals for less vulnerable recreational uses would still be acceptable in principle.
800 DCC have no plans to deliver phase 4 of the urban relief road and it has not been identified in LTP3 nor funding in any capital programme.
Policy BAR16: Lynton and Barnstaple Railway
Summary of Key Issues
801 Comments made in response to Policy BAR16 including supporting text:
204 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Number of responses 36
Number of responses in support 20
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 4
Number of responses in objection 6
Number of responses providing a general comment 6
Table 5.46
Supports the principle of reinstating the railway (x9 including DCC, BTC) Supports second paragraph (ENPA) Reinstatement will increase tourism, leisure and sustainable transport opportunities in the town (x10) Potential economic benefits and employment opportunities for North Devon (x12 including DCC) Many towns have benefitted economically from restoration of tourist railways in their area including in Wales, Minehead, Swanage (x4) The route’s iconic status among railway enthusiasts will encourage visitors to visit North Devon Station close to town centre will increase the long term viability of the project and provide viable option for travel to/from Lynton A beneficial transport link to Exmoor for locals and tourists Reuse of existing station buildings will avoid impact of new structures, protect heritage assets and add to the appeal of the railway for visitors (x4) Will bring some visitors close to the town centre, possibly travelling from Blackmoor Gate, reducing cars in town This area of Barnstaple provides a useful car park but does not look its best and needs regeneration Supports reuse of brownfield site rather than a new terminus on a greenfield site Important for the route to be kept free from any new development (x3) Line should stop at the outskirts of Barnstaple as the old route could cause disruption for the Pilton area (BTC) Recognise that reinstatement along a different route could be supported if environmental and amenity considerations are taken into account Supports reinstatement but look flexibly at other sites for equipment storage and workshop facilities Route is already compromised and serves no use Close consultation with landowners is required Omit in favour of Barnstaple/Bideford/Ilfracombe railway or alternative green transport solution (x2 including PAA) Amend the end of paragraph 10.62 to “unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the planning authority that this is not feasible or viable” instead of “where available, feasible and viable” (ENPA) It will devalue property as a result of potential loss of amenity, privacy and security Works effecting these and other flood risk issues will need detailed flood risk assessments (EA) Consider a regular transport connection between Barnstaple railway station, the bus station and the L&B terminus The single gauge line could never provide a strategic branch line or main line service and will not deliver the transport strategy (ST10)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 205 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
New off-road footpaths, cyclepaths and bridleways will benefit leisure activities for tourists and local users New walking and cycling paths must not impede railway reinstatement DCC have a multi-use policy and the text should include reference to equestrian uses (DCC) S106 and CIL are recommended for this project
Officer Comments and Recommendations
802 There is broad support for the reinstatement of the Lynton and Barnstaple railway. This reinforces the high level of support for its reinstatement through representations to Policy ST10: Transport Strategy. There is strong support for the economic benefits and employment opportunities that it could bring, evidenced by steam railways reinstated in other parts of the country. An increase in tourism, leisure and sustainable transport opportunities for the town and reinstatement of heritage assets was also supported.
803 The proposed reinstatement of the original terminus along Pilton Causeway was supported to optimise links and economic benefits for the town centre from tourism. Amenity implications along Yeo Vale are noted and a new terminus on greenfield site outside the town is suggested, but this would lessen economic benefits for the town centre. The need for regular public transport links between the Lynton and Barnstaple railway terminus and the existing rail and bus stations is noted, which could be accommodated in principle through discussions with the main service operator. There is already a regular bus service passing the site.
804 The policy safeguards the former route of the railway to enable its reinstatement. It would not prevent alterative routes or diversions being delivered, subject to site availability. Exmoor National Park Authority’s proposed rewording to paragraph 10.62 is accepted to strengthen consideration for reuse of original and existing buildings and structures. The narrow gauge line is a tourism attraction and is not intended to provide a strategic branch line or main line service. It will help to deliver the transport strategy (ST10) as that policy specifically supports reinstatement of former railway lines. Potential amenity considerations on existing residents will be addressed by Policy DM01: Amenity Considerations.
805 It is accepted that any new walking and cycling paths must not impede railway reinstatement. DCC’s request to enable bridleways as well as footpaths or cycleways is accepted. Paragraph 10.63 could be amended to confirm this.
Policy BAR17: Petroc
Summary of Key Issues
806 Comments made in response to Policy BAR17 including supporting text:
Number of responses 5
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Number of responses in objection 3
Number of responses providing a general comment 0
Table 5.47
206 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Support Petroc’s growth within the campus area (BTC) Adequate parking is needed due to severe congestion (BTC) Support enabling young people to access higher tier education locally and improve their skills and opportunities for future employment (ENPA) It is time for a new college in a new location, rather than more extensions and temporary rooms Petroc should relocate to the Brannams site releasing the Sticklepath site for residential uses (x2 including PAA)
Officer Comments and Recommendations
807 Engagement with Petroc in drafting the local plan has not identified any aspirations or intentions from Petroc to relocate solely to the Brannams site. Their strategy is to remain and improve existing facilities on both their existing sites. In any event, should the site become vacant in the future, the plan would support the principle of residential development on a previously developed site within the development boundary.
808 Policy BAR02: Larkbear will provide a new vehicular access to the Sticklepath campus which will help to alleviate traffic congestion in the Sticklepath area.
Policy BAR18: Park Community School
Summary of Key Issues
809 Comments made in response to Policy BAR18 including supporting text:
Number of responses 3
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Number of responses in objection 0
Number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.48
Welcome expansion of school as proposed developments will increase pupil numbers Omit specifying expansion of Park Community School and refer to utilising land for provision of additional secondary education provision which provides greater flexibility for additional secondary provision (DCC) Clarify anticipated rate of growth for secondary school education to inform debate on the strategic need and timescales
Officer Comments and Recommendations
DCC’s request to rephrase the policy to enable greater flexibility for additional secondary provision is accepted.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 207 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Policy BAR19: Local Green Spaces
Summary of Key Issues
810 Comments made in response to Policy BAR19 including supporting text and Figure 10.2:
Number of responses 10
Number of responses in support 3
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Number of responses in objection 4
Number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.49
Supports policy in principle Supports paragraph 10.67 (EA) Supports strategic accessible natural greenspace between A361 and Tarka Trail; manage them to maximise biodiversity value whilst providing high carrying capacity accessible greenspace (DWT) Supports local nature reserve in the town as Barnstaple does not meet Natural England’s ANGST plus standard Access to high quality accessible greenspace is admirable objective Support policy but need to gain betterment for flood risks (EA) Consider green infrastructure along Coney Gut and Portmarsh, enhanced through previous initiatives where long term success requires further commitment (EA) Locate a new park to south of town to serve new buildings to south of Barnstaple Continued development between Barnstaple and Bideford will engulf villages there ending up as an estuary city with no large areas of greenspace – there are no plans for provision of large areas of greenspace within the urban area Green infrastructure between Barnstaple and Landkey should be a buffer to prevent new development (Landkey PC) Delete reference to Portmore golf club as a public amenity space Objects to Portmore as a local greenspace which sterilises the land unnecessarily; no need to provide robust gap between Landkey and Barnstaple Show other green infrastructure resources along various watercourses (EA)
Other Key Issues identified
The planning application for Anchorwood Bank (53302) includes flood storage measures west of the Downstream Bridge to store surface water on-site until it can be released into the River Taw. This area, to be known as Sticklepath Marsh, covers more than 4 hectares providing low diversity grassland and willow scrub. Existing habitats will be managed and new habitats created to enhance the site’s biodiversity value with public viewing from the adjoining Tarka Trail The Council is currently working towards Yeo Valley community woodland being designated as a Local Nature Reserve
208 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Officer Comments and Recommendations
811 There is broad support for the identification of local green spaces, but with a number of site specific comments. The potential designation of local green spaces which would meet or contribute towards Natural England’s ANGST plus standard is already being pursued.
812 The Environment Agency’s proposal for further enhancement of Portmarsh could be accommodated by identifying Portmarsh as an additional local green space. 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 and the designation should only be used where:
1. the green space is in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves;
2. 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
3. the green area concerned is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.
813 Portmarsh is considered to meet these requirements due to its local significance for recreation and biodiversity within Newport as well as being functional flood plain. In view of the above criteria, consideration could be given to safeguarding this area as an additional area of local green space in order to protect and enhance its local biodiversity and recreational value, provided that its local significance is demonstrably special to the local community.
814 The requirements (above) within paragraph 77 of the NPPF would not warrant an extensive buffer between Barnstaple and Landkey being identified as a local green space. Portmore is identified through its value as a recreational facility, but an extension cannot readily be justified. The land between the A361 and the Coney Gut does not fulfill the requirements for a local green space and should be deleted from this policy. However, its value as a buffer between the A361 and Westacott strategic extension (BAR01) is still recognised and is addressed through Policy BAR01. The Westacott extension will also potentially help to deliver a new park on the southern side of town.
815 The Portmore local green space is not considered to sterilise the land. Small scale development may be acceptable, for example to help deliver an alternative access to the Mount Sandford Green site (BAR03) provided that the integrity and character of the local green space as a whole is not compromised. The supporting text should be amended to clarify this and the extent of the site reduced to facilitate a new vehicular access from Portmore roundabout.
816 The proposed local green space north west of Pottington includes the Bradiford reserve managed by Devon Birdwatching and Preservation Society. There is no public access to this land so it should be deleted from Policy BAR19(3) as part of any local green space, although its location would complement any adjoining local green space within the green infrastructure corridor alongside the river Taw.
Policy BAR20: Strategic Green Infrastructure Links
Summary of Key Issues
817 Comments made in response to Policy BAR20 including supporting text and Figure 10.2:
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 209 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Number of responses 10
Number of responses in support 4
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Number of responses in objection 4
Number of responses providing a general comment 0
Table 5.50
Full support for this policy (EA) Supports improved cycleways around and across Barnstaple (x2) Cycle routes should be separated from roads Proposed route [at Court Farm] crosses my garden goes alongside my shed and across a wet part of the field; use Smokey House Lane and existing field boundaries as an alternative Proposed route across Maidenford should be moved further south then westwards through part of Maidenford identified in the SHLAA There is no legal footpath adjoining the river Taw alongside our garden [in Bishops Tawton]; I do not want residents of Larkbear feeling they have the right to walk there. Railway authorities do not recommend footpaths anywhere near railway lines which is why footpath 13 stopped at northern boundary In addition to enhancing GI network, paragraph 10.75 should be expanded to support environmental enhancements for associated biodiversity (EA)
818 Summary of additional strategic Green Infrastructureresponses to Figure 10.2: Spatial Strategy for Barnstaple and Figure 15.2: Policies Map for Barnstaple:
Greater use of footpaths, cycle and railways should improved traffic flows through Barnstaple Improved pedestrian and cycle facilities will encourage more drivers to use their cars less and will deliver health, energy and clean air benefits Relocate cycle route over Maidenford The number of routes onto/off-of the Tarka Trail should be increased
Other Key Issues identified
Current planning applications for Tews Lane (Policy BAR03) and Larkbear (Policy BAR02) would help deliver the key sections of the cross-town cycle route identified for Policy BAR20b
Officer Comments and Recommendations
819 There is broad support for this policy in principle, with comments relating to the identified route in specific locations. The proposed route was indicative and could be amended at Court Farm near Raleigh to overcome concerns. A route further along Smokey House Lane and the riverside track is feasible.
820 The proposed diversion at Maidenford is also feasible. There is already a public right of way from the lane (between Crookman’s Corner and Maidenford Farm) to the end of Sowden Lane. From here it could be extended along the northern edge of Whiddon Valley to the existing footpath through the community woodland, thereby rejoining the proposed route at Maidenford Farm. This does not require the SHLAA site north of Whiddon Valley being allocated for or delivered by development.
210 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
821 The aspirational route along the eastern bank of the Taw between Rock Park and Bishops Tawton is still an important link and has no connection to the proposals at Larkbear (BAR02). 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.
822 Environment Agency’s request for the expanding green infrastructure network to support environmental enhancements for associated biodiversity is accepted.
Policy BAR21: Flood Management Strategy
Summary of Key Issues
823 Comments made in response to Policy BAR21 including supporting text:
Number of responses 5
Number of responses in support 2
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 2
Number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.51
The flood management for Barnstaple should be looked at and issues tackled in view of recent flooding in Braunton (BTC) Fully supports this policy but assume it includes opportunities on other rivers, including the Yeo, Bradiford Water, Coney Gut, Lake and Rumsam streams and Muddlebrook (EA) Any reasonable measures to minimise flooding of homes are to be supported Clarify that it is protecting Barnstaple which lies in the functional floodplain (PAA) Amend ‘as sea levels rise’ to ‘if sea levels rise’
Other Key Issues identified
The Government has still not authorised signing off the Shoreline Management Plan Review (SMP2) from Hartland Point to Anchor Head (Somerset) drafted in 2009 – a realistic estimate when this is likely to occur cannot be found
Officer Comments and Recommendations
824 Flood risks within Barnstaple represent a major issue which is why a separate policy is proposed in addition to Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change. The Environment Agency’s comment is accepted and opportunities to re-establish functional flood plains along tributaries of the Taw upstream of Barnstaple could also be facilitated by an amendment to this policy.
825 By definition, functional flood plain (flood zone 3b) is land where water has to flow or be stored at times of flood. It has an annual flood risk probability of least 1 in 20 (5%) and is generally not protected by defences. These areas are generally undeveloped greenfield land where the ground can store water, including parks and playing fields. The level 2 strategic flood risk assessment for Barnstaple (SFRA2) identifies some parts of the functional flood plain within and around Barnstaple,
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 211 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
such as Pilton Park, Portmarsh Lane, Rock Park, land alongside the main streams, but it is inaccurate to define the whole of Barnstaple as laying in the functional floodplain. In fact the majority of the town (by area) is within flood zone 1 and is not at direct risk of flooding.
826 Nevertheless, in view of the apparent confusion it could be clarified that the purpose of re-establishing functional flood plains upstream of the town is for the purpose of reducing the frequency and/or severity of future flood risk within the most vulnerable parts of Barnstaple. They could also benefit other settlements along the Taw vulnerable to flooding, such as Bishops Tawton.
827 The UK Climate Change Risk Assessment Government Report by Defra (January 2012) identifies sea level rise as one of the risks for society arising from climate change. It is inappropriate to amend references as to whether sea levels will rise because the NPPF (paragraph 94) requires strategies to adapt to climate change and coastal change taking full account of flood risks.
MAP CHANGES
Summary of Key Issues
828 Comments made in response to the Policies Maps for Barnstaple (Figure 15.2) propose amendments to allocated sites and/or the development boundary. Many of the promoted sites have more detailed commentary in the Barnstaple Spatial Strategy section above.
Site Address Rep SHLAA Proposed Change Officer Response No. No. to Allocation or Development Boundary
Trayne Farm dlp3738 PWE/119 extend development Potentially Accept – site is close boundary and to Barnstaple and visually less housing allocation prominent on lower slopes. Current planning application (56047)
Land at dlp1572 BAR/069 extend development Reject – site is relatively well related Maidenford boundary to include to Barnstaple but visually prominent part of local green hilltop and access constraints space
Land off dlp1816 BAR/067 extend development Potentially Accept – site is Goodleigh boundary and relatively well related to Barnstaple Road (north) BAR/068 housing allocation but impact on listed buildings must be addressed. Current planning application (53348)
Land off dlp1220 BAR/378 extend development Potentially Accept – site is Goodleigh boundary and relatively well screened from Road (south) BAR/379 housing allocation Barnstaple and is mostly outside areas of flood risk BAR/380
BAR/381
212 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
BAR/382
Land west of dlp1817 FRE/132 extends development Potentially Accept – site adjoins Mead Park boundary and Barnstaple but would erode gap FRE/135 housing allocation between Bickington and Fremington
Land west of dlp1061 FRE/133 extend development Potentially Accept – site is Oakland Park boundary and relatively well related to Barnstaple. South FRE/314 housing allocation Current pre-application
Land at dlp646 ~ extend development Reject – site is not required to Hollamoor boundary deliver additional employment land Farm as there is already a potential over provision. The waste plant is for DCC to locate as part of the emerging Devon Waste Plan, but this is not DCC’s favoured site
Civic Centre, dlp849 ~ propose allocation for Reject – availability is unknown and North Walk housing site is at severe risk of flooding
Land east of dlp2 ~ extend employment Potentially Accept – site is Brynsworthy allocation (BAR10) relatively well related to Barnstaple Lane and BAR10 (strategic extension to Roundswell Business Park) but there is already a potential over provision of employment land
Land east of dlp774 TAW/122 propose allocation for Potentially Accept – site is Old Torrington housing relatively well related to Barnstaple Road dlp840 and is currently identified for employment land (BAR2), which dlp2913 may not be required or delivered. Current planning application (56232)
Table 5.52
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 213 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Officer Comments and Recommendations
829 A number of proposed changes to the Policies Map for Barnstaple were promoted, as set out in the table above. The location of these proposed map changes are shown on the Map attached to this report, with Officer commentary on the issues for each promoted site set out below. Additional comments are set out towards the start of this report as a response to representations on the Barnstaple Spatial Strategy.
830 The proposed boundary change on land north of Roborough Road, at Trayne Farm is located on the northern fringes of Barnstaple, north of the hospital site. The upper slopes are visually prominent in the wider landscape although development on the lower slopes may be visually more acceptable. Vehicular access to the site would be off Roborough Road, which is the main access road serving North Devon District Hospital off the A39. Highway improvements would be required for additional development which could improve access in to the hospital. There is a current planning application on this site for 80 dwellings. The site is not liable to flooding and the main constraints to this site being allocated are the capacity of the road junction and the landscape impact of development on the upper slopes. It could be included within a revised development boundary if additional housing is required for Barnstaple
831 Land at Maidenford, west of Whiddon Valley is located on the north-eastern edge of Barnstaple on a very prominent south facing green hillside which provides an important landscape setting to this part of town. Vehicular access to the site is not achievable without additional land to the north or west being included to provide an acceptable access road, further encroaching on to this prominent hillside. An amendment to the development boundary here is considered inappropriate.
832 Land off Goodleigh Road (two sites), to the north and south is relatively well related to existing housing development and provides a potential extension to Policy BAR01 and the eastern edge of Barnstaple. The land to the south of Goodleigh Road is visually prominent from a number of vantage points, mainly to the east of the town but could form part of an enlarged Westacott strategic extension. Development of land to the north of Goodleigh Road around Tollgate Cottage 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. There is a current planning application on this site for 62 dwellings. The sites are not liable to flooding and subject to careful design considerations to minimise the impact on the landscape setting and historic environment either of these sites could be allocated and included within a revised development boundary if additional housing is required for Barnstaple.
833 Land west of Mead Park adjoins existing housing development on the western edge of Bickington. The site would extend an existing housing estate but would further erode the rural gap between Barnstaple and Fremington. There are potential adverse landscape impacts on the Taw estuary if development were to breach the prominent hilltop overlooking the River Taw but the site does offer the opportunity to create improved pedestrian / cycle linkages to the Tarka Trail. The site is not liable to flooding and subject to there being no adverse impact on the landscape setting of the Taw estuary then the main constraint to this site being allocated and included within a revised development boundary would be erosion of the strategic gap if additional housing is required for Barnstaple.
834 Land west of Oakland Park South adjoins existing housing development on the western edge of Barnstaple. The site would extend an existing housing estate but there is a potential adverse landscape impact on the Taw estuary if development were to breach the prominent hilltop overlooking the River Taw. The site does offer the opportunity to create improved pedestrian / cycle linkages to the Tarka Trail. Further development is likely to have an adverse impact on the setting of the Grade II listed Ellerslie Lookout Tower. However, this could be overcome with an appropriate siting and
214 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
design for the new development that respects its setting. The site is not liable to flooding and subject to impacts on the landscape setting of the Taw estuary and the listed tower being minimised then there are no fundamental constraints to this site being allocated and included within a revised development boundary if additional housing is required for Barnstaple.
835 Land at Hollamoor Farm, south of the A39 / A361 adjoins Larkbear Plantation and Tawstock Park TPO to the west and south. Tawstock Tower, a Grade II listed building lies to the south on a prominent hilltop. Further development in this location is likely to have an adverse impact on the setting of the Grade II listed Tower although this could be overcome with an appropriate siting and design for the new development that respects its setting. Whilst the principle of breaching the A39 / A361 has been potentially set by allocating development on Policies BAR04 (Mount Sandford Green) and BAR10 (Roundswell Business Park), this site is isolated from existing development. As stated above, there is a potential oversupply of employment land across northern Devon and this site does not offer a more sustainable option than other sites in the Plan. Therefore, an amendment to the Plan to allocate an employment development here is considered unsustainable.
836 The Civic Centre lies to the north-west of the town centre and is considered to be very well related to the services and facilities within the town. Although the site is currently within the development boundary, the site is within an area liable to flooding with significant flood hazards so there are fundamental constraints to this site being allocated for housing. Development here is considered inappropriate.
837 Land east of Brynsworthy Lane, south of the A39 adjoins the employment allocation BAR10. Further development in this location could extend the employment allocation. The principle of breaching the A39 has been potentially set by allocating BAR10 (strategic employment extension to Roundswell Business Park) and the extension of this allocation is acceptable in principle. As stated above, there is a potential oversupply of employment land across northern Devon and this may not be required but it does offer a sustainable option to extend a strategic employment option considering there are development pressures to housing uses on land at Glennwood Farm (BAR09) and land off Old Torrington Road (BAR02 and BAR10). Therefore, an amendment to the Plan to allocate an employment development here is considered appropriate if required.
838 In addition to the sites noted above, other sites are currently being considered for housing. Land east and west of Old Torrington Road (BAR02 and BAR10) where it is proposed to remove the employment allocations and propose the land for additional housing based on the fact that BAR10 (west of Old Torrington Road) has an extant planning permission for 14 dwellings. Also, BAR02 (east of Old Torrington Road) has a current undetermined planning application for 46 dwellings on land around Brynhyfryd with scope to provide additional housing on the surrounding land to the south and east.
839 Glenwood Farm (BAR09) has an extant planning permission for 92 dwellings with additional land to the east still allocated for housing within the Plan. It is proposed to amend the policy to deliver approximately 200 dwellings across the whole site rather than 120 to reflect the change in housing numbers already approved. If the figure were to remain at 120 then this would leave only 28 dwellings being deliver on approximately 6 hectares of housing land (about 5 dph) which is an inefficient use of land. However, the employment allocation (to the east of the site) is much reduced due to the recently granted planning permission (55479).
Agreed Actions
1. Amend the spatial strategy to recognise the need within Barnstaple for increased early years and youth provision.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 215 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
2. Update Table 10.1 to include completions and commitments from April 2012 to March 2013 and to reflect increased capacity of BAR09 and BAR10 following recent planning permissions. 3. Update Table 10.2 and paragraph 10.14 to reflect reduced capacity of BAR02, BAR04, BAR09 and BAR10 following recent planning applications / permissions. 4. Delete reference to an annual build rate of about 200 dwellings per year and the phasing strategy to achieve a degree of flexibility. 5. Amend Policy ST02 to include reuse of previously developed land as a new policy objective 6. Amend the spatial strategy to facilitate delivery extra care housing within Barnstaple. 7. The supporting text at paragraph 10.13 could recognise how the non-strategic site contribution figure has been derived. 8. Amend wording of paragraph 10.3 to read ‘Barnstaple is a historic market town with the core being within a large conservation area…..’ 9. Amend the spatial vision to better reflect the need to protect the historic environment of the town whilst also capitalising on its built heritage. 10. Amend paragraph 10.7 to cross refer to Policy ST10. 11. Provide some additional wording to paragraph 10.14 to recognise that Pottington Business Park requires regeneration and environmental enhancement.. Text could include ‘Pottington and Two Rivers Business Parks have a degraded appearance and require environmental enhancement and intensification where opportunities exist. Proposals that enhance business and create additional job opportunities or improve the attractiveness of the area will be supported’. 12. Amend Policies ST14 and Policy BAR10 to recognise the importance of promoting entrepreneurship in the area and the need to deliver suitable start-up space and grow-on space for existing businesses to re-locate within the area. 13. The importance of the renewables sector within the emerging northern Devon economy could be recognised more explicitly within the Plan under Policy ST14. 14. Amend policy BAR ‘Spatial Strategy’ to create additional water storage areas in parts of Barnstaple within a ‘Critical Drainage Area’. 15. Paragraph 10.19 should also make reference to protect the setting of the listed buildings at Westacott House (Grade II) and Thornfield Barn (Grade II). 16. Policy BAR01 should make a more explicit reference for the need to provide formal and informal open space and recreation facilities. 17. Amend Policy BAR01 for a ‘park and change’ facility rather than just referring to a new car park and refer to improved public transport links to the town centre. 18. Paragraph 10.17 should also be amended to read ‘……as well as provision of a new park and change facility close to the A361 junction to provide use of enhanced public transport links in to Barnstaple town centre’. 19. Amend paragraph 10.18 to cross-refer to Policy DM01: Amenity Considerations. 20. Amend paragraph 10.17 to cross refer to ST10 and safeguarding land alongside the A361 for future improvements. 21. Make more explicit reference in BAR01(3) to improved links to the town centre. 22. Delete the wording ‘adjoining Castle Park Road’ from Policy BAR01 and paragraph 10.16 to provide more flexibility for the site’s layout. 23. Amend Policy BAR01 and supporting text in order to ensure the Westacott extension delivers or contributes towards delivering new early years and youth provision within the town. 24. Amend paragraphs 10.17 and 10.18 to ensure any new road through the existing park is well designed and sympathetic to use of the remaining open space and to ensure replacement open space is delivered prior to loss of the existing open space. 25. Amend paragraph 10.19 to refer to the critical drainage area with cross-reference to Policy ST03.
216 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
26. Amend the vision for the Westacott (BAR01) and Larkbear (BAR02) by replacing ‘radical’ with ‘incorporate measures that will reduce carbon emissions’ and cross-refer to Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change. 27. Amend Policies BAR01 and BAR02 to seek a ‘mix of house types including a proportion of affordable housing’ rather than predominantly family housing with a cross reference to Policy ST17. 28. Paragraph 10.22 (Policy BAR02) could be amended to recognise that the secondary route off Old Torrington Road could be for all vehicles and not just a bus route. 29. Amend first sentence of paragraph 10.22 to indicate the development will be access by a new junction on the A361 as part of the first phase of development, which will facilitate the delivery of vehicular access to Petroc. 30. Amend paragraph 10.20 so the new primary school to the south of the River Taw, should also deliver a 52 place nursery school and children’s centre. 31. Amend paragraph 10.24 to refer to the site being within a ‘Critical Drainage Area’ (CDA) where development should provide additional water storage areas to be created within development sites compared to the normal SUDS design, with a cross-reference to Policy ST03. 32. Amend paragraph 10.23 to recognise the cross-town route is Policy BAR20b and not BAR20c. 33. Amend Policy BAR02 (employment land east of Old Torrington Road) to a housing allocation with a new policy reference. Also, cross refer to Policy BAR10 (land west of Old Torrington Road) that should be deleted as an employment allocation. 34. Amend policy text in terms of sustainable construction to cross-refer to Policy ST05. 35. Amend Policy BAR02(1d) and/or paragraph 10.20 for consistency in terms of whether the development is delivering ‘informal open space and recreation facilities’ (policy) or ‘additional sport and leisure facilities’ (supporting text). 36. The green buffer around Lake could be extended on the Policies Map (Figure 15.2) to better reflect the current site layout within the planning application. 37. Amend paragraph 10.24 (Policy BAR02) to refer to the critical drainage area with cross-reference to Policy ST03. 38. The land allocated within the Plan (BAR03) and the development boundary should be extended to reflect the extent of the site with planning permission. 39. Amend paragraph 10.26 and the Policies Map to indicate the cross-town cycle route is through a wedge of green infrastructure at the northern end of the site. 40. Amend paragraph 10.26 to recognise the cross-town route is Policy BAR20b and not BAR20c. 41. Amend site boundaries of Policy BAR04 to better reflect the area of development land with planning permission and extend the development boundary around Whiddon. 42. Amend criterion BAR04(1b) and paragraph 10.28 to indicate approximately 3 ha of land for business uses at the northern part of the site. 43. Amend the policy wording and supporting text to recognise that the main road to the immediate west of the site is the A361 not the A39. 44. Amend paragraph 10.30 (Policy BAR04) to recognise the site is within a critical drainage area with cross reference to Policy ST03. 45. Add a new criterion (2h) to Policy BAR04 to safeguard the historic setting of the listed building at Whiddon. 46. Amend paragraph 10.31 (Policy BAR05) to indicate no vehicular link between the site and Lynbro Road. 47. Amend reference in paragraph 10.31 from Northfield Road to Northfield Lane. 48. Amend paragraph 10.31 to clarify that the listed building includes both Westaway and Westaway Cottage. 49. Delete land south of Westaway Plain from BAR05, amending relevant policy criterion (1b), and Figures 10.2 and 15.2, whilst deleting paragraph 10.33.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 217 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
50. Amend Figures 10.2 and 15.2 to include the whole of the field west of Shearford Lane within Policy BAR05, but showing the additional land as green infrastructure to incorporate SUDS. 51. Amend paragraph 10.35 (Policy BAR06) to delete the need for a pedestrian link to Lower Raleigh Road. 52. Amend Policy BAR06(2c) from ‘restrict’ to ‘reduce’ carbon emissions, with equivalent changes to Policies BAR01 to BAR09 where there have not been objections to this wording. 53. Amend paragraph 10.35 to cross-refer to Policy ST05. 54. Add sentence at end of paragraph 10.35 to retain an undeveloped buffer alongside the leat as part of the green infrastructure network and the sustainable drainage scheme. 55. Amend paragraph 10.36 to cross-refer to Policy BAR19(3) and delete wording ‘for dwellings’ for reasons of clarity. 56. Delete the village green (area in green) shown on the Policies Map (Figure 15.2) on the southern side of Policy BAR07, whilst retaining the requirement in paragraph 10.36 for a village green somewhere on site. 57. Amend paragraph 10.37 to refer to the site being within a ‘Critical Drainage Area’ (CDA) where development should provide additional water storage areas to be created within development sites compared to the normal SUDS design, with a cross-reference to Policy ST03. 58. Amend paragraph 10.37 (Policy BAR09) to indicate that development should not intrude above the skyline when viewed from across the estuary. 59. Amend BAR08 (1a) to provide approximately 50 self-contained units of extra care housing and approximately 25 further dwellings. 60. Amend paragraph 10.39 to clarify the proposed mix of accommodation types with additional cross-reference to Policy ST20 clarifying that self-contained extra care housing will contribute towards the overall supply of housing. 61. Amend paragraph 10.39 to recognise the cross-town route is Policy BAR20b and not BAR20c. 62. Amend paragraph 10.39 to cross refer to Policy DM20: Affordable Housing on Development Sites clarifying whether extra care housing should deliver affordable housing. 63. Amend paragraph 10.39 to refer to the site being within a ‘Critical Drainage Area’ (CDA) where development should provide additional water storage areas to be created within development sites compared to the normal SUDS design, with a cross-reference to Policy ST03. 64. Add criterion (f) to Policy BAR08 (2) to provide the cross-town cycle route across the northern edge of this site between Old Bideford Road and Old Torrington Road. 65. Amend Policy BAR09(1) and the Policies Map to increase the residential capacity of the site as a whole (up to 200 dwellings of which 92 units are already approved) and reduce the area of land for economic development (previously employment and business uses). 66. Amend paragraph 10.40 to reflect the reduced area of employment land, and the new link road no longer separating the residential and employment uses. 67. Amend paragraph 10.41 to refer to the site being within a ‘Critical Drainage Area’ (CDA) where development should provide additional water storage areas to be created within development sites compared to the normal SUDS design, with a cross-reference to Policy ST03. 68. Delete Policy BAR10(1c) by deleting the allocation for employment land west of Old Torrington Road and amend the Policies Map. 69. Amend the total area of employment land in paragraph 10.42 (Policy BAR10). 70. Amend paragraphs 10.42, 10.43 and 10.44 (Policy BAR10) to delete references to employment land east and west of Old Torrington Road. 71. Amend Policy BAR10(1) by replacing ‘employment development in Use Classes B1, B2 and B8’ with ‘economic development’ and add cross-reference within the supporting text to clarify that proposals for retailing and other town centre uses would be considered against Policy DM16.
218 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
72. Amend paragraph 10.44 (Policy BAR10) to refer to the site being within a ‘Critical Drainage Area’ (CDA) where development should provide additional water storage areas to be created within development sites compared to the normal SUDS design, with a cross-reference to Policy ST03. 73. Amend paragraph 10.44 (Policy BAR10) to require development to incorporate opportunities to encourage provision of infrastructure to facilitate and encourage potential for a district heating network. 74. Amend paragraph 10.43 (Policy BAR10) to include reference to delivery of St John’s Garden Centre in the early phases of the plan period. 75. Amend paragraph 10.45 (Policy BAR10) to support the principle of a new park and change site in the Roundswell area (south of A39), but without identifying a specific site. 76. Amend paragraph 10.46 (Policy BAR11) from Royal Mail sorting office to Royal Mail delivery office. 77. Extend paragraph 10.47 (Policy BAR11) by clarifying that comprehensive redevelopment of this site is dependent upon prior relocation of the Royal Mail delivery office or its re-provision at a suitable location. 78. Amend paragraph 10.47 (Policy BAR11) to clarify the objective of establishing improved pedestrian linkages between the development and the High Street. 79. Amend Policy BAR11(a) and paragraph 10.46 by deleting requirement for specific retail floorspace and any differentiation between needs for comparison and convenience floorspace, replacing it with a mix of town centre uses that support the vitality and viability of the town centre. 80. Amend Policy BAR12(1b) and paragraph 10.51 (Policy BAR12) to 6,000 square metres (net) floorspace and delete its restriction solely for comparison goods. 81. Add criterion (e) to Policy BAR20 to propose a new pedestrian and cycle bridge over the Taw on the approximate route of the former railway bridge, and amend paragraph 10.72 (Policy BAR20) to cross-refer to this bridge. 82. Amend paragraph 10.54 (Policy BAR12) to delete reference to enhanced pedestrian / cycle links on the southern side of the Longbridge, whilst adding cross-reference to proposed new pedestrian and cycle bridge under Policy BAR20(e). 83. Amend Policies Map 15.2 to show indicative route of new pedestrian and cycle bridge and delete proposed pedestrian/cycle link improvements along the southern side of the Longbridge. 84. Amend the Policies Map (Figure 15.2) to relabel the water storage area west of the Western Bypass as Policy BAR12 rather than BAR11. 85. Amend paragraph 10.53 (Policy BAR12) to cross-refer to design policies ST04 and DM05. 86. Arrange meeting with Network Rail to discuss proposals to improve the transport interchange at Barnstaple station. 87. Amend paragraph 10.55 (Policy BAR13) to clarify that any additional comparison floorspace at Seven Brethren should be directed to the Station Road area. 88. Amend Policy BAR13(3) to refer to a new foot/cycle bridge over the A361 and the railway line. 89. Amend paragraph 10.59 (Policy BAR14) so there is no requirement to locate the landmark building is the north-west corner of the site, but clarify the need for a high quality design that addresses all of the views into this prominent site. 90. Amend paragraph 10.61 (Policy BAR15) to clarify that proposals for sports facilities includes opportunities for water sports. 91. Amend Policies Map (Figure 15.2) to remove the Gliddon and Squire site from BAR15. 92. Amend final sentence of paragraph 10.62 (Policy BAR16) to finish “unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the planning authority that this is not feasible or viable”. 93. Amend paragraph 10.63 (Policy BAR16) to confirm that any new footpaths, cyclepaths and bridleways alongside the railway must not impede its reinstatement. 94. Amend BAR18(1) and paragraph 10.66 to clarify the site is identified for provision of additional secondary education.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 219 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
95. Amend the spatial strategy BAR(i) to support opportunities for green infrastructure to provide betterment in addressing flood risks, such as by reducing rates of surface water runoff. 96. Include Portmarsh as a local green space under Policy BAR19. 97. Amend Figure 15.2 to delete land between the A361 and the Coney Gut from the Portmore local green space identified through policy BAR19(1). 98. Amend paragraph 10.67 to clarify other types development may be allowed when Portmore’s integrity and open character is not compromised. 99. Reduce the extent of local green space at Portmore (BAR19(1)) sufficiently to facilitate a new vehicular access between Portmore Roundabout and Mt. Sandford Green (BAR04). 100. Amend Figure 15.2 by deleting Bradiford Reserve from the Bradiford Water local green space identified through policy BAR19(3). 101. Amend Policies Map (Figure 15.2) to divert the proposed footpath (BAR20c) further east along Smokey House Lane to avoid Court Farm. 102. Amend Policies Map (Figure 15.2) to divert the proposed footpath (BAR20c) across Maidenford to Sowden Lane then eastwards to the footpath and through the community woodland. 103. Amend paragraph 10.75 (Policy BAR20) to indicate support for environmental enhancements along the green infrastructure network. 104. Amend Policy BAR21 to include the main tributaries of the river Taw which flow through Barnstaple and amend Figure 15.2 and paragraph 10.78 accordingly. 105. Amend paragraph 10.77 (Policy BAR21) to clarify the purpose of re-establishing functional flood plains to reduce the frequency and/or severity of future flood risks within Barnstaple. 106. Allocate land east of Old Torrington Road for about 120 homes. Town Strategies: Bideford
BIDEFORD - Chapter 10
Total number of responses 158
Total number of responses in support 29
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 27
Total number of responses in objection 63
Total number of responses providing a general comment 39
Total number of additional housing sites 12
Table 5.53
Policy BID: Bideford Spatial Strategy
Summary of Key Issues
840 Comments made in response to Policy BID: Bideford Spatial Strategy, including supporting text on: The Place, Evidence, The Future and Development Strategy.
Number of responses 50
Number of responses in support 11
220 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 4
Number of responses in objection 25
Number of responses providing a general comment 10
Table 5.54
Aspirational start to the Bideford section. (313 (Bid TC)) Support the aspiration [paragraph 10.86] for Bideford and in particular the delivery of an enhanced range of services and employment opportunities to increase self-containment and complement Barnstaple's role. (1846) (2200) Support the aspiration for Bideford to deliver an enhanced range of services and employment opportunities and to increase self-containment; more economic development could be envisaged to reinforce Bideford strategic role. (1931) (1962) Investigate the possibility of re-opening the Bideford to Barnstaple rail link. (397 (Bid TC)) Provide new build leisure facilities in Bideford (386 (Bid TC)) Encourage new business by promoting the availability of Super-fast Broadband (386 Bid TC)) Employment should be phased in advance of housing, if necessary by direct investment from Torridge District Council. (386 (Bid TC)) It will be necessary to secure education contributions towards new primary school provision and enhanced secondary school provision. (2820 (DCC)) Extend the plan period beyond 2031, to address long-term growth needs and demands. (385 (Bid TC)) Inadequate infrastructure detail to support the urban extensions. Infrastructure, including a Park and Ride scheme and a third bridge should be considered. Ensure new education sites are sufficient to meet all requirements and future needs and the highway impacts of planned development are addressed. (385 (Bid TC)) Identify Bideford as a Strategic Centre; the plan plays down its role. (2235) Remove references to flood risk at Bideford, which are detrimental to the image of the town and business. (314 (Bid TC)) An over emphasis on housing, employment and leisure should be better provided for, avoid Bideford becoming a satellite to Barnstaple. (384 (Bid TC)) Review the 2010 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, take account of the recession and only use when required. (161) Limiting the development of Bideford to a unique and quality offer would restrict its position as a strategic centre; undermine regeneration, resulting in a decline in the existing centre. (2239) Paragraph 10.87; a strategic centre fulfils more than a local need. (2241) Paragraph 10.88; correct that Bideford serves as a focus for housing, in the context of growth needs and the accommodation of development in the most sustainable locations. Supports the aspiration to grow Bideford and the recognition that the strategic extension will make a significant contribution to the areas needs. (1842) (2203) Support for the objective of a vibrant retail and leisure centre; employment is however required in advance of population growth to increase expenditure potential. (154) Support for the Spatial Vision. (3232) (1843) Support the development strategy; required growth determines the need for urban extensions immediately adjacent to the town to achieve a sustainable development pattern. (1844) Support the principle of the allocation of land between Abbotsham Road and Clovelly Road for housing and commercial development. (2205)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 221 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Support the principle Bideford Spatial Strategy, subject to inclusion of a positive reference to ensure that existing employment sites, which are surplus to requirements and for which there is no demonstrable demand, are not left vacant; alternative use should be enabled. (3564) Promote Bideford as a strategic centre, additional development required to avoid a decline in existing business and retail. (2242) To be self-sustaining, increase housing and employment allocations and include enabling policies. Housing base information is not robust with an over reliance on previously developed sites. Overly prescriptive development requirements will render sites undeliverable. (3473) Clarify the composition of the housing requirement in BID(a) and (b)/(c) and refer to the annualised rate as no more than 190 per annum. (155) Support the overall approach with revision to refer to Atlantic Park, not “Nineacre Plantation” and to be less prescriptive on the size of the area proposed for commercial uses to “about 10 hectares.” (1932) BID(e); site aims need to reflect flood risks and suitability for different types of redevelopment. (2509 (EA)) BID(g), large parts of Bideford will be become a Critical Drainage Area, contribution will be sought to improvement works to the Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme, which several allocations rely on. (2509 (EA)) Include NOR09 within the Bideford Strategy and housing supply. (155) Encourage businesses to improve the appearance of their premises providing townscape enhancement that would improve use of the town and encourage business investment/relocation. (645) Wooda and Northam surgeries are undersized for the existing population, developer contributions should be sought to offset the impact of population increase on GP primary care medical services. (738) Amend (1)(a), (b) and (c) to reflect that provision will be made for 'at least' 3,800, 2,800 and 2,100 dwellings, in response to the NPPF. (1724) Housing development at East-the-Water has resulted in a significant increase in traffic with detrimental effects at Eastleigh and Holmacott. (2045) Question the development focus at Clovelly Road/Caddsdown area which would impact the rural character, while significant housing development planned for East-the-Water with no related employment. (1981) Question the need for the expansion of the Caddsdown, underused and vacant sites closer to the town should be preferentially developed. The alternative approach would improve the appearance of the town and avoid a negative urbanising impact on the undeveloped valley (noise and light pollution, loss of habitat, increase run off and traffic on country lanes) that would be contrary to the strategic principle of 'minimising the environmental footprint' (3234) BID(1)(f); it will not always be appropriate to provide social and community facilities to support new development. Add "Where appropriate", at the start of Policy BID (1)(f). (1933) (1963) As part of a sustainable spatial plan, additional housing land should be accommodated near to employment centres and existing key infrastructure. (3114) Acknowledge the strategic role of Bideford. Ensure opportunities for self-containment are maximised through the provision of mixed-use developments with sustainable links. Strategic urban extensions will need to be supported by public transport provision and walking / cycling links to nearby jobs and services. Brownfield development in urban areas should be supported to achieve sustainable growth in accessible locations. (3219 (HA)) Include land [not specified] to support the provision of an upstream bridge and complete a ring road for the town that would deliver benefits of improved access, trade and employment. (3456) Table 10.3: review the average densities, which as calculated are undeliverable. (2243)
222 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Table 10.3, object to the scale of development which will be damaging to the local environment and wildlife. (3362) All rejected options would pass the test of reasonableness; they appear rejected for providing more complex solutions. (449)
Officer Comments
841 Fifty comments have been made in response to the Spatial Strategy, eleven in support, four in support subject to amendment, twenty-five in objection and ten provided a general comment.
842 The supporting comments related to the aspirations for Bideford including the pursuit of increased levels of self-containment and the means by which growth is planned for is noted.
843 Bideford Town Council seeks the investigation of the re-opening of 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 4.77 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. Where certainty exists, as in the instance of the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway, a policy position as provided by Policy BAR16, can be provided.
844 With regard to the delivery of super-fast broadband, such is an issue for northern Devon as a whole and is encouraged through the economic policies of the Local Plan and the Councils’ Economic Development Strategy. The further comment from the Town Council and dlp 154 suggests the need for employment to be phased in advance of additional housing. It is not possible to limited housing delivery, the Local Authority is required to maintain a five year land supply and through the Local Plan provide for identified housing needs and demands. The Local Plan also plans for economic needs and the scale of economic and commercial allocations, together with supportive and flexible general policies are encouraging of employment generating development, as guided by the Councils’ economic objectives. It is worth noting that the draft Housing and Employment Study identifies the need for housing growth to maintain the areas working population and in itself housing acts as a generator of employment.
845 Devon County Council has sought recognition of the need for enhanced education provision, including secondary school provision within Bideford. Policy ST22: Infrastructure addresses the general need for development to provide or contribute towards generated infrastructure requirements. It is however considered appropriate to recognise within Policy BID and supporting text that development in Bideford will generate a need for educational infrastructure improvements.
846 Bideford Town Council suggests the need to extend the plan period beyond 2031. The plan period is consistent with the requirements of National Planning Policy, which refers to a 15 year time horizon as an appropriate time scale, and on which basis all evidential material supporting the Local Plan is based is provided to 2031. There is no basis to extend the plan period. To do so would require new supporting materials which would significantly delay plan preparation and could reduce the robustness of generated evidence if over an extended time frame. No change to the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan is recommended in response to dlp 385.
847 Bideford Town Council comments that there is inadequate infrastructure detail provided to support the urban extensions and new facilities such as Park and Ride and a third river crossing are not included. The key infrastructure elements required for each policy area, including new primary schools, are referenced with in each allocating policy. In addition to which Policy ST22: Infrastructure, addresses the general need for development to provide or contribute towards generated infrastructure
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 223 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
requirements. Devon County Council as the Local Highway Authority have not identified the need for a Park and Change facility or a third river crossing, both are not considered to be justified or deliverable by the scale of development proposed. A further comment from the Town Council in dlp 386, seeks a new built leisure facility in Bideford. The need for new or improved facilities is considered through evidence provided by the draft Green Infrastructure Assessment, which in respect of built facilities does not recommend new provision, although the need for additional swimming pool facilities is stated, but for a wider area than Bideford. An outcome from the Green Infrastructure Assessment will be the identification of local standards which will be incorporated into the Local Plan to require development to deliver open space and recreation facilities, on-site and through contributions. No change to the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan is recommended in response to dlps 385 and 386.
848 A range of comments are concerned that Bideford’s role as a strategic centre is not made clear. The strategic nature of Bideford’s role is established in Policy ST06. It is considered that a reference to the strategic role of Bideford could usefully be made within the Spatial Strategy. It is not accepted that the strategic role of the town is restricted or that additional non-housing development is required to avoid Bideford becoming a satellite to Barnstaple. The level of employment and retail provision at Bideford is appropriate to identified needs as evidenced by related studies and the Local Plan in its Strategic and Development Management policies provides support for additional sustainable proposals.
849 A call has been made to remove the references to flood risk at Bideford as such is viewed, by the Town Council, as being detrimental to the image and business of the town. The Spatial Strategy does not however refer to the extent of flood risk in the town but such is appropriately referenced in site allocation policies where directly relevant to the form of development required to be delivered. The National Planning Policy Framework provides clear guidance in that Local Plans should take account of climate change, including flood risk.
850 Comment is made of the need to update the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, although such is not a matter for the Spatial Strategy. It is confirmed that a review of the 2010 Assessment is being undertaken, which will have a base date of 2013. The outcomes of the updated Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment will be reflected in the next version of the Local Plan.
851 Support is provided for the principle of the Spatial Strategy, which includes provision to maintain and enhanced employment capacity on existing and additional employment sites. It is however proposed that existing employment sites should been enabled to be redeveloped for alternative uses where if they are no longer required. The sought position is provided for in accordance with National Planning Policy through the Strategic and Development Management Policies of the Local Plan; it is not considered appropriate to reflect this position is the Spatial Strategy for Bideford.
852 It is suggested that: the housing figures are not robust, the applied densities are undeliverable and there is an over reliance on previously developed sites. In progressing the draft Local Plan a thorough review and update of housing commitments has taken place to ensure accuracy of baseline information. The densities applied to allocated sites generally reflect the position taken through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. The standard densities as agreed by the related Panel, provide for a range on a net density basis of 50 dph in town centres, 40 dph in sub-urban locations, 35 dph in strategic extensions and 30 dph in rural settlements. The sites area is also discounted up to 70% on sites over 2 hectares to accommodate non-housing uses. Regard is also given to the character of the area in which the allocation is located to ensure the expected yield is appropriate to the locality. In instances where higher densities are identified in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment planning permission will have been achieved to establish an acceptable level of development. It is not accepted that attributed densities are undeliverable, nor that there is
224 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
an over reliance on previously developed land. Previously developed sites form part of the land supply where such have been assessed as being deliverable or developable; a significant proportion of the land supply is however made up of greenfield sites.
853 Comment is made that the development requirements are overly prescriptive, although the detail of site requirements are not presented through the Spatial Strategy. Nevertheless, it is not accepted that the required form of development and associated infrastructure will “render sites undeliverable.” Infrastructure required from development is necessary to meet generated needs, to do otherwise would prevent the development coming forward or result in service deficiencies. The need to ensure development viability is accepted and the Local Plan is supported by a Viability Assessment.
854 Additional detail is sought to the indicated scale of development within the Spatial Strategy; this information is however contained within Table 10.3 and in the allocation policies. Adding detail to the spatial strategy that is otherwise provided is considered unnecessary. The associated suggestion that there should be a cap on the annualised development rate is not accepted. The Local Plan does not seek to phase the release of housing sites; such will be determined by the market. The annualised rate provides an indication of the development rate required to meet the local housing target. Across the plan period development rates are expected to fluctuate above and below the annualised level as market conditions change and development sites are brought forward.
855 The request for the site reference of Nineacre Plantation to be replaced by Atlantic Park is accepted and recommend as a revision to the Local Plan, as is the suggestion that the related site area should be referred to as “about 10 hectares”. The second point is subject to further consideration through Policy BID01.
856 The Environment Agency comment that the future use of the listed regeneration sites in Policy BID (1)(e) should reflect flood risk. The point is accepted as flood risk on a number of the sites will influence the type of use which could be considered suitable having regard to the Sequential and Exceptions Tests. This point is however considered appropriate to make through the supporting text to Policy BIB08, which identifies and guides specific forms of developments on the regeneration sites. No change to the Spatial Strategy is recommended in response to dlp 2509.
857 The Environment Agency state that large parts of Bideford will become a Critical Drainage Area, as a result of which improvements through development contributions, may be required to the Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme. A reference to this position could usefully be made within the Spatial Strategy, on which basis a revision to the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan is recommended.
858 It is suggested that Policy NOR09 is included within the Bideford Spatial Strategy. Although well related to Bideford the site is located within the parish of Northam, on which basis it contributes to the delivery of the Spatial Strategy for Northam. No change to the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan is recommended in response to dlp155.
859 Comment on the capacity of medical facilities at Bideford and Northam is noted. The Spatial Strategy provides that social and community facilities will be required to support new development and Policy ST22: Infrastructure addresses the general need for development to provide or contribute towards generated infrastructure requirements. However, the District Councils have not yet established a position as to the use of developer contributions for health care facilities; such will be provided by the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 225 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
860 Amendment to BID (1)(a), (b) and (c) is sought from “about” to 'at least' 3,800, 2,800 and 2,100 dwellings. The suggested is accepted, National Planning Policy is clear in requiring identified needs and demands to be planned for. While “about” should not have been taken as a ceiling it is important that the Local Plan is able to demonstrated delivery on the required housing supply as a minimum.
861 The location of growth advocated through the strategy has generated a mixed response with some comments supporting the proposed developments whilst others raise concerns regarding localised impacts and a considered imbalance between housing and employment opportunities. In response it should be noted that the scale of growth has been established upon the basis of evidence of need and demand, having regard to evidence such as the Strategic Housing Market Assessment - North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update (Housing Vision, 2012) and the Torridge Urban Housing Needs Survey (JG Consulting, 2012). In respect of locational suitability site selection has additionally been guided by Sustainability Appraisal, an Employment Land Review (GL Hearn 2013) and earlier stage consultations.
862 The comments that additional housing should be accommodated near to employment centres and where urban extensions can be supported by public transport and walking/ cycling opportunities is accepted and is considered to be reflected in the proposed strategy.
863 Amendment is sought to BID(1)(f) on the basis that it will not always be appropriate to provide social and community facilities to support new development, "where appropriate" is proposed as an addition. Additional facilities will be required to support planned housing growth and the resultant population increase. The means by which infrastructure will be secured is provided for in Policy ST22 and additional detail will be presented through the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. No change to the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan is recommended in response to dlps 1933 and1963.
864 Comment is provided on the “rejected options”. It is not accepted that the options were discounted on the basis that they provided more complex solutions. The basis for rejecting the options is set out in the draft Local Plan. The proposed strategy is considered deliverable and with advantage over the rejected options in respect of delivering sustainable development to meet assessed needs and demands.
865 Comment on Figure 10.9: Bideford Key Diagram, with regard to accuracy is noted. Revision to the draft Local Plan to correct labelling and the identification of highway routes is recommended.
866 The spatial strategy for Bideford is considered to be sound with no significant objections raised that are considered likely to jeopardise its deliverability. As such, only minor amendments are recommended to the Spatial Strategy.
Policy BID01: Bideford West Urban Extension
Summary of Key Issues
867 Comments made in response to Policy BID01, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 24
Number of responses in support 3
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 10
Number of responses in objection 6
226 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Number of responses providing a general comment 5
Table 5.55
Policy support to deliver large mixed use development providing a strategic contribution to the growth of the town that will provide: housing, employment, community facilities, infrastructure improvements and opportunities for nature conservation improvements. A site well related to the towns exiting built form that will help to complete a neighbourhood area. (1845) (2206) (1847) Support for the allocation to achieve a comprehensive development including appropriate infrastructure. A greater proportion of the site should provide for housing in place of indicated Green Infrastructure. The site could support additional growth on land north of Clovelly Road without impacting on the Green Infrastructure Framework and provide for additional housing in a future phase of development. (1884) Support the principle of BID01 but apply a more flexible approach to the location of the mixed use local centre; it could be located within the commercial development at Atlantic Park or further west close to the new Clovelly Road Junction to service residents to the north and south of Clovelly Road. (2340) (1964) Support the strategic allocation, focusing on larger sites will allow non-housing uses to be incorporated. Avoid piecemeal development. (398) Extend the proposal to include site of West Country Buildings for housing, to improve the aesthetic of Clovelly Road that would improve the dwelling mix relative the area demographics. (94) Commonly refer to Nineacre Plantation as Atlantic Park. (1935) Inappropriate to identify a precise area for the commercial development on Atlantic Park in advance of the submission of detailed proposals and evidence relating to development capacity. Refer to the area as” at least 10 hectares”. (1936) Replace "woodland setting" with "woodland backdrop" at Policy BID01(1)(b). "woodland setting" is inappropriate as at March 2013. Proposals to retain and enhance a buffer of trees along the north and west boundaries as part of a woodland management plan will create a woodland backdrop not a woodland setting. (1937) A masterplan approach not an endorsed development brief is the most appropriate mechanism to secure the comprehensive development of the site revise BID01 (2)(a). (1938) (1965) The housing allocation should provide on-site sport and recreation or make an off site contribution via S106 or CIL. (2218 (SEngland)) Objection on the basis of: potential flood risk from surface water; insufficient local employment and inadequate highway network. (1032) Avoid urbanisation of nearby villages of Abbotsham and Littleham. (1562) Objection to BID01 on the basis that the site is poorly related to the rest of the town, it will overstretch existing services, create traffic problems and result in the loss of the Bideford/Abbotsham green buffer. An alternative site around Bowden Farm and Upcott is proposed, with the inclusion of a doctor’s surgery. (387 (Bid TC) Objection on the basis of: Abbotsham Road is inadequate without improvement, access links to the east are inhibited by existing housing and employment uses, the southern part of the site will be remote from the town and thus increase car use. The site provides a buffer between the town and the countryside; and an undeveloped gap between Bideford and Abbotsham. Development will damage the western setting of Bideford and result in the visual coalescence of Bideford and Abbotsham. The sites relationship to the AONB should be recognised as a constraint. An alternative site is proposed. (2340 Abb PC)) Objection to the site allocated in the “green belt” that would result in coalescence and the urbanisation of Abbotsham. An illogical extension that is remote from the town and within which
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 227 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
a new school would be poorly positioned and dangerous given the nature of the associated highway network. An alternative location is proposed for the strategic allocation. (3286) Reference SUDS. The site is within a possible Critical Drainage Area and requires a higher standard than normal SUDS and /or contributions to Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme improvements. (2512 (EA)) Support the inclusion of a 420 place primary school but expand the requirement to include a 52 place nursery. Additionally, a community facility will be required in the new school to accommodate a Children's Centre base. (2821 (DCC)) Ensure clarity at (2)(d): the improved junction referred to specifically relates to the junction of the A39 and Abbotsham Road. (2824 (DCC)) Concern over loss of habitat linkage, avoidance or mitigated will be required. (2849 (DWT)) Protect local sites that are important links to maintain vital eco-systems. (3070 (NE)) Paragraph 10.99 is overly prescriptive, replace ...utilising natural materials to reflect the woodland setting" with "the design and layout of the commercial development will have regard to the physical characteristics of the site, including its woodland backdrop.” (1939) Paragraph 10.100, the spine road may not be the only or the most appropriate route for sustainable linkages. It could also be possible to provide sustainable linkages via the link between the existing Atlantic Village junctions north into land to the north of Atlantic Park. Delete "...which will also provide a new bus route." (1941) (1968) Paragraph 10.100, the development should also design in bus stop locations from the outset, ensuring non interference with properties. A shared use foot/cycleway should be created to link Abbotsham with the development along Abbotsham Road to create a safer route and reduce local car trips. (2825 (DCC))
Additional Points
The development interests for the Policy BID01 site have entered into pre-application discussions with Torridge District Council including presentation of draft proposals to a Pre-Application Panel on 20th November 2013. Torridge District Council granted planning permission (application1/0932/2012/FULM) on13th November 2013, for a 70-bed hotel (Class C1) and associated family restaurant/bar (Class A3/A4) with associated access, car parking, landscaping and infrastructure works. Torridge District Council granted planning permission (application 1/0933/2012/FULM) on 14th November 2013 for a drive-through restaurant with access, car parking, landscaping and an attenuation pond. The development interests for Atlantic Park are seeking to vary the range of uses enabled within the area defined for commercial and employment uses to include an element of housing. The proposal to Torridge District Council was received following the close of consultation on the Local Plan.
Officer Comments
868 Twenty four comments have been made in response to Policy BID01, three in support, ten in support subject to amendment; six in objection and five provided a general comment.
869 The supporting comments present the site as suitable and capable of delivering the range of housing, commercial and other intended uses. The site is regarded as being in a location well related to the existing built form of the town through which significant growth can be delivered in a
228 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
comprehensive manner to assist in meeting the town’s future needs, including making a significant contribution to assessed housing needs and demands. Support is additionally provided to the approach of focusing development delivery through the allocation of large sites.
870 While supporting Policy BID01, the respondent providing comment dlp 1884 has sought an extension to the area of the site enabled for housing development, as depicted in Figure 10.3: Spatial Diagram for Bideford. The site lies at the intersection of the A39 and Clovelly Road and is currently identified as providing Green Infrastructure. The site is formed by a triangular parcel of agricultural land divided into two fields. The site is well screened with hedges and trees to its boundaries and contains a small wooded area along the internal field division and to the south of the eastern field. The site was subject to appraisal through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment under reference SHLAA/ABS/02, which determined the site be developable but only as part of a wider development scheme incorporating the sites otherwise included within strategic allocation. In recognising the development potential of the site the assessment referenced the proximity of the site to the North Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in relation to which care would be required to minimise the impact of development. It is proposed to extend the area within Policy BID01 on which housing would be permitted to on the basis that such would allow the Green Infrastructure strategy to be fully delivered and for housing needs and demands to be met without the need for further site release. The site area subject to dlp 1884 (within Policy BID01) is 1.97 hectares, on which a yield of about 50 units is anticipated having regard to the need for significant Green Infrastructure including on the sites boundaries, which abut Clovelly Road and A39. Development of the site would be required to contribute to the Green Infrastructure objectives of the strategic site, including bringing forward for such use the triangular area at the intersection of Clovelly Road and A39, which otherwise would not be achieved. In the interest of minimising the urbanisation of Clovelly Road, maintaining the integrity of Green Infrastructure and limiting the number of access points onto Clovelly Road, access to the site will be required to be achieved internally within the strategic site, which must be enabled by adjoining development. The required Site Development Brief for the strategic site will provide additional detail regarding how the internal site will come forward, including access arrangements. In response to comment dlp 1884 revision to the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan is recommend to: increase the housing yield from Policy BID01 to about 950 dwellings and amendment to Figure 10.3 to reflect an extended housing area within the area of Policy BID01.
871 While providing support for the principle of the development in scale and the range of mixed uses, the comments dlp 1964 and 2340 seek revision to Figure 10.3 to provide more flexibility in the location of the required local centre. While maintaining the requirement for the local centre it is accepted that the detail of its location would be better assessed and determined through work undertaken in preparing the development proposal through a site development brief or masterplan. In response to comments dlp1964 and 2340 revision to the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan is recommend to amend Figure 10.3 to delete the indicated location of the local centre in the area of Policy BID01.
872 Comment is made that the area referred to as “Nineacre Planation” should be referenced as Atlantic Park. There is no basis to reject the request on which basis it is recommended that the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan is accordingly revised.
873 Comment dlp 94 seeks the inclusion of the site of West Country Builders adjoining Clovelly Road, within the scope of Policy BID01 and that it be utilised for housing. The site, which is 0.65 hectares, is a brownfield site and could accommodate about 15 dwellings. The site was formerly active in commercial use but is now vacant and derelict. Previous site investigations have highlighted some on site contamination related to former uses but with an indication that such would not be prejudicial to development. The site has been presented for assessment through the 2013 update to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, the outcome of which is not yet available. An
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 229 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
initial officer appraisal (under reference SHLAA/BID/110) however suggests the site has potential for delivery as a housing site, which could be achieved independently of inclusion within the strategic allocation. The established use for the site is however of an economic nature which the existing and emerging Local Plan seek to protect as an asset. To enable an alternative use on the sought basis would require the value of site for employment purposes to be assessed. If the site were determined to not to be suitable or required for economic use, alternative uses, including housing could be considered having regard to the sites location within the Bideford Development Boundary. No revision to the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan is recommended on the basis of extending the area of Policy BID01to include the site of comment dlp 94 or to separately allocate the site for housing. If however the site is appraised as developable through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment a housing contribution can be assumed and reflected in the overall supply for Bideford and the Torridge District total.
874 Amendment to Policy BID01 (1) (b) is sought to avoid precision regarding the site area subject to commercial and employment development. The policy in the draft Local Plan provides for: (b) a mixed of commercial and employment uses on 10 hectares at Nineacre Plantation…” revision is sought on the basis of “at least 10 hectares”. It is accepted that it is not necessary to quantify in absolute terms the number of hectares on which the sought uses will be delivered.
875 Amendment to Policy BID01 (1) (b) is sought to replace “woodland setting” with “woodland backdrop”. The policy in the draft Local Plan provides “a mixed of commercial and employment uses on 10 hectares at Nineacre Plantation, provided on the basis of a low density, high quality development contained within a wooded area, which reflects the existing nature of the site and safeguards the wider landscape contribution provided by the existing woodland”. The point of sought revision is not included within the draft text. It is accepted that the nature of the site has altered in respect of the felling of the majority of the trees within the Atlantic Park component of the strategic site, nevertheless, the objectives for the site which include securing development within a wooded area remain integral to the acceptance of development. The reference to the “existing woodland” is recommended to be revised to “former and existing woodland” in recognition of the alternated nature of the Atlantic Park site from the publication of the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
876 The need for a Site Development Brief, as provided for in Policy BID01 (2)(a) is questioned in comments dlps 1938 and 1965, a masterplan is proposed as a suitable alternative which could secure comprehensive development. It is accepted that masterplans can be used as a mechanism to secure comprehensive development and provide the basis of additional community engagement through pre-application consultation. Adopting a flexible and pragmatic approach to this request, it is recommended that the Site Development Brief requirement is replaced with one for a masterplan, which again will be required to extent to the entirely of the BID01 site.
877 The comment from Sport England, which seeks provision for sport and recreation on site or through contributions, is noted and accepted. It is not however considered necessary to add a specific policy reference; such matters will be dealt with through the application of National Planning Policy in addition to the relevant Strategic and Development Management Policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. Emerging evidence relating to Green Infrastructure will establish new standards which generally will require sport and recreation facilities to be delivered on an on-site first basis. Additionally, the required Site Development Brief or masterplan will set out in detail how Green Infrastructure, including sport and recreation facilities will be delivered on the site of Policy BID01.
878 The Environment Agency comment on the need for a reference to Sustainable Drainage Systems. Such requirements from development are of a general nature and would normally be addressed through the Strategic and Development Management policies of the Local Plan. However the site is located within a possible Critical Drainage Area which will require a higher standard of
230 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Sustainable Drainage Systems and contributions to improvements to the Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme may be required, a policy specific reference is therefore considered appropriate. In response to comment dlp 2512 revision to the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan is recommend to amend Policy BID01to require a high standard of Sustainable Drainage Systems within the site with contributions, as necessary to off-site flood defences.
879 Devon County Council present support for the proposed 420 place primary school, but seek an expansion to the educational requirement to include a 52 place nursery and a community facility within the new school to accommodate a Children's Centre base. The requirements from the County Council are noted and accepted, on which basis revision to draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan is recommended.
880 The respondent relating to dlp 1032 raised a number of issues in objection to the site. Concerns regarding potential flood risk; this matter will be addressed through National Planning Policy and the application of the Strategic and Development Management Policies of the Local Plan. Additionally, through recommended revision to Policy BID01, the need for a higher standard of Sustainable Drainage System to be provided by development will be added as a requirement to the sites development. With regard to employment provision the strategic site includes a significant requirement for commercial uses and the site is well related to the employment hub of the town, which is planned to expand through Policy BID06. The Local Plan provides significant support and a flexible approach to encourage and enable employment generating uses. The Local Plan, together with the Council’s Economic Development Strategy aims and plans for an ambitious level of economic growth, an essential component of which is housing development, both in respect of maintaining an adequate workforce and in supporting population growth related employment sectors, the construction industry, retail, care and social services for example. Concern is further raised regarding the adequacy of the highway network to accommodate the scale of additional traffic from the site. Devon County Council has supported the development of the policy requirements for the site of Policy BID01. Guidance has been provided as to the nature and location of new and improved elements to the highway and the means by which sustainable outcomes can best be achieved through internal and external connections to the site. It is accepted that traffic generated from the site will add to the volumes, such will however be appropriately managed through required highway improvements including opportunities for sustainable travel. No change to the draft Local Plan is proposed in response to the comments 1032.
881 A number of comments, including from Bideford Town Council and Abbotsham Parish Council, seek 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 also proposed to the south east of Bideford (which is separately reviewed as a proposed alternative site). 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. Through careful design, including the location of development and significant Green Infrastructure, landscape impacts will be managed, the detail of which will be established through the required Site Development Brief. 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,
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 231 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
the suitability and achievability of highway access, known deliverability and the potential timescale within which the respective sites could contribute to the housing supply. With regard to the detailed points raised in objection: the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment recognised the potential landscape impacts of developing the Western Urban Extension, which are addressed in the supporting text to the Policy. A specific reference could nevertheless be added to highlight the required regard to the impact on the AONB. The need for an extended reference is not however necessary as the protection of environmental assets is provided for by National Planning Policy and the Strategic and Development Management Polices of the Local Plan. With regard to infrastructure including highway improvements, such will be delivered through the development of the site, as provided for by Policy ST22: Infrastructure. The majority of developments will impact on infrastructure and existing service capacity, significant infrastructure improvements will be gained as a result of the development of the Bideford West Urban Extension. The principle of development on the strategic allocation proposed in the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan is proposed to be retained. No change, other than the reference to the AONB in the supporting text to Policy BID01 is recommended in response to dlps 387, 1562, 2340 and 3286.
882 Devon County Council seeks amendment to the Policy to ensure clarity regarding required highway improvements at the junction of A39 and Abbotsham Road. The suggestion is considered an appropriate amendment to Policy BID01, on which basis it is recommended that the Local Plan is amended at Policy BID01 (2)(d). Amendment is also sought at paragraph 10.100 to indicate the need for designing in the location of bus stops from the outset and that the development should contribute towards the creation of a shared foot/cycleway from Abbotsham Road to Abbotsham. The point at which bus stops are planned within the development, while recognised as important is considered overly detailed for inclusion within the supporting text, such will be a matter to be pursued to achieve good design; no consequent amendment is recommended. The need to secure a safer pedestrian/cycle route along Abbotsham Road towards Abbotsham is accepted and that the Bideford West Urban Extension should contribute to the delivery of such improvements. It is recommended that the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan is accordingly revised.
883 The Devon Wildlife Trust raise concerns regarding the loss of habitat, which is proposed should be avoided or subject to mitigation and Natural England seek the protection of local sites that are important to maintain eco-systems. The comments are recognised as appropriate considerations for bringing the site forward and are reflected in Policy BID01(2)(c) and referenced in paragraph 10.98. Additionally, such matters will be addressed through the application of the Strategic and Development Management Policies of the Local Plan. No change to Policy BID01 is recommended in response to dlps 2849 and 3070.
884 Comment is made to paragraph 10.99 on the basis that it is overly prescriptive in requiring the use of natural materials. The suggestion to replace the requirement with “the design and layout of the commercial development will have regard to the physical characteristics of the site, including its woodland backdrop” is not accepted. The Atlantic Park site will be an important contributor to Bideford’s economic and commercial hub. In seeking to deliver an improving range and standard of employment opportunities it is vital that the supporting development is to a high standard, the need for which at Atlantic Park is further required as a result of the prominence and setting of the site. No change to Policy BID01 is recommended in response to dlp 1939.
885 Comment provided by dlp 1941 and 1968 seeks the deletion of the requirement to provide a new bus route. The need for sustainable links through the site and to secure access to adjoining employment and service uses and the town centre has been identified as a requirement to support the development from the outset. It is essential that the site, which will result in a significant outward expansion of Bideford, provides sustainable transport options for its residents. No change to Policy BID01 is recommended in response to dlp 1939.
232 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Policy BID02: Cleave Wood
Summary of Key Issues
886 Comments made in response to Policy BID02, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 6
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 0
Number of responses providing a general comment 5
Table 5.56
Support the allocation, access to which could be achieved via Alverdiscott Road. (496) A natural extension to existing housing, but note that the site is currently allocated for employment development. (3288) Question flood risk as an issue on the site. (388 (Bid TC)) The housing allocation should provide on-site sport and recreation or make an off site contribution via S106 or CIL. (2220 (SEngland)) No mention of SUDS. (2514 (EA)) There may be scope to locate the required Children's Centre base within the Neighbourhood Community Centre. In relation to the youth specific facilities provision at East-The-Water is likely to be a satellite facility to support existing provision serving the town. (2827 (DCC)) Paragraph 10.101, supports the flood risk reference, which needs to be consider in the masterplan. (2517 (EA))
Additional Points
The need for and willingness to pursue an expansion of medical facilities at East the Water has been confirmed by local health care providers. Having regard to the proximity of Policy area BID02 to existing and planned development it is considered appropriate to include provision for new medical facilities. A site of approximately 0.6 hectares within Policy BID02 is proposed for health care facilities.
Officer Comments
887 Only six comments have been provided, none in objection, one in support and five providing a general comment.
888 Devon County Council’s comments relating to the need to provide a Children’s Centre base and satellite youth facilities are noted and are considered appropriate to be referenced within the supporting text to Policy BID02.
889 Comment is provided which supports the allocation of Cleave Wood for housing but seeks a further access from Alverdiscott Road. Devon County Council (Highways) has confirmed the potential to provide a second access point from Alverdiscott Road, which is accepted. Revision to Policy BID02 is proposed to enable a secondary access point from Alverdiscott Road for the site as a whole, while
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 233 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
maintaining the principle access from Manteo Way. To ensure the site is delivered to meet all identified requirements it is proposed that the need for comprehensive development is included as a policy requirement.
890 The Environment Agency has identified the presence of flooding issues and suggests the need for Sustainable Drainage Systems to be included within Policy BID02. The presence of flood risk is acknowledged and must be taken into account in the location of vulnerable uses. With regard to Sustainable Drainage Systems, such is a standard requirement that will be addressed through Development Management Policies not as part of site allocation requirements. A reference to the need for Sustainable Drainage Systems could however usefully be made with in the supporting text at paragraph 10.101.
891 The comment relating to the reallocation of the Cleave Wood site from an employment allocation in the Torridge District Local Plan to housing is noted. The basis for the allocation review is to provide a necessary contribution to the area’s housing needs, utilising a developable site well related to adjacent development proposals. The site has been subject to an employment allocation for the lifetime of the adopted Local Plan and proposals have not been forthcoming for economic use, despite the preparation of a Site Development Brief. Furthermore there is no indication that there is any reasonable prospect of such development coming forward over the lifetime of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. It is therefore not considered appropriate to continue to protect the land for future employment development provision. The NPPF is clear (paragraph 22) in that “planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used”.
892 Comment regarding the need for the site to provide or contribute to sport and recreation facilities is noted. Recreation standards will be set through the general development management policies of the Local Plan with regard to evidence provided by a Green Infrastructure Assessment.
Policy BID03: Land adjoining Manteo Way
Summary of Key Issues
893 Comments made in response to Policy BID03, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 6
Number of responses in support 0
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Number of responses in objection 2
Number of responses providing a general comment 3
Table 5.57
Natural extension to existing housing. (3288) Use a bond to secure funding for recreation facilities. (389 (Bid TC)) Object to the housing allocation, the site has an important amenity value. (647) Revise the allocation; provide housing on the area proposed for recreation. The status of the Saltrens Development Brief is questioned. (1675)
234 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
The housing allocation should provide on-site sport and recreation or make an off site contribution via S106 or CIL. (2221 (SEngland)) No mention of the watercourse and functional floodplain through the western side, which will limit the developable area; a detailed Flood Risk Assessment may be able to design a suitable green corridor. (2519 (EA))
Officer Comments
894 Only six comments have been provided, one providing support subject to amendment, two in objection and three providing a general comment.
895 Comments made in respect of recreation provision are noted, both in respect of those seeking retention of the recreation requirement and seeking revision to replace with housing. The recreation requirement is brought forward from the Torridge District Local Plan. The Saltrens Development Brief sets the framework for delivering the required recreation provision, which is necessary in support of the achieved and proposed development at East the Water. With regard to the status of the brief, Torridge District Council agreed its use in decision making on land use matters as a supplement to the Torridge District Local Plan. The need for recreation provision as determined and agreed has not altered, no amendment to Policy BID03 is proposed.
896 The comment from the Environment Agency in respect of the contained watercourse and functional flood plain is noted. It is considered that such matters can be appropriately dealt with by planning applications having regard to National Planning Policy alongside the relevant Strategic and Development Management Policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. Nevertheless a reference to the watercourse and functional flood plain could usefully be provided within the supporting text to Policy BID03.
Policy BID04: Site South of East the Water
Summary of Key Issues
897 Comments made in response to Policy BID04, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 7
Number of responses in support 0
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Number of responses in objection 1
Number of responses providing a general comment 4
Table 5.58
Could contribute to a more rounded development for the town as a whole. (390 (Bid TC)) The housing allocation should provide on-site sport and recreation or make an off site contribution via S106 or CIL. (2222 (SEngland)) There are surface water problems downhill and the site is within a possible Critical Drainage Area, higher than standard SUDS will be required. (2520 (EA)) Support the inclusion of a 210 place primary (1b). In addition nursery provision will be required at the new primary school site to include 2 year olds. A Children's Centre base will also be required at the school if not accommodated elsewhere in the locality. (2829 (DCC))
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 235 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Aim to include walking and cycling links which can connect with the Tarka Trail. Access to local buses may be dependent upon creating suitable walking links through to the existing route. (2830 (DCC)) An obvious extension to existing development that at some stage will assist with the completion of the Bideford ring road to facilitate an upstream bridge. (3289) An enormous development that will put a strain on the highway network that is inadequate particularly directed to Bideford. (3543)
Officer Comments
898 Only seven comments have been provided, two providing support subject to amendment, one in objection and four providing a general comment.
899 The generally supporting comments are noted. With regard to the suggestion of a future ring road and upstream bridge, no short or long term plans provide for strategic transport infrastructure on such a scale. The concerns relating to the highway network are noted. Devon County Council, as the Local Highway Authority, have not objected to the allocation and through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment have commented that the site can provide appropriate access to support comprehensive development. The need for a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan is recognised, which will determine the need for and extent of any off site highway works and/or infrastructure, contributions, and initiatives that might be necessary to mitigate the traffic generation of the proposal.
900 Comment from Sport England relating to on-site sport and recreation facilities are noted. Development will be required to provide new or enhance existing public open space and green infrastructure in accordance with locally adopted standards. The Development Management policies of the Local Plan will provide for the delivery of open space, including recreation facilities as a result of development generated needs.
901 The comment from the Environment Agency referencing potential surface water problems and the sites location within a Critical Drainage Area is noted. With regard to drainage issues such are generally deemed to be sufficiently considered through National Planning Policy along with the relevant Strategic and Development Management policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. The need for a higher standard of sustainable drainage as a consequence of sites possible location within a Critical Drainage Area is recognised as a requirement that should be included within Policy BID04.
902 Devon County Council supports the need for a new primary school, which is determined to be necessary to meet generated needs. The County Council also identify the need for a nursery and a children’s centre, and that such should be secured within the school. A policy revision is recommended to clarify the educational infrastructure requirements to be provided on the BID04 site.
903 Devon County Council also seek an addition to Policy BID04 (2)(b) which establishes the aim of achieving walking and cycling links that connect with the Tarka Trail. The means by which connectivity to the Tarka Trail is not defined and clarification of an advised route is required. The desirability of achieving such a link is accepted and a reference to gain walking /cycling links to the Tarka Trail is proposed to be incorporated into Policy BID04, subject to confirmation from Devon County Council of an achievable route.
Policy BID05: Moreton Park
Summary of Key Issues
904 Comments made in response to Policy BID05, including the supporting text.
236 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Number of responses 6
Number of responses in support 0
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 2
Number of responses providing a general comment 4
Table 5.59
Planning permission already granted for the site. (391 (Bid TC)) (3290) Development will directly affect the historic old coach drive leading from Little America; historic landscapes should be conserved. (1435) Revise Policy to incorporate provision for a built sports/community facility. (1582) The housing allocation should provide on-site sport and recreation or make an off site contribution via contribution via S106 or CIL. (2223 (SEngland) The site is within a possible Critical Drainage Area and requires a higher standard than normal SUDS and /or contributions to Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme improvements. (2522 (EA))
Additional Points
Torridge District Council granted planning consent (1/0183/2012/FULM), on the site subject to draft Policy BID05 for a mixed use development comprising 232 dwellings (including 32 affordable dwellings), a 59 unit extra care home, public open space and other incidental development; together with a further area of landscaped open space (1.1ha/2.725 acres) for sport and/or recreation use on 4th June 2012. On site works have commenced. Torridge District Council granted planning consent (1/0301/2013/OUTM) within the site of draft Policy BID05, for the Erection of Bridge Centre – Youth, Sport, Enterprise and Community Centre on 2nd June 2013.
Officer Comments
905 The comments made in support and objection to Policy BID05 are noted. However having regard to the status of the site in respect of the on site delivery of planning application (1/0183/2012/FULM), it is considered unnecessary to maintain the allocation within the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
Policy BID06: Extension to Caddsdown Business Park
Summary of Key Issues
906 Comments made in response to Policy BID06, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 17
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Number of responses in objection 13
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 237 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.60
The site would link well with the proposed new strategic site [south of Clovelly Road]. Employment development should be subject to early phasing. (392 (Bid TC) Support allocation but the vocational centre should be within a school environment. (498) Support additional employment provision, but is such necessary when significant employers are being lost to the area. (156) Support vocational training centre, but additional details required in respect of beneficiaries and local business commitments. (157) The site extension would adversely affect attractive woodland and open countryside and impact on views from Littleham. Suitable employment and housing land is alternatively available to the north of Clovelly Road. (655) Retain as a community green space. (1586) The proposal would alter the areas rural character and spoil its attractive appearance. The proposed development is: urban and out of scale with the areas rural character, would result in the destruction of landscape features and wildlife habitats and the topography is unsuitable for major employment uses. The allocation would result in conflict with existing properties in the area. (1960) (1951) Object to the proposal; the site is important to wildlife, in maintaining the areas character and as a contributor to health and well-being. The area provides an example of typical Devon Coombe. (1951) (2113) (3634) (3649) Agricultural land that is prominent in the landscape, development would extend the town’s urban form. Local Planning Authorities should preserve and enhance the districts best assets, including its landscape, tranquillity, wildlife and unspoilt countryside. Inadequate highway network to accommodate increased traffic generation. A contained historic Carriage Drive and roadway must be preserved to enable future restoration. If maintained the proposal should include a southern bypass with a link to a new upstream bridge. (3132) Biodiversity impact would result, the site include undisturbed habitat in which (protected species are recorded. Even with planned strategic landscaping substantial disruption is anticipated to habitat, flora and fauna as a consequence of urbanising a rural environment. (3192) Retain wooded areas that are important to the local wildlife as well as being beautiful natural resources for locals to enjoy. Ecological studies should be carried out to assess the impact of removal. (2067) (2330) Clarification required on the nature of the vocational centre, is it for post Year 11(16 years) of 11 years of age and upwards. (2831 (DCC)) In addition to the vehicular link from the existing Caddsdown estate a vehicular link into and through the BID10 site onto Clovelly Road will be required. (2833 (DCC)) Exclude BID06 in preference to the proposal for Bideford South that will provide additional scope and flexibility. (3291) Paragraph 10.119: recreational use of green infrastructure will reduce its biodiversity value and thus negate any claim to sustainability. Recreational land should be provided within the development, and green infrastructure preserved from recreational impact. (3194)
Additional Information
Torridge District Council is negotiating with the landowner’s representatives to bring the site forward.
238 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
A site adjoining the policy areas north-east boundary has been identified to Torridge District Council by the landowner as a potential extension to Caddsdown Phase 3. The principle and extent of which was considered and agreed by the Council’s Community and Resources Committee on October 21st 2013. The site borders the southern boundary of Atlantic Village and is defined on its southern boundary by an unnamed lane. The site has until recently been subject to an option agreement with development interests who previously sought the sites allocation for housing.
The draft Employment Land Review describes the site as being “Good quality location on edge of Bideford adjoining existing high-quality Business Park, which currently has no vacant units. Close to shopping facilities at Atlantic Village. Site is currently unserviced and will require extension to existing estate access road and services as part of development, but could be delivered within 5 years”. The review also indicates that development “could have impacts in terms of loss of trees, areas of ecological importance and visual impact.”
As a result of preliminary discussions with development interests for the adjacent site (Policy BID10) the need for a distributor link from Clovelly Road connecting the BID10 and BID06 sites has been identified by Devon County Council. The link would provide the potential for a connecting route to Clovelly Road and to link future development to the east of the Caddsdown extension.
In response to comments received to the economic development policies of the draft Local Plan the scope of development on employment sites will be determined by the NPPF definition of “economic development”.
Officer Comments
907 Seventeen comments have been provided, one in support, one in support subject to amendment, thirteen in objection and two providing a general comment.
908 Devon County Council suggests that in addition to a vehicular link (a distributor road) from the existing Caddsdown Business Park, a vehicular link into and through the BID10 site is provided that would support an eventual connection to Clovelly Road. The suggestion is accepted as an appropriate addition to Policy BID06, which is considered necessary within the context of the wider development of the area to the south of Clovelly Road.
909 The comment from Bideford Town Council is noted. The area to the south of Clovelly Road as proposed by the Town Council (dlp 387) is not recommended for inclusion as a “new strategic site”. With regard to the timescale for site delivery, it is intended that such is achieved through the management of the Torridge District Council which is anticipated to be in the first half of the plan period.
910 The suggestion that the site subject to BID06 is deleted in preference to the proposal for “Bideford South” on the basis of “additional scope and flexibility” is not accepted. Policy BID06 provides for an extension to a well established employment site, with clear delivery prospects subject to management by the District Council, with the potential for longer term expansion in an easterly direction. The delivery potential of the Bideford South proposal is not established and is not favoured as the strategic development site for Bideford.
911 The supporting comments in relation to the Vocational Centre are noted. The facility, which has an employment focus, is considered appropriate to be located within a commercial environment. Additionally there is no site capacity at Bideford College to accommodate the proposed centre. The need for clarity regarding the age of the attending students, which would be 14-19 years is accepted.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 239 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
The objectives for the Vocational Centre are to add to the range and capacity of educational opportunities at a secondary school level and to support the delivery of employment skills in line with the vision and priorities of the area’s Economic Strategy.
912 The comments relating to the attractive woodland, biodiversity and ecological value of the site are noted. Such interests are recognised and care will be required to ensure natural assets are not lost or adversely impacted as a result of development, which will be directed by National Planning Policy along with the Strategic and wider Development Management Polices of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. 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. Notwithstanding the need to protect and where necessary mitigate against impacts on natural assets, Policy BID06 requires the delivery of green infrastructure providing opportunities for biodiversity enhancements and the supporting text to the policy requires existing hedgerows and trees to be retained where possible and replacement where removal is unavoidable. The wooded are to west of the site is recognised as an asset that should be enhanced.
913 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. Nevertheless, the draft Local Plan must meet the areas housing and employment needs, which includes a contribution from the site subject to Policy BID06. Sites BID06 and BID10 are assessed as suitable and have been presented as available to support the intended development. The area to the north of Clovelly Road suggested as an alternative is identified for development subject to Policy BIDD01 for both commercial and residential development.
Policy BID07: Bideford Port
Summary of Key Issues
914 Comments made in response to Policy BID07, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 2
Number of responses in support 0
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Number of responses in objection 0
Number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.61
Investigate storage areas to enable the port to expand. (393 (Bid TC)) The quay forms part of the tidal flood defence scheme for Bideford, and development must continue to allow access for maintenance and not lower the standard of protection offered. Any major redevelopment may have to offer improvements (along with other partners / contributions) of the tidal flood defence scheme. (2524 (EA))
Additional Points
Torridge District Council has commissioned a Torridge Estuary Strategy that aims to provide a coherent approach to guide future use and development around the Estuary. The Strategy will establish a clear vision for the Estuary and provide a clear basis for future decision making;
240 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
foster economic growth through investment and regeneration; protect and improve infrastructure for marine-related uses and preserve and enhance the Estuary’s special environmental status. The timescale for the Strategy provides for its adoption early in 2014. The strategy is intended to be a key document in determining the future direction of economically important maritime activities, which will have implications for Bideford Port.
Officer Comments
915 The comments made in response Policy BID07 are noted. The need for additional storage facilities to support the future operation of Bideford Port will be investigated through the Torridge Estuary Study and pursued if necessary. Policy BID07 seeks to safeguard the continued operation of the port, however, the need for the port to expand in response to future market demands has not been established.
916 The importance of the quay to flood defences in Bideford, as indicated by the Environment Agency is accepted. The provided comment in respect of the need to at least maintain the existing standards of protection and the need for any development to allow access for maintenance could usefully be added to the supporting text to Policy BID07.
Policy BID08: Bideford Regeneration Sites
Summary of Key Issues
917 Comments made in response to Policy BID08, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 6
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Number of responses in objection 2
Number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.62
Support, but clarify: (b) the nature of leisure facilities on the former livestock market, (e) what is the recreational capacity in Kingsley Road and (f) and (g) what is meant by enhancements to the Southern Gateway. (158) What would ‘enhanced gateway’ to New road consist of and is housing appropriate on the wharfs at East-the-Water. (394 (Bid TC)) Add the Westcombe Depot as a regeneration site for housing. (499) Support the proposal to extend existing leisure and recreation facilities on the former livestock market. (1577) Lacks direct reference to flood risk shaping redevelopment. The current proposed usage, apart from New Road, are however consistent with NPPF vulnerability requirements. The two New Road sites lack definition of the redevelopment. (2526 (EA)) Some development would displace car parking. Study work concluded that the existing parking stock could cope with the displacement but this did not take account of future growth. The creation of an extended car park at the livestock market site is therefore supported and would form part of an appropriate cascade of short/long stay parking to meet changing needs. (2835 (DCC))
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 241 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Additional Points
The East the Water Wharfs site is subject to a Torridge District Council endorsed site development brief, which provides for a mixed-use development of housing, commercial and recreational uses that will secure a new destination point within the town. The District Council who own the site have agreed an preferred developer (Community and Resources Committee June 2013) and an application for development is anticipated in winter 2013/2014. The development interests have presented draft proposals to the Local Planning Authority at a pre-application panel on 20th November 2013.
The Bridge Street Car Park site is subject to a Torridge District Council endorsed site development brief, which provides for a residential focused development which retains existing levels of public car parking.
Investigations of development options, with particular regard to the management of flood risk within and adjoining the Kingsley Road site, have determined there to be limited opportunity for the redevelopment and regeneration of the site.
Internal comment form TDC’s Corporate Property Manager resulted in a request for a housing allocation to be consideration for a site at Westcombe, as previously included within the Bideford Area Local Plan.
Officer Comments
918 The comments made in support and objection to Policy BID08 are noted. Policy BID08 identifies important regeneration sites which are recognised as presenting opportunities to add viability and vitality to the town centre and environs and to bring prominent underused and vacant sites into productive use. The uses attributed to each site have regard to a number of previously undertaken projects and investigations, including the Bideford Regeneration Framework (February 2007), the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (July 2010) and the above referenced site development briefs. With regard to the future of the Kingsely Road Site (including Bideford Football Club) it is accepted that regeneration is no longer an objective for the site having regard to an absence of deliverability in respect of relocating the existing use and securing a use compatible with the contained flood risk. It is recommended that Policy BID08 is amended, deleting (e) Kingsely Road. Policy BID08 (f) and (g) seeks to deliver an enhanced entrance into the town as a result of the development of identified sites on North Road. The entrance to Bideford along A386 is currently blighted to a degree by the unsightly nature of the North Road sites, which 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 site.
919 The housing component of the East the Water Wharfs development is questioned. An endorsed development brief provides for a range of uses on this site, a significant component of which is housing. The composition of uses on the site is driven by the desire to bring the site back into productive use in a manner which will contribute to activity within and beyond the town centre and to create an attractive destination point within the town, which includes an active waterfront area. Housing is an essential part of the development mix which enables the site in viability terms to be delivered. The achieved housing yield will also contribute to the housing supply for Bideford, which is necessary to meet assessed needs and demands.
920 There is a third party suggestion of the addition of Westcombe Depot as a regeneration site and an internal TDC comment on the same basis. Although the subject area has not been defined by the advocate (dlp 499), it is taken to be the site owned and occupied by Torridge District Council.
242 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
The site is in use as the District Council’s operational services depot, for which there are no current relocation plans. Issues in relation to the proposed use relate to the sites current commercial use, which the Strategic and Development Management Policies of the Local Plan seek to safeguard as an employment asset. Separately the site is 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 of the site, which presents an opportunity to reduce flood risk 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. Furthermore, with no certainly regarding the longevity of the current use with note of the sites historic opportunity for redevelopment, the basis for delivery of an alternative use during the lifetime of the plan is regarded as uncertain. In response to the representation, no change to the Local Plan is recommended. 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.
921 Comment from the Environment Agency is noted. Issues relating to flood risk are covered by National Planning Policy and by other Strategic and Development Management Policies within the Local Plan. As such it is not considered necessary to make any specific reference within Policy BID08. However a reference within the supporting text to the significance of flood risk in shaping development opportunities for a number of the regeneration sites could be added for clarity.
922 Comment from Devon County Council relating to the potential for the displacement and relocation of car parking capacity is noted.
Policy BID09: Former Bideford to Appledore Railway
Summary of Key Issues
923 Comments made in response to Policy BID09, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 5
Number of responses in support 3
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Number of responses in objection 0
Number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.63
Policy support. (159) (395) (575) Much of the works (including new bridges) may be in the functional floodplain, while difficult may offer opportunities for flood risk. (2528 (EA)) Amend policy wording to incorporate flexibility to allow consideration of alternative routes which may not be precisely along the former railway alignment but could be considered appropriate. (2837 (DCC)) Paragraph 10.123: support for the inclusion of wider Green Infrastructure enhancements around Kenwith Valley. (2531 (EA))
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 243 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Officer Comments
924 The comments made in response to Policy BID09 are noted. Devon County Council suggests a policy amendment to allow flexibility in the route of the Bideford to Appledore cycle way, which would allow for variation from the precise route of the former railway. The proposal is considered acceptable, on the basis of allowing for variation, where necessary and to the minimum extent required to achieve delivery of the proposed cycleway.
Policy BID10: South of Clovelly Road
Summary of Key Issues
925 Comments made in response to Policy BID10, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 14
Number of responses in support 2
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Number of responses in objection 8
Number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.64
Policy support. (1725) Policy support by phase employment in advance of housing. (396 (Bid TC) Policy support with amendment to exclude the existing farmhouse and works dwelling from employment use, include as part of the residential allocation. (504) Policy objection; High Park Farm is located south of BID01; it is long established farm of 166 hectares. It is a well-stocked and busy dairy farm which operates twenty four hours a day all year round. The development site is within sight, sound and smell of farm buildings, the nearest being a recently constructed dairy livestock building. (566) Revise part (1)(b) of the policy to enable a more flexible approach to the provision of 'economic development' so as to not unduly restrict the potential for economic growth and take up of employment land. (1727) Recognise the necessity to masterplan the site in association with other nearby sites; it is not necessary to do through a Site Development Brief. Exclude the requirement within part 2(b) for an endorsed site development brief which is not essential to secure delivery and sustainable development. (1728) Amend policy to recognise that delivery of infrastructure, community facilities and affordable housing should be subject to overall development viability. (1730) Policy objection on the basis that the proposal would; alter the areas rural character and spoil its current attractive appearance. The proposed development is: urban and out of scale with the areas rural character, would result in the destruction of landscape features and wildlife habitats and the topography is unsuitable for major employment uses. The allocation would result in conflict with existing properties in the area. (1975) Agricultural land that is prominent in the landscape, development would extend the town’s urban form. Local Planning Authorities should preserve and enhance the districts best assets, including its landscape, tranquillity, wildlife and unspoilt countryside. Inadequate highway network to accommodate increased traffic generation. Such assets are of economic importance. The wildlife
244 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
population of Jennetts Valley AGLV will be armed by the proximity of urban development. If maintained the proposal should include a southern bypass with a link to a new upstream bridge. (3133) Biodiversity impact would result, the site include undisturbed habitat in which (protected species are recorded. Even with planned strategic landscaping substantial disruption is anticipated to habitat, flora and fauna as a consequence of urbanising a rural environment. (3193) The housing allocation should provide on-site sport and recreation or make an off site contribution via S106 or CIL. (2224 (SEngland) No reference to SUDS. (2532 (EA)) Require a route through the BID10 site to connect through to the BID06 site to allow ease of access and permeability. The route should be suitable for use by buses and include provision for bus stops with suitable locations in conformity with IHT guidelines. (2845 (DCC)) Exclude BID10 in preference to the proposal for Bideford South that will provide additional scope and flexibility. (3292) How does the development fit with Section 5.3:‘Green Infrastructure, including rivers and streams, is focused on environmental assets that are .... connected for wildlife movements...... All development will be expected to provide a net gain in biodiversity. ' What is the process for monitoring and implementing ‘ the Councils support for ‘biodiversity offsetting' to deliver a net gain in biodiversity. (3195)
Additional Points
The development interests for the Policy BID10 site have entered into pre-application discussions with Torridge District Council including presentation of draft proposals to a Pre-Application Panel on 20th November 2013.
The draft Employment and Housing Supply Study identified the need for a level of employment land release as 40-60 hectares (B1a/b 15-20 and other and mixed employment development 25-40 hectares) across northern Devon over the plan period to 2031.With regard to delivery of economic development the associated Employment Land Review refers to the employment part of BID10 as having a dependency on the provision of a link road as part of the larger residential scheme and that the considered position is that it “may well not be brought forward for development within the plan period”.
Officer Comments
926 Fourteen comments have been provided and are noted, two are in support, two in support subject to amendment, eight in objection and two providing a general comment.
927 The comment from the Town Council is noted regarding the phasing of housing and employment development. Phasing employment in advance of housing could not be achieved having regard to the need for the associated distributor road which would be delivered by the related housing development and viability issues would be raised that could be prejudicial. The need to retain the employment element of the site is also questioned having regard to the finding of the Employment Land Review. The District Council, in seeking to bring forward Phase 3 to Caddsdown could better secure enhanced employment opportunities in step with housing development in the early phases of the Local Plan.
928 A 5.51 hectare element of the employment component of the allocation (adjoining and to the south of Atlantic Village) is excluded from the optioned area which is being pursued though pre-application discussions with the Local Planning Authority. The area, including the Adjavin Farm complex, is presented for inclusion within the wider residential allocation. The area, as part of the
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 245 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
wider site has been appraised as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and was considered to be potentially developable. Having regard to: the lack of delivery potential for employment purposes; the need to minimise the oversupply of employment land where the sought contribution is uncertain and the need to secure an adequate housing supply, it is considered appropriate to include the area subject to representation dlp 504 as part of the BID10 housing allocation.
929 Objection to the allocation has been raised with regard to the related location of High Park Farm, an operational dairy farm to the south of the area subject to Policy BID10. The comments relating to the potential for conflict with nearby residential development being “within sight sound and smell of farm buildings” is noted and such would require consideration in respect of site design. Opinion from the Council’s Environmental Protection Team confirmed that the presence of the dairy farm should not represent a fundamental barrier to housing within Policy BID10. 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. No change is recommended to Policy BID10 in response to comment dlp 566.
930 The comment dlp 1727 relating to the policy requirement for a 10 hectare component of employment land for BI, B2 and B8 uses is noted. The need for flexibility relating to employment uses has been recognised and will generally accord with the definition provided in the NPPF. With regard to employment use within the BID10 allocation, it is recommended that it is replaced with housing. As outlined above, the area to the south east of the site is in part not available for employment development and is proposed for housing and the area as a whole is considered not developable (by the draft Employment Land Review) within the plan period. However, in increasing the generated demands from the site, by increasing the proposed housing yield (500 to 700 dwellings) it is considered appropriate to add a requirement for a neighbourhood community centre.
931 Objection to the detail of the policy has been made in respect of the provision at (2) (a), which requires the preparation of a Site Development Brief. The need for the site to be subject to a masterplan to secure delivery of sustainable development is accepted through comment dlp1728. The value of a Site Development Brief is to demonstrate how a site will be delivered in accordance with the key elements of the Development Plan and that such is secured with effective community and stakeholder consultation in advance the preparation of the submission of a planning application. However, having regard to the recommended housing focused nature of Policy BID10, the generally uncomplicated nature of the proposed development and need to achieve early site delivery, the need for a site development brief is accepted in this instance as unnecessary. Master planning of the site will however remain a requirement, which must be achieved through effective pre-application community engagement, the extent and consequences of which will be set out in a Statement of Community Engagement.
932 The suggestion that the policy should be amended to reflect the need for overall development viability is not accepted. The concept of ensuring viability is well established through National Planning Policy and is reflected in the Local Plan, which has been subject to viability testing. For clarity paragraph 8.19 states that “Provision of necessary infrastructure should be phased with new development to minimise any experience of deficiencies, whilst not unacceptably affecting the viability of overall levels of development.” No change to Policy BID10 is recommended in response representation1730.
933 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
246 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
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. The suggestion that a “southern-bypass” should be provided if the allocation is maintained is accepted and is reflected in the comment provided by Devon County Council. It is not however the intention to deliver a new upstream bridge through the Local Plan, such is not required or enabled to be delivered through planned development. The comment that the site is topographically unsuitable for employment purposes is noted and with regard to the southern element of the site is accepted; however in moving forward it is proposed that the employment allocation of the site is replaced with housing, which could better respond to the sites topography.
934 The comment from Sport England, which seeks provision for sport and recreation on site or through contributions, is noted and accepted. Generally, it is not considered necessary to add a specific policy reference; such matters being dealt with through the application of National Planning Policy in addition to the relevant Strategic and Development Management Policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. Emerging evidence relating to Green Infrastructure will also establish new standards which generally will require sport and recreation facilities to be delivered on an on-site first basis. However having regard to the need to secure on site provision, reflecting the scale of planned housing development and the potential limitations due to topography, a reference to the need for such provision is considered appropriate and that an indication of the preferred location, adjoining Clovelly Road/Atlantic Village, should be added as a policy reference.
935 Then need to add a policy reference requiring Sustainable Drainage Systems is not accepted. The need for Sustainable Drainage Systems is a standard consideration that will be applied through the application of the Local Plan’s Strategic and Development Management Policies.
936 Devon County Council has identified a need to secure a distributor route through the site of Policy BID10, which would also connect and run through the adjoining site of Policy BID06. The need for and value of the route through the site is accepted and recognised as having value in respect of access and permeability within and beyond the site of Policy BID10. Discussions with Highway Authority have indicated a preliminary route through the site, which has been introduced as a requirement to the site’s development interests, who have accepted the principle of delivering such through development. A revision to Policy BID10 is recommended to provide for the delivery of a link route through the allocation and connection to the adjoining site subject to Policy BID06.
937 Comment dlp 3292 seeks the deletion of the draft Local Plan Policy allocation subject to Policy BID10, with an alternative but undefined “Bideford South” site. Two representations, dlp 387 and 1679 have separately sought development to the south-of Bideford, to the east of Policy BID10 which is considered to be the area subject to dlp 3292. The draft allocation has been assessed to be developable as a housing site and for which the Local Planning Authority have been engaged in pre-application discussions. The suggested additional scope and flexibility provided by the alternative site is not quantified; the site of Policy BID10 is considered to be suitable and is available for the planned use within the early stages of the plan period. No change recommended in response to representation 3292.
MAP CHANGES
Summary of Key Issues
938 Comments made in response to the Policies Map for Bideford (Figure 15.3) propose alternative development sites, amendments to allocated sites and/or the development boundary.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 247 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Include site at Willow Creek and Pillhead Copse, Old Barnstaple Road to build on existing waste and recycling activities, create a civic amenity site, redevelop of existing buildings and provide a new waste transfer and recycling facility. (1580) Development boundary extension to include sites north of Abbotsham Road; deliverable sites with the potential to enhance biodiversity and provide low density, high quality housing without environmental or social detriment. (1593) Strategic site of 75ha proposed to the south of Bideford, providing a range of housing (about 1,200), employment and community uses and the long term ability to provide a downstream bridge. A deliverable site required to meet housing needs and growth opportunities. The Torridge housing target falls short, by 3000-4000. (1679) Relocate BID01 allocation to the south of Bideford [site not defined]; to a more sustainable site, physically closer links with the town centre and existing facilities, access to be provided from Clovelly Road and A386. (2341 (Abb PC) Allocate site south of Caddsdown; a natural extension to existing development, suitable for the proposed mix use; that could be delivered in the short term and is without inhibiting constraints. (1695) Site immediately to the south of Caddsdown is proposed for a mixed use employment/housing allocation. (1886) Allocate the site occupied by Tyco Electronics for housing. The soon to be vacated site is located in a housing area, future manufacturing may result a conflict between residential and employment uses. (3501)
Additional Information
A site at Ethelwynne Brown Close - Redundant Treatment Works and adjacent Land is subject to an internal TDC promotion.
Officer Comments
939 Land at Willow Creek and Pillhead Copse. (dlp1580) A site adjoining the East the Water development boundary is promoted for use as a waste transfer centre and recycling facility.
940 In response to the proposal, comment from Devon County Council was provided ”.. a new Household Waste Recycling Centre at Caddsdown for Bideford residents was not long ago built, we have no intention of building any further facilities as the existing site has adequate capacity and will be suitable to serve the area for the next 20-30 years”. Furthermore, the site was assessed as a strategic energy recovery facility and was considered not to be appropriate for such a use and Devon County Council are separately pursuing the Brynsworthy environment centre on the edge of Barnstaple as our northern Devon site allocation for this purpose.”
941 When consulted in relation to the sites promotion through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA/BID86), the County Council, as the Highway Authority indicated that the site was considered unsustainable due to its remote location and that the roads leading to the site were substandard in terms of width, alignment, forward and junction visibility and could only be upgraded with third party land. Having regard to the absence of identified need and the suitability of the site in respect of the highway network, no change to the Local Plan is recommended in response to representation dlp 1580.
942 Sites to the North of Abbotsham Road (dlp 1593) Two sites to the north of Abbotsham Road have been presented through representation 1593 for inclusion within the development boundary to deliver housing, “of potentially low density and high quality”. The sites, which are currently in agricultural use, have a combined site area of 11.98 hectares.
248 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
943 The sites have been subject to appraisal as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment exercise under reference SHA/BID/10 and SHA/BID/11 through which they were deemed to be potentially suitable for housing with a potential yield of about 280 dwellings, although a reduced level would be favoured having regard to the irregular form of the site(s) and its relationship to A39. Points of note in relation to the appraisal however refer to part of the site (adjoining the Londonderry Estate) as being designated as a Site of Local Conservation Importance -Badgershill Wood, the likelihood of the site forming part of an important wildlife corridor between Bideford and Abbotsham and the close proximity of the site to the Kenwith Valley Local Nature Reserve. Additionally although appropriate access could be provided, off site works may be required outside the proposed sites and the site adjoining the Londonderry Estate would be required to be considered in conjunction with the site adjoining Abbotsham Road so as not to prejudice future development.
944 Accepting the appraised developable nature of the sites, no change is recommended to the Local Plan in response to representation 1593. The level of planned development at Bideford, exceeds the assessed locally determined needs and demands, which is accepted as necessary having regard to strategic role of Bideford, but additional provision to the land supply is not considered necessary with regard to the assessed district wide requirement of 7,864 dwellings. Furthermore, the development strategy for Bideford is to bring sites forward of a significant scale which can provide for a range of supporting uses through on site delivery.
945 Tyco Electronics (East the Water) (dlp 3501) The site of the currently operational, but subject to a planned closure, Tyco factory is proposed for redevelopment for housing. The site has been presented for assessment through the 2013 update to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, the outcome of which is not yet available. The site is however considered to represent an economic asset, which the Local Plan through its Strategic and Development Management Policies seeks to protect. Only where there is justification on economic grounds for redevelopment would alternative uses be considered appropriate, which would include the demonstrated absence of future employment prospects. Such a position has not be proven and the Council’s Economic Development Officers have had enquires regarding the future use of the premises when vacated, which indicates the site should continue to be regarded as an economic asset that should be safeguarded. No change is recommended to the Local Plan in response to representation 3501.
946 Site South of Caddsdown (dlp 1695) A site to the south of Caddsdown is proposed by a third party for employment development. The site is considered to represent an obvious extension to current and planned employment development that would add further to the employment/commercial hub at Caddsdown. In consideration of Policy BID06, it is recommended that the policy area is extended by approximately 5 hectares to include part of the site subject to representation 1695. It is not proposed to allocate the full extent of the presented site, having regard to the assessed level of need for employment land, which is already exceeded in respect of evidenced need, the consequent risk of loss to alternative uses which could be prejudicial in respect of longer term employment opportunities and the flexibility provided by the draft Local Plan in respect of facilitating additional land release if required to support a relocation or expansion proposal that would contribute to improvement of the northern Devon economy. A revision to Policy BID06, in part reflects the amendment proposed by dlp 1695.
947 Site south-east of proposed Caddsdown Extension (dlp 1696) A site, which would adjoin the south-eastern element of policy area BID06, is proposed for a mix of housing and employment uses although no guide is given as to the distribution or division of uses within the site. With regard to the suggestion of the employment element of the site, it can be noted the potential proximity of similar planned uses through Policy BID06. Without making any judgement on the suitability of the site for employment purposes, there is no need for additional employment sites to be allocated. The draft Housing and Employment Study and Employment Land Review, indicate a level of need well
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 249 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
below the 157 hectares currently provide for in the draft North Devon and Local Plan, which is based on the plans positive approach to economic growth. The allocation of additional employment land cannot be justified.
948 The site, as part of a larger site, has been subject to appraisal through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, under reference SHLAA/BID/17, which judged the larger area to be potentially developable but only as part of stategic growth to the south of Bideford for delivery in the longer term. In isolation, the site is not considered suitable for development. The draft Local Plan includes planned development to the west of the site and in part on its northern boundary is a recommended revision to extend the site area of Policy BID06. The area to the south and east of the site, as otherwise promoted through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA/BID2/25/24) are not recommended to form part of a strategic allocation on which basis the developable status of the site subject to representation dlp 1696 is questioned. Issues of note relate to the achievability of suitable access and the relatively poor relationship of the site to the built form of the town and housing related uses ((both existing and planned). No amendment to the draft Local Plan is proposed in response to representation1696, either in respect of seeking to utilise the site for housing or employment or a combination of both.
949 Site south of Bideford (dlp 387, 2341, 1679) A substantial site (75hectaes) to the south of Bideford is promoted as a strategic mixed use site (dlp 1679),the promoters indicate a range of potential uses: employment, recreation facilities including pitches, primary and junior school, medical centre, 1,200 houses with an indication of the long-term ability to provide a down stream bridge to East the Water. The site is promoted as an additional allocation to the sites subject to draft policies in the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan, based on the proposer’s suggestion that the housing figure for Torridge represents an undersupply of 3,000-4,000 dwellings. Associated supporting comments are provided by Bideford Town Council but on the basis of a reduced policy area (of about 50%) and on the basis that the proposed allocation would provide a replacement to Policy BID01: Bideford West Urban Extension. Abbotsham Parish Council also seek a site in this location (which is not specifically defined) to replace Policy BID01.
950 The site related to representation dlp 1679 has been subject to appraisal through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, under reference SHLAA/BID/26/17/2/24/25 and 90. The relationship of the combined sites is only considered to be “reasonable” to the existing built form of Bideford. Having regard to local biodiversity a small element of a wider Site of Local Conservation Importance (SLCI) lies within the site, with the remainder wrapping along part of the southern boundary. There is also a County Wildlife Site (CWS) - Upcott Wood, within and running along the sites southern boundary, with the southern part of the site likely to have some significant habitat and biodiversity value from which built development should be precluded. The remaining areas of the site are likely to have some intrinsic wildlife value. The site is not subject any landscape designations, but in part it holds an elevated location above the main built form of Bideford and is relatively prominent and exposed in the landscape. In-part it holds a relatively steep relief. It therefore commands some long views and development has the potential to have a wide impact on the local landscape character. The Highway Authority consider the only means of accessing the site would be as a result of its inclusion within a wider strategic site that would provide a link from Clovelly Road through the site subject to Policy BID10 and through BID06; access taken from Clovelly Road as proposed is considered not to present an acceptable highway solution.
951 The delivery of the site as presented is questioned initially on the basis that some western elements of the site are known not to be within the control of the proposer and the suggested point of access onto Clovelly Road is questioned. Nevertheless in respect of the point of access, the Clovelly Road option is not considered acceptable by the Highway Authority. Achieving an access to the site through a distributor link from the sites to the west of the proposal could be a long term option and
250 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
would be facilitated as a result of revisions proposed to sites subject to Policies BID10 and BID06. The suggestion that the site could achieve a downstream bridge to Bideford East is not accepted. The proposed scale of development would not justify or enable delivery of a third river crossing. Informal comment from Devon County Council has suggested a cost upwards of £50M for such a project.
952 The suggestion that the site is well related to the existing built form of the town and its centre is not accepted; and the relative connectedly of the site is considered to be poor. It is suggested that the site south of Clovelly Road is preferential to the area subject to Policy BID01 in respect of its relationship to the town; this position is not accepted. In physical and accessibility terms the site of Policy BID01 is considered to outperform the proposed site.
953 The suggestion that the proposal presents an opportunity to deliver a further 1,200 which is necessary to achieve the assessed needs and demands for the area, is not accepted. The proposed housing yield form the site is considered achievable having regard to the potential capacity of the sites assessed through the SHLAA process, which exceeded 2,300 dwellings. Evidence provided by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and the Torridge Urban Housing Needs Assessment supports the level of housing planned for Torridge in the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. If the proposed site were added to the allocations in the draft Local Plan, the level of planned development in Bideford would be in the region of 5,000; a level not required in respect of need and demand and considered excessive in respect of the resultant growth to Bideford, a development rate of 265 dwellings per annum would be required for the balance of the plan period to support such a scale of development.
954 No change to the Local Plan is recommended in response to the comments made on the area to the south of Bideford, either in respect of its promotion as an additional or alternative site.
955 Ethelwynne Brown Close - Redundant Treatment Works and adjacent. A relatively small site, adjoining Ethelwynne Brown Close is proposed for housing, it is a brownfield site, access to which would be required through the existing adjoining estate. The site is subject to assessment through the 2013 update to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, the outcome of which is not yet available.
956 A Flood Risk Assessment has been prepared for the site which has been submitted for information, which concludes that the site is “mainly within Flood Zone 1 and can therefore be considered suitable for residential development.” This position does not however concur with the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment or the maintained Environment Agency flood risk maps on which basis the site is identified as being wholly within Flood Zone 2 with significant elements of Zone 3. National Planning Policy is clear in that Local Plans should take account of climate change over the longer term including such factors as flood risk and that new development should be planned to avoid such risks, unless necessary to do so. Having regard to the extent of flood risk on the site and the availability of other developable sites, that will meet assessed needs and demands, there is no basis on which a housing allocation could be justified. The site would be challenged to pass the required sequential test.
957 The site is however within the Bideford Development Boundary on which basis development could be pursued but any proposal would have to specifically address flood risk issues and would be judged against the Strategic and Development Management Policies of the Local Plan. The Environment Agency has been consulted to ensure accuracy of the stated flood risk position.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 251 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
958 Site north of East-the-Water (387) A substantial site divorced and to the north of Bideford East –the-Water has been presented by Bideford Town Council for housing development, in part on the basis that it presents a more suitable option than the draft Local Plan Policy BID01. The site is currently subject to appraisal through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. Having regard to the relative location of the site it has been discounted as a suitable site for housing development within the first stage of the assessment. No change to the Local Plan is recommended in response to the comment dlp 387.
Agreed Actions
1. Update Table 10.7 and any other references to housing provision / requirements to reflect up-to-date housing completions and commitment information.
2. Add a reference within Policy BID(1) to the strategic role of Bideford. 3. Add a reference within Policy BID and supporting text to recognise that qualifying development proposals will be required to support the provision of additional educational infrastructure at a primary and secondary level.
4. Revise Policy BID (1)(a), (b) and (c), replace “about” with 'at least' 4,169, 2,740 and 2,250 dwellings.
5. Revise Policy BID(1)(d), refer to Atlantic Park in place of Nineacre Planation and add “about” 10 hectares.
6. Add a reference within Policy BID(1)(g) and the supporting text to recognise that Bideford will become a Critical Drainage Area on which basis contributions from development may be required to secure improvements to the Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme.
7. Amend Figure 10.9: Bideford Key Diagram, correct labelling and the identification of “new or improved highway routes”.
8. Amend Policy BID01 to increase the housing to about 950 dwellings and amend Figure 10.3 to reflect an extended housing area within the area of Policy BID01.
9. Amend Figure 10.3 to delete the indicated location of the local centre in the area of Policy BID01.
10. Revise Policy BID01 (1) (b) replace “existing woodland to “former woodland”.
11. Amend Policy BID01 and reflect in supporting text, add a policy requirement to: provide a high standard of Sustainable Drainage Systems and as necessary contribute to improvements to the Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme.
12. Amend paragraph 10.98, add a referenced the AONB:”… which must take into account the consequences of the sites topography which results in points of exposure from some distant views along the A39 and from the North Devon AONB.”
13. Amend Policy BID01(2)(a) replace the requirement for an endorsed Site Development Brief with an agreed masterplan.
14. Amend Policy BID01(2)(d) and reflect in the supporting text, to reference highway improvements at the junction of A39 and Abbotsham Road.
252 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
15. Amend paragraph 10.100, add a reference to the need to contribute towards the delivery of a shared foot/cycleway along Abbotsham Road to Abbotsham.
16. Amend Policy BID02 and supporting text; add a requirement for a health care facility within the site, on an area of about 0.6 hectares.
17. Amend Policy BID02(2)(b) and paragraph 10.102: refer to vehicular access from Manteo Way as providing the primary access with a secondary access required from Alverdiscott Road.
18. Amend Policy BID02(1), with supporting text: require the Cleave Wood Site to be comprehensively developed.
19. Amend paragraph 10.103, to refer to the provision of a Children’s Centre base and satellite youth facilities within the required Neighbourhood Community Centre.
20. Amend paragraph 10.104, reference on site flood risk and the need for such to be taken into account in the form and location of development and a need for Sustainable Drainage Systems.
21. Amend paragraph 10.107: add a reference to the functional flood plain and water course within the site and the need for development in form and location to have regard to the related flood risk.
22. Amend Policy BID04; add a policy and supporting text reference requirement to: provide a high standard of Sustainable Drainage Systems consequent as a consequence of the sites possible location within a Critical Drainage Area.
23. Amend BID04(1)(b): add a requirement for a nursery and a children’s centre within the school.
24. Amend BID04(2)(b): to provide a walking /cycling link to the Tarka Trail, subject to confirmation of an achievable route by Devon County Council.
25. Delete Policy BID05: Moreton Park.
26. Renumber subsequent policy areas to account for the loss of Policy BID05.
27. Amend the site area subject to Policy BID06, extend the allocation in an easterly direction, to include an additional 5 hectares. Amend the supporting text and adjust the overall site area to about 15 hectares, with an indication of economic use on about 12 hectares.
28. Amend Policy BID06(2) and supporting text, add a requirement for a distributor road through the site to connect with the site subject to Policy BID10 and to allow for its future eastern extension beyond its boundary.
29. Amend paragraph 10.118; clarity the age of Vocational Centre pupils as being 14-19 years.
30. Amend paragraph 10.122: add a reference that any development must allow for access for flood defence maintenance and not lower the standard of flood protection offered by the Quay.
31. Amend Policy BID08 and the supporting text: delete (e) Kingsley Road and renumber the subsequent policy elements.
32. Amend the supporting text to reference the significance of flood risk in shaping development opportunities for a number of the regeneration sites.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 253 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
33. Amend Policy BID09: to allow for variation from the precise route of the former railway.
34. Amend Policy BID10 and the supporting text to provide for a housing focused development, providing for about 700 dwellings; delete the employment requirement of 10 hectares.
35. Amend Policy BID10, include a policy requirement for on site sports pitch provision as part of a package of open space and recreation provisions and that such should be located, if practical to do so adjoining Clovelly Road/Atlantic Village.
36. Amend Policy BID10 and supporting text, add a requirement for a distributor road through the site to connect with the site subject to Policy BID06.
37. Amend Policy BID10 and supporting text, add a requirement for a neighbourhood community centre.
38. Amend Policy BID10(2): delete the need for a Site Development Brief and replace with a requirement to prepare a masterplan in relation to which the site will be comprehensively developed.
39. Amend supporting text to Policy BID10 to refer to a buffer zone for the avoidance of prejudice to the existing agricultural use and proposed residential use.
Town Strategies: Braunton and Wrafton
Total number of responses 56
Total number of responses in support 12
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 7
Total number of responses in objection 24
Total number of additional housing sites 11
Total number of responses providing a general comment 13
Table 5.65
Policy BRA: Braunton and Wrafton Spatial Strategy
Summary of Key Issues
959 Comments made in response to Policy BRA: Braunton and Wrafton Spatial Strategy, including supporting text regarding The Place, Evidence, The Future, The Development Strategy and Development Proposals:
Number of responses 44
Number of responses in support 4
254 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 6
Number of responses in objection 26
Number of responses providing a general comment 8
Table 5.66
Support for development to be focused to the south-east of the village to minimise traffic impacts and increase employment and sustainable transport opportunities (DCC) Support for spatial strategy that seeks to address specific issues affecting the village Traffic issues in Braunton need to be addressed There is a general need in the village for community, recreational activities, leisure and sporting areas (BPC) There needs to be a clear recognition in the Plan for the impact that agriculture / land management and water discharge have on the River Caen and Knowl Water (EA) Support for increased capacity of primary school but should include a provision for early years. Contributions will be required from developments in the village (DCC) More detail is required in the Plan to establish the exact level of housing proposed for the village and how the local community can still influence the siting of these new houses through a possible ‘Neighbourhood Plan’ The objectives in the spatial strategy are supported in principle. The detail of these objectives could be supported through a ‘Neighbourhood Plan’ The spatial strategy is not identifying a sufficient level of housing growth for an identified ‘town centre’ as set out in Policy ST15. Other towns are developing at a much higher rate than Braunton and Wrafton. There is doubt that some of the sites needed to meet the housing growth are not deliverable and additional sites are required (x5) Wrafton is separate from Braunton and needs to define its own development boundary and level of housing growth (HPPC) There is too much emphasis on delivering housing in Wrafton whilst not being flexible enough to deliver new housing through additional sites Support in principle the designation of local green space between Braunton and Heanton Punchardon, (refer to Policy BRA03) but would wish to promote additional housing in order to deliver the BMX track and open space by amending the existing development boundary. (see plan) Additional mixed-use site proposed on land at Chivenor by amending the existing development boundary. Allocating more land at Chivenor will reduce development pressure on Policy BRA03 (see plan) Additional site proposed at Velator for the creation of a Wildfowl and Wetlands area including visitor centre and associated tourism accommodation (see plan) Additional housing site proposed off Boode Road by amending the existing development boundary (see plan) Additional housing site proposed on land opposite Apsley Terrace off Ash Road by amending the existing development boundary (see plan) Additional housing site proposed on land east of South Park by amending the existing development boundary (see plan) Additional housing sites proposed on land north and south of Down Lane by amending the existing development boundary (see plan)
Other Key Issues identified
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 255 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Through extensive public consultation regarding the future adoption of an ‘Air Quality Management Plan’, Braunton Parish Council have proposed developing a by-pass around the village to address air quality issues over the longer term within the village centre Table 10.5 can be updated to a 31 March 2013 base date to show commitments over the last year Identified need for additional sports pitches and available sites on which they could be located
Officer Comments and Recommendations
960 There is broad support for the Braunton and Wrafton spatial strategy including the delivery of a mixed-use development on land south-east of Wrafton as the development will help to resolve some of the issues affecting Braunton. It is accepted that the spatial strategy should recognise the need within Braunton and Wrafton for increased early years provision, which will be supported by new development.
961 The Braunton and Wrafton spatial strategy recognises the need to improve traffic management and air quality in Braunton village centre. However, detailed proposals to overcome these issues will be considered as part of the ‘Air Quality Management Plan’ in consultation with Devon County Council as the local highway authority. The spatial vision and strategy could refer to a by-pass around the village in the longer term if the Air Quality Management Plan favours this option, but its deliverability is uncertain until / unless funding and an appropriate route can be identified.
962 The Plan clearly states at Table 10.5 that the housing supply for Braunton and Wrafton over the period 2011 to 2031 is 340 dwellings. This housing growth is made up of existing housing completions, homes under construction and extant planning permissions (about 116 dwellings) and strategic and non-strategic allocations resulting in the delivery of about 220 dwellings. It should be noted that all sites within the Plan are considered developable through the SHLAA process and are actively being pursued by landowners. Therefore, no further explanation is considered necessary. Table 10.5 should also be updated to include completions and commitments from April 2012 to March 2013.
963 The draft Local Plan supports neighbourhood plans so long as they are in accordance with the spatial strategy and spatial vision for Braunton and Wrafton. 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 communities in Braunton and Wrafton, in which case neighbourhood plans would be supported in principle.
964 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 deliver about 9% growth over the plan period, compared to the overall housing growth strategy for the other recognised Main Centres of Great Torrington, Holsworthy, Ilfracombe and South Molton in the Plan that will together deliver about 38% growth over the plan period. Consequently, compared to other Main Centres, Braunton and Wrafton could be considered as delivering an inadequate level of housing growth in accordance with its status. However, Braunton and Wrafton have a number of landscape and environmental constraints, including issues around flooding and concerns regarding air quality in the village centre that could justify a lesser number of housing being allocated.
965 The previous Core Strategy was required by the draft RSS for the South West to set out a housing requirement in North Devon of 10,900 dwellings. The draft RSS has been revoked by the Secretary of State (20th May 2013) and the evidence that underpinned the housing requirement is
256 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
considered out of date. The 2012 SHMA update has indicated a housing target for North Devon of 8,400 over the Plan period. Overall housing numbers and distribution are addressed through comments to Policy ST07, which will identify the appropriate level of growth for each main town.
966 Chivenor has relatively few services and facilities which would justify the housing growth allocated to Braunton and Wrafton rather than an increased number 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 east 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. Other promoted sites closer to Braunton could provide some additional housing growth if it were 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.
967 It is accepted that Braunton is physically separated from Wrafton by a strategic green space. In the draft Plan, Policy ST06 does not recognise Heanton Punchardon or Chivenor as identified settlement that can accommodate additional growth due to their limited services and facilities. 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.
968 The spatial strategy within the Plan supports initiatives that provide opportunities for new leisure and recreation facilities as well as ensuring that new development provides the necessary social and community facilities and formal open space. Any promoted scheme that meets the local need will be supported in principle. The need for additional sports pitches and a BMX track is recognised but a favoured, available and deliverable site has not yet been identified.
969 The potential impacts on the River Caen and Knowl Water from the use of phosphates on agricultural land and water industry discharge are recognised. Mitigating against any adverse harm to fish stocks could be recognised in the Braunton and Wrafton chapter, cross referring to Policy ST09 (Coast and Estuary Strategy) and paragraph 4.54.
970 A number of alternative and additional sites were promoted as part of the spatial strategy, which are listed towards the end of this report. The location of these sites is shown on the Map attached to this report. Officer commentary on the issues for each promoted site is set out below.
971 The site between Braunton and Wrafton allocated for strategic local green space (BRA03) is accepted in principle but the landowner will require some housing in order to deliver the BMX track and open space. The site has been considered as part of the SHLAA process (SHA/HPU/100). The SHLAA stakeholder panel concluded ‘the site was not currently developable as a large majority of this site is designated within the functional flood zone 3 and thus this could be a major problem in developing the small area that remains and the land provides an important open landscape setting between Braunton and Wrafton and further development would erode this gap’. Paragraph 47 requires that local planning authorities should identify a supply of specific deliverable sites, sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements, with an additional appropriate buffer included, dependent on past delivery. Although it is conceded the Council does not have a 5 year housing land supply, this site is not considered developable therefore delivery is uncertain and should not be allocated within the Plan.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 257 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
972 The sites promoted at Chivenor have been submitted as part of the SHLAA process as SHA/HPU/095 (not currently developable), SHA/HPU/415 (covered by Policy BRA01), SHA/HPU/471 and SHA/HPU/475, although these latter sites have yet to be considered by the SHLAA Panel. The location and extent of these sites is shown on the attached map. Officers have recognised sites HPU/415 and HPU/475 to be developable in principle although there is concern that ‘in isolation the HPU/475 site (north of A361) is not well related to existing development at Wrafton and Chivenor is not considered a settlement in its own right. Further development to the north of the A361 would erode the rural gap between Wrafton and Heanton Punchardon. Land north of the A361 is not considered to be as self-contained as the site to the south of the A361 (Policy BRA01) and does not provide any employment opportunities. If additional housing is required in Braunton and Wrafton over and above the existing commitments then there are enough alternative sites within Braunton and Wrafton to meet that need (subject to required numbers required) rather than further linear development east of at Chivenor or the north of the A361.
973 The site promoted off South Park has been submitted as part of the SHLAA process (SHA/BRA/108). The SHLAA stakeholder panel considered the site was developable but would not be delivered within the first 5 years. There is no technical reason against this site being developed for housing and it could be delivered early in the Plan period as pre-application discussions are currently ongoing.
974 The sites promoted north and south of Down Lane have been considered as part of the SHLAA process under reference SHA/BRA/087 (north) and SHA/BRA/403 (south). The SHLAA stakeholder panel concluded that the site north of Down Lane was developable for about 6 dwellings, although officers were concerned regarding the visual prominence of the site and access arrangements; the site south of Down Lane has yet to be considered by the SHLAA Panel. Whilst these concerns still exist for any development off Down Lane, for consistency officers will consider the site to the south to be developable for about 3 dwellings.
975 The site promoted off Apsley Terrace, Ash Road has not been submitted as part of the SHLAA process. However, the officer recommendation is that the land is not suitable for housing due mainly to the fact it cannot be accessed to a standard to accommodate the levels of traffic likely to be generated, with the principle access being off Ash Road which is a single width carriageway. This site is not considered developable.
976 The site promoted off Boode Road has not previously been submitted as part of the SHLAA process. However, the officer recommendation is that the land is not suitable for housing due mainly to the fact it cannot be accessed to a standard to accommodate the levels of traffic likely to be generated The principal access is off Boode Road or Ash Road which are single width carriageways. This site is not considered developable.
977 The site promoted at Velator, south of Tesco on the eastern side of the Caen down to the river Taw is proposed as an area for wildfowl and wetlands incorporating a visitor centre, accommodation and reserve centre, marina with improved pedestrian connections to the Tarka Trail and South West Coast Path. This proposal has some merit in providing a visitor attraction, enhancing biodiversity in the area and improving green infrastructure links.
978 If there is need to identify additional housing land for Braunton and Wrafton within the local plan then several of these sites are considered to be more realistic in terms of deliverability, accessibility and minimising environmental impacts:
South Park Down Lane
258 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Policy BRA01: Wrafton South Eastern Extension
Summary of Key Issues
979 Comments made in response to Policy BRA01 including supporting text:
Number of responses 12
Number of responses in support 4
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Number of responses in objection 4
Number of responses providing a general comment 3
Table 5.67
Support housing / employment development at a sustainable location on land south-east of Wrafton subject to some minor clarifications – Policy BRA01 and supporting text should be consistent in wording so employment provision should be for approximately 18 hectares Policy should make reference to providing a ‘Park and Change’ facility with safe pedestrian access (DCC) Policy BRA01 makes sense; It is more important to preserve the land between Braunton and Wrafton (Policy BRA03) to maintain distinction between the two settlements The site is too large and intrudes in to the countryside and employment should be located in Barnstaple (x2) Employment land at Chivenor would threaten the delivery of employment on allocated sites in Ilfracombe (ITC) Concerned that the employment element of the allocation will go the same way as Brannoc Fibres Question the need for a business park in Wrafton when Pottington has spare capacity and better communications, and Braunton has low unemployment No objection in principle to Policy BRA01 subject to no adverse impact on RMB Chivenor through surface water drainage or flooding (MOD) Development at Chivenor may provide the opportunity to improve flood risk at Chivenor roundabout (EA) Site is on low lying badly drained land that is subject to flooding (x3) Link between housing and employment is tenuous and will encourage ribbon development (x2) Would question whether a roundabout is essential to upgrade the junction at Rectory Close Cross Development would have an adverse impact on the Tarka Trail and estuary
Other Key Issues identified
An outline planning application (55214) was submitted 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,
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 259 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
cycle & pedestrian circulation routes; park & ride car park; open space & hard / soft landscape & all associated infrastructure works. The planning application was deferred (10 July 13) for the following reasons:
a. to receive further evidence in relation to employment use; b. to address the need for 150 houses in the Chivenor area; c. to provide an opportunity to consider the community’s response to the allocations in the local plan; and d. to seek a robust Highways plan.
Officer Comments and Recommendations
980 The planning application (55214) was deferred by Planning Committee on the 10th July 2013, for the reasons stated above. However, 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. It should be noted that the application was returned to Planning Committee on the 9th October 2013 where, Members resolved to approve the application subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement. It is accepted that Policy BRA01(1a) should be amended from 20 to 18 hectares of employment land required from the development for consistency with paragraph 10.149. Amend Policy BRA01 to the requirement for a ‘park and change’ facility rather than just referring to a new car park, consistent with paragraph 10.145.
981 The NPPF (paragraph 52) states ‘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 to be ‘ribbon development’ but a strategic urban extension along a principal highway with good connectivity to the Tarka Trail.
982 Policy ST07 clearly states the majority of employment growth across both North Devon and Torridge will be focused in Barnstaple but, as Braunton and Wrafton is considered a Main Centre, it is not unreasonable for a moderate level of employment growth alongside proposed housing to help meet local employment needs and resist Braunton and Wrafton becoming primarily commuter villages.
983 One intention of the Local Plan is to increase the level of high-value employment across northern Devon, through the growth of existing businesses and attract new business to the area. The Plan does not intend to foster competition between different settlements but provides the opportunity for all the main centres to expand and diversify their employment offer for local firms and allow local communities to establish the type of employer they wish to attract. Policy BRA01 is seeking to provide a high quality business park to complement the adjoining Perrigo site, a leading global healthcare supplier that develops, manufactures and distributes over the counter and generic prescription pharmaceuticals. Perrigo has an extant planning permission (52823) to expand the business on the western part of BRA01. It is accepted that under the current economic climate there is potentially spare capacity within existing employment estates such a Pottington. However, the Plan looks to support existing employment sites and encourage development that would result in better quality modern employment facilities that are best able to meet the current and future business needs. It is also accepted that unemployment in Braunton and Wrafton is relatively low, compared to other towns in northern Devon. However, the strategy for Braunton and Wrafton as a Main Centre is to provide employment growth that will, not only increase capacity to meet their own needs but those of the surrounding communities.
260 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
984 The indicative flood risk maps provided by the Environment Agency show the site to be in flood zone 1 and not affected by potential tidal or fluvial flooding. The Councils’ Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) and the Level 2 SFRA for Barnstaple (extending to Chivenor) confirm this evidence. However, it is accepted the land may be affected by surface water flooding in times of heavy rainfall. It is considered the policy already addresses the need to incorporate a suitable SUDS system and ensure development does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere in the locality, including at RMB Chivenor.
985 The Plan recognises the need to upgrade the existing junction at Rectory Close Cross. Works to this junction will be delivered as part of a comprehensive package of improvements along the A361 in association with Policy BRA01, BRA02 and the expansion of Perrigo. The Plan is not specific in terms of the highway works required to upgrade this junction, but the extant planning permission for Perrigo requires a roundabout at the Rectory Close Cross junction along A361. The flexibility of Policy BRA01 would facilitate delivery of alternative junction solutions that satisfy local highway authority’s requirements.
986 The Plan recognises that the development should be designed to a high quality in order to complement its landscape setting with an active frontage to the Tarka Trail. Subject to an appropriate design, it is not considered the development of this site would have an adverse impact on the landscape setting within the estuary or the Tarka Trail given its proximity to Perrigo and RMB Chivenor.
987 The intention of Policy BRA01 is to support employment led growth for Braunton and Wrafton through allocating 150 dwellings to facilitate the delivery of serviced employment land to complement the expansion of Perrigo. It will provide the opportunity for Braunton and Wrafton to become more sustainable in an area not vulnerable to flood risk, whilst protecting the high quality environment.
988 Section 4 (Spatial Strategy) does not clarify the growth strategy for Braunton and Wrafton unlike the other main centres. In view of this, paragraphs 4.5 and 4.26 should recognise that the strategy for Braunton and Wrafton is for growth achieved through employment-led development.
Policy BRA02: Wrafton Glebefield
Summary of Key Issues
989 Comments made in response to Policy BRA02 including supporting text:
Number of responses 5
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Number of responses in objection 2
Number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.68
Supports the policy in principle subject to clarification of detail and access arrangements Policy BRA02 is undeliverable due to access constraints (x3) Would question whether a roundabout is essential to upgrade the junction at Rectory Close Cross
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 261 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Other Key Issues identified
Previous planning applications for a range of housing proposals have been refused on this site, mainly due to proposed access arrangements. The last application (31743) for 53 dwellings was refused on the 5th March 2002 and subsequently dismissed on appeal.
Officer Comments and Recommendations
990 There is support for the allocation of Policy BRA02 for housing although 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.
Village Centre
Summary of Key Issues
991 Comments made in response to the village centre including supporting text:
Number of responses 2
Number of responses in support 0
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Number of responses in objection 1
Table 5.69
General support for the recognition of the traffic problems in the village centre but more robust proposals are required to deal with traffic congestion in the village centre The Plan needs to provide a solution to the bottleneck at the junction of Caen Street and Ilfracombe Road. The Plan should not reject the idea of an alternative route, particularly to the south of the village (x2)
Other Key Issues identified
Through extensive public consultation regarding the future adoption of an ‘Air Quality Management Plan’, Braunton Parish Council have proposed developing a by-pass around the village to address air quality issues over the longer term within the village centre
Officer Comments and Recommendations
992 The Braunton and Wrafton Spatial Strategy recognises the need to improve traffic management and air quality in Braunton village centre, which has been further referenced at paragraph 10.156. Detailed proposals to overcome these issues should also be considered as part of the ‘Air Quality
262 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
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 that address air quality issues will be supported in principle.
993 Braunton Parish Council has undertaken public consultation on the issue which has indicated general support in the community for a by-pass to the south of the village as a potential longer-term option. Additional wording is proposed to paragraph 10.156 to recognise the local support for a by-pass although there is concern that any scheme is unlikely to be deliverable without identified capital funding streams. A route through the Great Field would have an adverse impact on its historic integrity. If the Air Quality Management Plan favours this approach then its deliverability and funding would need to be clarified.
Policy BRA03: Local Green Space
Summary of Key Issues
994 Comments made in response to Policy BRA03 including supporting text:
Number of responses 13
Number of responses in support 5
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Number of responses in objection 1
Number of responses providing a general comment 5
Table 5.70
General support for the designation of a local green space and the desire to protect the medieval field strips on Braunton Great Field A distinction needs to be made between the critically important area of open great field and the surrounding remaining buffer zone of the enclosed field system Support the inclusion of further green spaces in the village to be protected, for example the green space in the centre of Braunton Support recognition of the need to not increase flood risk and any new development could improve opportunities to reduce flood risk (EA) Any development on this area would increase the risk of flooding and the open aspect of the area would be eroded (x5) Protection of the area will preserve the distinct character of the two settlements Encourage the use of the land for a wetland area with additional wildlife and plants
Other Key Issues identified
The area south of Exeter Road, adjacent to the existing roundabout, has been proposed for housing in order to deliver a BMX track, but forms part of the local green space within BRA03. Most of this land is at risk of flooding so residential development would be unacceptable here (see comments above – Policy BRA: Braunton and Wrafton Spatial Strategy).
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 263 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Officer Comments and Recommendations
995 Braunton Great Field is not subject to any statutory protection or heritage designation but it is nationally important as one of the few remaining medieval open field systems, although its historical context is vulnerable to the amalgamation of individual strips and loss of baulks and headstones. The informal designation of Braunton Great Field and associated field systems was proposed by DCC in June 2001. It appears on the County’s ‘Historic Environment Record’.
996 It is recognised by DCC that the Great Field includes ‘a number of less obviously ‘strippy’ enclosed fields on the fringes of the system as they represent aspects of its development, therefore the boundary could be refined if necessary’. DCC consider the north-western corner could be excluded from the area protected by Policy BRA03(2) since this area has been compromised by Broadlands Farm, the two dwellings and the erection of a new agricultural building (see Plan).
997 Advice has been sought from DCC (archaeology) as to whether a distinction could or should be to be made between the central area of open great field system and the surrounding buffer zone of the enclosed field system. Stephen Reed, the County archaeologist states ‘The area protected by current Policy BRA1 (adopted Local Plan 2006) and proposed Policy BRA03 is effectively the last remaining vestiges of this open-field and includes fields on its fringes that were formed by the enclosure of former open strips. These enclosed fields are of a later medieval date than the open field and, lying within the area protected by Policy BRA1, form part of the setting of the open field as well as being historic assets in their own right. The area defined in the Policy is an area defined by the B3231 to the north, Moor Lane to the west, the existing built development on the north-eastern edge, Field Lane to the east and the un-named lane running between Velator and Sandy Lane to the west and represents the area still farmed as an open-field as well as fields formed by the enclosure of former open strips. The Historic Environment Team would have grave concerns about reducing the protected area of the Great Field’. Apart from the changes proposed above around Broadlands Farm, no further changes to the designation of Braunton Great Field are proposed.
998 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 and the designation should only be used where:
1. the green space is in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves; 2. 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 3. the green area concerned is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.
999 Both the Great Field and land between Braunton and Wrafton meet these requirements. In view of the above criteria, consideration could be given to safeguarding the existing playing fields in the centre of Braunton as an additional area of local green space if its local significance can be demonstrated.
1000 General support for the designation of the local green space is noted. The importance of the land between Braunton and Wrafton is recognised in terms of providing an area for flood water storage from Knowl Water that could be utilised as a wetland area, whilst its open aspect defines the separation between Braunton and Wrafton. The local plan makes it clear that any new buildings or structures should share or improve existing facilities at the athletics track or Community College or be sited to minimise their visual impact. The local plan does not specifically propose a BMX track within the local green space (BRA03) but it does recognise that through local consultation there is a deficiency of
264 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
facilities for young people, including an identified need for a BMX track. Proposals for a BMX track in an appropriate location will be supported in principle where it has good accessibility from the Tarka Trail.
Rejected Options
Summary of Key Issues
1001 Comments made in response to the rejected options:
Number of responses 1
Number of responses in support 0
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 1
Number of responses providing a general comment 0
Table 5.71
The Plan should not reject the idea of an alternative route to the south of the village.
Other Key Issues identified
There were no other key issues raised.
Officer Comments and Recommendations
It is considered this issue have been addressed above within the sections on ‘The Village Centre’ and the Braunton and Wrafton Spatial Strategy
MAP CHANGES
Summary of Key Issues
1002 Comments made in response to the Policies Maps for Braunton and Wrafton (Figure 15.4) propose amendments to allocated sites and/or the development boundary. Many of the promoted sites have more detailed commentary in the Braunton and Wrafton Spatial Strategy section above.
Site Address Rep No. SHLAA Proposed Change to Officer Response No. Allocation or Development Boundary
Land at dlp363 HPU/095 extend development Reject – Policy BRA01 already Chivenor boundary and housing supports strategic housing & (north of HPU/415 allocation employment south of the A361. A361) Additional housing to north would HPU/471 erode rural gap between Heanton Punchardon & Chivenor, not well HPU/475 related to Braunton and Wrafton
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 265 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Land off dlp621 BRA/100 extend development Reject – adverse flood risk, loss of Exeter Road boundary to include strategic green space (BRA03), part of local green access constraints and eroding the space undeveloped gap between Braunton and Wrafton
Land off dlp2743 ~ extend development Reject – inadequate vehicular Boode Road boundary and housing access, limited capacity of road allocation junction at Church Street and North Down Road, and further impact on air quality
Land adj. dlp3959 extends development Reject – unsuitable access along Apsley boundary Ash Road Terrace, Ash Road
Land east of dlp2399 BRA/108 extend development Potentially Accept – site is South Park boundary and housing relatively well related to Braunton dlp3930 allocation and outside areas at flood risk dlp3932
Land off dlp3953 BRA/087 extend development Potentially Accept – sites are Down Lane & boundary and housing relatively well related to Braunton, dlp3958 BRA/403 allocations but substantial highway capacity concerns at Down Lane junction and end of Higher Park Road
Land at dlp1516 ~ propose allocation for Reject – Plan would support an Velator wildlife an wetland area for wildfowl and wetlands to park enhance biodiversity & GI, but unnecessary to allocate site
Table 5.72
Officer Comments and Recommendations
1003 A number of proposed changes to the Policies map for Braunton and Wrafton were promoted, as set out in the table above. The location of these proposed map changes are shown on the Map attached to this report, with Officer commentary on the issues for each promoted site set out below. Additional comments are set out towards the start of this report as a response to representations on the Braunton and Wrafton Spatial Strategy.
1004 Further linear development east of Chivenor would project development along the A361 into the countryside away from local services and facilities. The extended site north of the A361 will erode the rural gap between Chivenor and Heanton Punchardon. There is no justification for extending the proposed development of Policy BRA01 over this area (north of A361), which is not as self-contained as the site to the south of the A361 (Policy BRA01) and does not deliver any employment opportunities.
266 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1005 Land southwest of Exeter Road is allocated as a local green space (Policy BRA03) for sports and recreational facilities and to protect its open character. The site is predominantly flood zones 2 and 3 where housing would be inappropriate, as well as adversely impacting on the open setting of the area. An amendment to the development boundary to facilitate residential development here is not justified.
1006 The proposed boundary change on land south of Boode Road is located on the north-eastern fringes of Braunton, not particularly well related to the existing development form. Vehicular access to the site off single-width Boode Road / Ash Road is inadequate and could not accommodate an increased level of traffic movements without major highway improvements. An amendment to the development boundary here is considered inappropriate.
1007 Land adjacent to Apsley Terrace, Ash Road is located on the north-eastern edge of Braunton adjacent to a terrace of seven houses. Vehicular access to the site off Ash Road is a single width carriageway, is inadequate and could not accommodate any increased level of traffic movements without major highway works. An amendment to the development boundary here is considered inappropriate.
1008 Land east of South Park is well related to existing housing development and provides a logical extension to South Park. The site is not liable to flooding and there are no fundamental constraints to this site being allocated and included within a revised development boundary if additional housing is required for Braunton and Wrafton.
1009 Two sites off Down Lane adjoin existing housing development and provide an opportunity for additional housing on a prominent hillside above the village. However, there are potential landscape impacts and access constraints from Down Lane and at the junction with Higher Park Road. If required, the site could be included within a revised development boundary if additional housing is required for Braunton and Wrafton.
1010 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 South West Coast Path 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 ST16: Sustainable Tourism, DM14: Tourism and Leisure Attractions and DM15: Tourism Accommodation. The general principle of the proposal is supported and it would be acceptable under existing policies without needing the site to be formally allocated. No map changes are considered necessary, although the proposal could be referenced in the ‘green infrastructure’ section within paragraph 10.161.
Agreed Actions
1. Amend the spatial strategy to recognise the need within Braunton and Wrafton for increased early years provision. 2. Update Table 10.5 to include completions and commitments from April 2012 to March 2013. 3. Amend paragraphs 4.5 and 4.26 (in Spatial Strategy section) to clarify that the strategy for Braunton and Wrafton is for growth achieved through employment-led development. 4. Add supporting text in ‘The Future’ to recognise adverse harm on water quality and existing fish stocks from current agricultural practices and water industry discharge in to the River’s Caen and Knowl Water. There should also be cross-reference to Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 267 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
5. Amend Policy BRA01 to clarify an employment requirement of 18 hectares (rather than 20 hectares), which is consistent with the supporting text. 6. Amend Policy BRA01(3b) and paragraph 10.150 to refer to a proposed ‘park and change’ facility rather than just a car park for clarity and for consistency with paragraph 10.145. 7. Add a reference in paragraph 10.156 to Braunton’s Air Quality Action Plan and its recommended actions to address air quality issues. Add text to recognise there is local support for a by-pass to the south of the village to address the air quality issues in Braunton village centre but querying its deliverability without specifying a proposed route. 8. Amend Figures 10.4 and 15.4 (Policies Map) to show a reduced area for the Great Field under Policy BRA03(2) by excluding land around Broadlands Farm. 9. Include the Recreation Ground as a local green space under Policy BRA03, provided that its local significance can be demonstrated. 10. Amend paragraph 10.158 to recognise any distinction between the central area of open great field system and the surrounding buffer zone of the enclosed field system, if confirmed by heritage officers at DCC. 11. Amend paragraph 10.161 to support the principle of creating a wildfowl and wetland area at Velator to enhance green infrastructure, local biodiversity and tourism/leisure opportunities. 12. Amend paragraph 10.159 to recognise need for additional playing pitches. 13. Prioritise thesites adjoining South Park and Down Lane as the preferred housing sites in case additional housing is required in Braunton and Wrafton. Town Strategies: Fremington and Yelland
FREMINGTON and YELLAND – Chapter 10
Total number of responses 47
Total number of responses in support 5
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 7
Total number of responses in objection 26
including total number of additional housing sites 4
Total number of responses providing a general comment 9
Table 5.73
Policy FRE: Fremington and Yelland Spatial Strategy
Summary of Key Issues
1011 Comments made in response to Policy FRE: Fremington and Yelland Spatial Strategy, including supporting text regarding The Place, Evidence, The Future, The Development Strategy and Development Proposals;
Number of responses 20
268 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Number of responses in objection 14
Number of responses providing a general comment 3
Table 5.74
Support the delivery of superfast broadband to Fremington and Yelland Support for the continued recognition to redevelop the former army camp Support in principle the re-development of Yelland Quay for water compatible employment uses (cross refer to Policy FRE02) whilst assuming this encompasses the transportation of goods including minerals as an alternative to Bideford / Appledore if they were to become unavailable (DCC) Support for the Proposals Map (Figure 15.5) as it is important to keep the Tarka Trail free from development. Also support for the land between Lower Yelland Farm and Yelland Quay not being proposed for development
There is limited opportunity to improve Cedars roundabout. There are wider traffic congestion issues that the Plan is seeking to address (DCC) Further development along the main road through Fremington will increase pressure on the Cedars roundabout and therefore should contribute to increasing its capacity or provide an alternative link to the A39 The aspiration for superfast broadband is recognised but should not be considered a policy requirement, as delivery is dependent on a third party Existing community facilities are at capacity so would question how these would be improved to meet the proposed growth Any education funding obtained from the development at Fremington Army Camp should be ring-fenced to facilitate improvements and increase capacity at the existing Fremington School. Any works to the school should be started at the same time as the army camp development so contributions should be paid upfront
The proposed housing numbers in the strategy do not correspond with the table that requires about 370 dwellings but strategy states 550; the wording is misleading (x2) It is unclear from the document as to how many houses could potentially be built in Fremington / Yelland The Plan fails to deliver sufficient housing land in Fremington / Yelland and does not provide the flexibility to deal with issues surrounding the delivery of sufficient housing across the Plan There is too much emphasis on delivering housing in Fremington whilst not recognising the opportunities in West Yelland in order to create a balance of sustainable growth between Fremington and Yelland Development at West Yelland can help meet community aspirations and needs for the future and deliver a substantial mixed-use sustainable development The Plan for Fremington and Yelland is too reliant on delivering the housing need within the former army camp site where there is clear local opposition, particularly to the proposed access Fremington should be treated as part of "greater Barnstaple", and appropriate further allocations made at Fremington now rather than later. Policy FRE is neither effective nor justified
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 269 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Support in principle the designation of local green space north of Yelland Road (cross refer to Policy FRE03) but would wish to promote additional housing land east of Chilpark as a natural extension to the existing estate and to ensure public ownership of green space and provide opportunity for retained / improved links to Tarka Trail including a car park, sport pitch and community centre (see plan) Additional mixed-use site proposed on land at West Yelland by amending the existing development boundary (see plan) Additional housing site proposed off Barn Park Road by amending the existing development boundary (see plan) Additional housing site proposed off Allenstyle Way / Allenstyle Road by amending the existing development boundary (see plan) Additional housing site proposed at Gibb’s Plantation, Yelland Road by amending the existing development boundary (see plan)
Other Key Issues identified
A full planning application at Fremington Army Camp (53147) for 277 dwellings with associated public open space, affordable housing, recreational facilities, landscaping and access following the demolition of existing buildings was allowed on appeal (July 2013). Table 10.6 can be updated to a 31 March 2013 base date to show commitments overt the last year
Officer Comments
1012 There is some support for the Fremington and Yelland spatial strategy including the delivery of superfast broadband. There are some concerns expressed that superfast broadband should not be a policy requirement because a utility provider carrying out the required works is outside of the Plan’s control. Whilst policy cannot deliver superfast broadband the Plan can recognise the need to deliver such infrastructure and inform the infrastructure delivery plan to help ensure its delivery.
1013 There is support for the re-development of Yelland Quay and for the proposed local green space. All representations relevant to these proposals are considered under Policies FRE02 and FRE03.
1014 The spatial strategy recognises that further development along the highway corridor (B3233) between Bideford and Barnstaple will put pressure on the strategic road network, including Cedars roundabout and Bickington. Traffic management measures and infrastructure improvements will be required to improve connectivity to Barnstaple to address this issue, which is addressed in more detail within comments to the draft Barnstaple town strategy.
1015 It also requires social and community facilities to support new development such as increased capacity at the school and doctor’s surgery. It is implicit in Policy ST22 that developments will be expected to provide or contribute toward the timely provision of physical and social infrastructure although it is considered unreasonable for a development to make significant upfront payments before houses are sold since this could undermine viability.
1016 The Plan states at Table 10.6 that the proposed housing supply for Fremington and Yelland over the period 2011 to 2031 is 370 dwellings. However, it is accepted that the proposed housing requirement in Policy FRE could imply a housing growth of 920 dwellings (by adding criteria a, b and c together). To avoid confusion, the strategy should be clarified so that criteria (a) corresponds with
270 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Table 10.6, and includes criteria (b) and (c) that could be amalgamated in order to avoid potential double counting. Table 10.6 should also be updated to include completions and commitments from April 2012 to March 2013.
1017 Fremington and Yelland is identified as a Local Centre where Policy ST06 will permit appropriately scaled new development to meet the needs of the local community and wider rural area. The villages have a number of strategic sites, including two of the largest previously developed sites in North Devon, which is why it warranted site specific allocations. In terms of a growth strategy, Fremington and Yelland is proposed to deliver about 19% growth over the plan period, in contrast the other recognised Local Centres in the Plan will deliver at least 10% growth over the plan period.
1018 Planning permission has now been granted on appeal at the Fremington Army Camp (reference 53147). Therefore, the delivery of 370 dwellings in the Local Centre of Fremington and Yelland is considered deliverable and sufficient to meet the majority of the local community’s needs and aspirations over the Plan period through the development of this site.
1019 It is accepted that in the previous Core Strategy, West Yelland was considered an option for growth in order to help meet some of Barnstaple’s needs required by the draft RSS for the South West (a housing requirement of 10,900 in North Devon), which was an excessively high requirement for the greater Barnstaple area. 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 2012 SHMA update has indicated a new housing target for North Devon of approximately 8,400 homes over the Plan period. Overall housing numbers and distribution are addressed through comments to Policy ST07, which will identify the appropriate level of growth for each main town.
1020 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. West Yelland growth, which was previously proposed through the draft Core Strategy, could facilitate Yelland becoming more sustainable by delivering new facilities. The overall strategy for Fremington and Yelland is in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which underpins the NPPF.
1021 A number of alternative and additional sites were promoted as part of the spatial strategy, which is listed towards the end of this report. The location of these sites is shown on the Map attached to this report. Officer commentary on the issues for each promoted site is set out below.
1022 The site promoted on land east of Chilpark has been considered as part of the SHLAA process (SHA/FRE/149). The SHLAA stakeholder panel concluded ‘the site was developable but with a total capacity of about 88 units with vehicular access through the existing estate road of Chilpark’. A draft masterplan for the site includes housing, community facilities, wildlife habitat and improved links to the Tarka Trail. The supporting text to Policy FRE03 (Local Green Space) recognises that in order to achieve this strategic public open space on the southern side of the River Taw then some development may be required to release the land and fund delivery, and development at Chilpark could provide this opportunity.
1023 The site promoted off Allenstyle Way / Allenstyle Road has been considered as part of the SHLAA process (SHA/FRE/150). The SHLAA stakeholder panel considered the site to be developable. A planning application received on this site (54910) was refused by the Council on 12th November 2012 and subsequently dismissed at appeal. The proposal comprised a housing development of 53 units including 11 affordable units. Whilst the Inspector had some concern with the potential impact on the surrounding countryside it would appear the main concern related to the insufficient provision of affordable housing. A further planning application has now been submitted (56054) for a housing
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 271 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
development of 53 units including 16 affordable units. The site is compatible with adjoining residential uses and access is potentially available off Allenstyle Road/Allenstyle Way. The eastern part of the site, adjacent to Allenstyle Wood should be protected from development in order to safeguard its biodiversity interest.
1024 The site promoted off Barn Park Road has been submitted as part of the SHLAA process (SHA/FRE/398), although it has yet to be considered by the SHLAA Panel. However, officers have assessed the site and consider it to be suitable, available and developable in principle. It could provide a further phase of Aspen Grove, possibly as an exception site. It must also be noted that the site forms part of Brakes Plantation tree preservation order but the landowner has an extant consent to fell this part of the woodland, which expires in 6th April 2014 and there is no guarantee the license will be renewed.
1025 The site promoted on land at West Yelland has been considered as part of the SHLAA process (SHA/FRE/151). The stakeholder panel concluded that the site was developable for about 480 dwellings at a net density of 30 dph, and could be developable in the long term (6-10) and (11-15) years. It was previously allocated in the draft Core Strategy including delivery of community facilities but excluded from the draft Local Plan. The spatial strategy indicates that the additional housing is best located in Fremington rather than Yelland due in part to it being considered a more sustainable location to accommodate the growth, meet the needs and aspirations of the local community and the availability of brownfield sites. If additional housing is required in Fremington and Yelland over and above the existing commitments then alternative sites could be considered to meet that need rather than considering a large urban extension to West Yelland which is less well related to existing community facilities.
1026 The site promoted at Gibb’s Plantation / 81 Yelland Road has been submitted as part of the SHLAA process (SHA/FRE/400) but has yet to be considered by the SHLAA Panel. However, the officer recommendation is that the land is not suitable for housing because the site cannot be accessed to accommodate the levels of traffic likely to be generated, with a single width junction on to B3233. Also, there is potential impact on the Allenstyle Wood County Wildlife Site and Tree Preservation Order.
1027 If there is need to identify additional housing land for Fremington and Yelland within the local plan then several of these sites are considered to be more realistic in terms of deliverability, achieving other community benefits as set out above and minimising environmental impacts:
East of Chilpark Allenstyle Way Barn Park Road
Policy FRE01: Fremington Army Camp
Summary of Key Issues
1028 Comments made in response to Policy FRE01 including supporting text:
Number of responses 15
Number of responses in support 2
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
272 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Number of responses in objection 8
Number of responses providing a general comment 3
Table 5.75
Support housing development on land at Fremington Army Camp, including affordable housing and improved links to the Tarka Trail as part of Policy FRE01 No objection in principle to Policy FRE01 subject to recognition within the policy to an assessment of the sites historic value such as ensuring the retention and setting of the listed buildings on site but also protecting the character of the conservation area (x2 including EH) The erection of 275 on the former army camp should be a minimum requirement to enable an increase in density whilst maintaining an efficient use of land Support for improvements to existing access along Military Road through the use of traffic management measures also to there being no requirement for a secondary access to serve the development Access cannot be delivered via Military Road as it is of insufficient width and works to the junction with the B3233 will have an adverse impact on the heritage assets. Also, there is no provision within the policy for a secondary access (x6) The housing allocation should provide on-site sport and recreation or make an off site contribution via S106 or CIL (SE) Contributions to the existing Fremington primary school will be required from the development of the army camp and from other developments in the village (DCC)
Other Key Issues identified
A full planning application at Fremington Army Camp (53147) for 277 dwellings with associated public open space, affordable housing, recreational facilities, landscaping and access following the demolition of existing buildings was refused by the Council but allowed on appeal (July 2013).
Officer Comments
1029 As planning permission has now been granted on this site for the erection of 277 dwellings including necessary infrastructure, open spaces and community facilities, the majority of representations to the draft local plan have now been resolved by the appeal decision. It is considered appropriate to retain the policy in case alternative or amended applications are submitted.
1030 It would be appropriate to strengthen the policy 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 ST12 (Conserving Heritage Assets) could also be added.
1031 Notwithstanding the recent appeal decision, a suitable alternative vehicular access to the site would be supported in principle. Paragraph 10.175 could be amended to recognise this.
Policy FRE02: Yelland Quay
Summary of Key Issues
1032 Comments made in response to Policy FRE02 including supporting text:
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 273 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Number of responses 6
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Number of responses in objection 3
Number of responses providing a general comment 0
Table 5.76
Supports the policy for Yelland Quay (EA) Support allocation south of Tarka Trail but consider that it should not be restricted to businesses to support employment uses on Yelland Quay. Would seek a change to the wording ‘opportunities for growth of higher value sectors of the northern Devon economy, which may include businesses to support employment uses on Yelland Quay’ General support for the policy but would object to the supporting text that would indicate support for recreational uses requiring a waterside location as such uses will create disturbance to the estuary and nature The ash beds should not be considered as part of the ‘developed coast and estuary’; Policy ST09 will allow for this area to be developed Promotion of the site for a waste to energy plant, green / renewable energy research and development business hub and electric transport hub (see Plan) (x2)
Other Key Issues identified
Early indications from the updated ‘Employment Land Review’ highlights that the Plan has an over provision of employment land to meet the anticipated demand. The implications of this will be considered under Policies ST07 and ST14 but ELR recommendations could have implications for this site.
Officer Comments
1033 There is general support for the re-development of the Yelland Quay site, north and south of the Tarka Trail subject to the following issues being considered. There is some concern the site south of the Tarka Trail will only allow business uses that support the growth of higher value sectors on Yelland Quay. However, the current wording of criterion (a) does not restrict the site to only uses solely to support employment uses on Yelland Quay but it allows opportunities for growth of higher value sectors of the northern Devon economy, including businesses to support employment uses on Yelland Quay; it does not exclude uses that do not support employment on Yelland Quay.
1034 There is also concern the supporting text would allow water sports within the estuary, providing the opportunities for employment uses requiring a waterside location are not compromised. The designation of the estuary as a SSSI ‘is of national importance for the large numbers of wildfowl and waders that use the estuary, and adjacent land, particularly in winter and on migration in spring and summer. For a few species, the site is of international importance’. It is accepted that some water sports may have an adverse impact on the ecology of the area and the wording of the supporting text could reflect the importance of the SSSI designation and clarify the special qualities of the local
274 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
environment. The estuary currently has open access and cannot be controlled through the planning system so ‘appropriate’ water sports in this location cannot be defined. It is accepted the policy should clarify that any new buildings should be directed towards the site of the former power station and the former ash beds should be protected as an open space. This should also be clarified in Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy.
1035 The potential oversupply of employment land across northern Devon, as set out in Policy ST07 warrants a potential reduction in overall provision. Land at Yelland Quay and south of the Tarka Trail is well related to the existing quay and the site is identified to in the South West Marine Energy Park prospectus as “well located to act as an operation and maintenance base for marine renewable energy”. The strategic importance and potential for this site and adjoining land justify retention of proposed employment land in Policy FRE02(2).
1036 The site has been promoted for an alternative use as a waste to energy plant, green / renewable energy research and development business hub and electric transport hub. Paragraph 97 of NPPF encourages LPAs to consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the development of such sources.
1037 The renewable industry is a growing economy, and in January 2012, the South West was launched as a ‘Marine Energy Park’ that will ‘provide a focus for industry and investment to generate jobs and business opportunities for the regional economy’ within this particular sector. The South West Marine Energy Park prospectus (May 2013) also recognises ‘Yelland is well located to act as an operation and maintenance base for marine renewable energy deployment all along the northern coast of the peninsular. There are detailed plans in place for redevelopment at the site of the old Yelland power station, where there is over 14 ha of available brownfield land and a grid connection through its existing substation. There are further opportunities to expand and to tailor the existing site to service the O&M needs of the Atlantic Array and other marine energy developments’.
1038 The supporting text within FRE02 also recognises that the site could ‘accommodate a development for employment uses, energy generation or infrastructure provision requiring a waterside location for access to the sea and/or water supply’. The existing policy wording would support the proposed use in principle if it requires a waterside location, although the policy could refer more explicitly to energy generation. Alternatively, land in flood zone 1 to the south of the Tarka Trail or elsewhere in northern Devon may be more suitable site to deliver a waste to energy plant, green / renewable energy research and development business hub which is not a water compatible use or does not require a waterside location. However, such energy generation is not being encouraged here and no policy changes are proposed.
1039 The former ash beds are considered to have important biodiversity value whilst contributing to the wider green infrastructure along the Taw estuary. Paragraph 10.180 could be amended to recognise this.
1040 Policy FRE03: Local Green Space
Summary of Key Issues
1041 Comments made in response to Policy FRE03 including supporting text:
Number of responses 5
Number of responses in support 1
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 275 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Number of responses in objection 1
Number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.77
Supports the policy (EA) Supports the policy to create an area of Local Green Space but considers the land adjacent Chilpark should be allocated for housing and community infrastructure (see comments above). The reference to the creation of a ‘Local Green Space’ may require development needs clarification New outdoor recreation and leisure opportunities need to be defined Would question what is meant by a strategic open space to the south of the River Taw
Other Key Issues identified
There were no other key issues raised for inclusion within the policy for Local Green Space
Officer Comments
1042 There is general support for the inclusion within the Plan for the creation of a strategic green space south of the River Taw. Comments relating to the potential for housing and community infrastructure on land at Chilpark to help deliver this local green space have been discussed in detail above as representations to the Fremington and Yelland spatial strategy.
1043 It is not considered necessary for the Plan to identify in detail the specific requirements of the new formal outdoor recreation and leisure facilities. Flexibility provides the opportunity for the local community to identify and deliver what is required for Fremington and Yelland at the time. However, the local green space should create opportunities for habitat creation and provide additional pedestrian and cycle links between the village and the Tarka Trail (as set out in the policy) in accordance with the NPPF (paragraph 77).
1044 The supporting text recognises that there may be a requirement to deliver some development as part of the proposal in order to achieve the strategic public open space. It is implied that additional development will be required over and above that which is already allocated in the Plan. However, the Plan is not specific about the level or location of development and supporting text would be required to further clarify this matter. Without facilitating development (such as at Chilpark), the delivery of this local greenspace is unlikely to happen and if the proposal is undeliverable then the policy should be deleted.
1045 However, agricultural land between the Tarka Trail and Yelland and land north of the Tarka Trail alongside the estuary provide an important landscape and environmental buffer between the village and the estuary, which should be recognised and protected through an amendment to criterion (e) in the spatial strategy (Policy FRE).
Rejected Options
276 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Summary of Key Issues
1046 Comments made in response to the rejected options:
Number of responses 2
Number of responses in support 0
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 1
Number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.78
Clarification is needed as to what is meant by the phrase ‘Fremington already has relatively high levels of growth proposed for a local centre’. Fremington and Yelland should not be considered as a local centre but still seen as a main centre that should deliver some of Barnstaple’s growth. Yelland has the opportunity to meet the needs of Barnstaple as well as West Yelland and Fremington.
Officer Comments
1047 It is considered these issues have already been addressed above in response to representations to Policy FRE: Fremington and Yelland Spatial Strategy.
MAP CHANGES
Summary of Key Issues
1048 Comments made in response to the Policies Maps for Fremington and Yelland (Figure 15.5) propose amendments to allocated sites and/or the development boundary. Many of the promoted sites have more detailed commentary in the Fremington and Yelland Spatial Strategy section above.
Site Address Rep No. SHLAA Proposed Change to Officer Response No. Allocation or Development Boundary
Land at Gibb’s dlp1490 FRE400 extends development Reject – adverse impact on Plantation, boundary and/or Allenstyle Wood CWS and TPO and Yelland Road housing allocation unsuitable vehicular access
Yelland Quay dlp1938 FRE151 Already FRE02 Partially Accept – Policy would & 2228 support the site to accommodate energy generation but more specific reference could be made. No map change required
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 277 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Land at West dlp3787 FRE151 extends development Reject – not considered the most Yelland boundary and/or sustainable location to meet the housing allocation needs of the local community when other sites could be better suited if additional growth was needed
Land off dlp3938 FRE150 extends development Potentially Accept – is relatively Allenstyle boundary and/ or well related to Fremington and Road / Way housing allocation subject to current planning application
Land off Barn dlp3941 FRE398 extends development Reject – is relatively well related to Park Road boundary and/or Fremington and screened by housing allocation woodland but limited capacity and drainage issues
Land at dlp3942 FRE349 extends development Potentially Accept –is well related Chilpark boundary and/ or to Fremington, screened by housing allocation woodland from the estuary and could help to deliver the policy aspirations of FRE03
Table 5.79
Officer Comments
1049 The location of these proposed map changes are shown on the attached plan. The site known as Gibb’s Plantation forms part of the Allenstyle Wood county wildlife site and woodland TPO, which forms a key part of the green infrastructure within the area. The site in not deliverable and there is no justification for extending development over this area.
1050 The boundary change north of Yelland Road was previously proposed in the draft Core Strategy to deliver a strategic urban extension. However, more up to date evidence on housing need would determine that this site is no longer required to help meet Barnstaple’s need. If Fremington and Yelland require more housing over the plan period then more sustainable sites are considered to be available. This level of growth is not considered appropriate for Fremington and Yelland as a Local Centre and an amendment to the development boundary here is not justified.
1051 One proposed boundary change is on land south of Allenstyle Road / Allenstyle Way. Previous planning application submitted (54910) was dismissed at appeal, although an amended application has been submitted. There is no fundamental constraint to this site being included within a revised development boundary if additional housing is required for Fremington and Yelland. If the current planning application is approved then the development boundary should be extended to include this site.
1052 The proposed boundary change off Barn Park Road adjoins Aspen Grove that was granted planning permission for 37 local needs dwellings. This site provides the opportunity to extend this existing development subject to a suitable access being achieved, although there are drainage constraints. There is no fundamental constraint to this site being included within a revised development boundary if additional housing was required for Fremington and Yelland.
278 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1053 Land north of Chilpark provides the opportunity to deliver community infrastructure including improved pedestrian / cycle linkages to the Tarka Trail and the assisted delivery of the proposed Local Green Space north of Yelland Road (Policy FRE03). This site could be included within a revised development boundary if additional housing was required to deliver local green space for Fremington and Yelland.
1054 With the potential over supply of employment land to meet likely demand within the Plan, it is proposed that the allocation for Policy FRE02(2) be deleted in accordance with the attached plan.
Officer Recommendations
1. Clarify the proposed housing numbers for Fremington and Yelland in Policy FRE to avoid confusion and double counting so that it better reflects the total housing supply as set out within Table 10.6. Merge criterion (b) and (c) of Policy FRE. 2. Update Table 10.6 to include completions and commitments from April 2012 to March 2013. 3. Make an explicit reference in Policy FRE01 to recognise heritage assets and their setting and to enhance the historic environment. 4. Provide additional reasoned justification for Policy FRE02 to reflect the importance of the Taw-Torridge Estuary SSSI and clarify its special environmental characteristics. 5. Amend the supporting text to Policy FRE02 to clarify that any new buildings should be directed toward the site of the former power station and that the former ash beds should be protected as an open space. This should also be clarified in Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy. 6. Amend text supporting Policy FRE02 to support opportunities for renewable energy research and development business hub where compatible with potential flood risks. 7. Delete Policy FRE03 and paragraphs 10.181 to 10.183. 8. Delete FRE03 from Figures 10.5 and 15.5. 9. Amend text to clarify that this chapter and the housing requirements in the spatial strategy and Table 10.6 relate to the villages of Fremington and Yelland rather than to the parish of Fremington. 10. Amend paragraph 10.175 to indicate that a suitable alternative vehicular access to the Army Camp site would be supported in principle. 11. Amend paragraph 10.180 to recognise the biodiversity value of the former ash beds. 12. Amend development boundary to exclude the long gardens south of Yelland Road. 13. Amend development boundary on Figure 15.5 to include land adjoining Allenstyle Road / Way if the current planning application is approved.
Town Strategies: Great Torrington
GREAT TORRINGTON - Chapter 10
Total number of responses 76
Total number of responses in support 17
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 11
Total number of responses in objection 30
Total number of responses providing a general comment 18
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 279 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Total number of additional housing sites 6
Table 5.80
Policy GTT: Great Torrington Spatial Strategy
Summary of Key Issues
1055 Comments made in response to Policy GTT: Great Torrington Spatial Strategy, including supporting text regarding The Place, Evidence, The Future, The Development Strategy and Development Proposals:
Number of responses 15
Number of responses in support 2
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 3
Number of responses in objection 5
Number of responses providing a general comment 5
Table 5.81
Support the overall approach and the scale of residential development subject to the application of flexibility in response to windfall schemes within the development boundary. (1612)
Support the inclusion of SUDS. (2542 (EA))
Support identification of Dartington Crystal as one of the town’s main tourist attractions (1612)
No recognition of the employment area to the north of the town. (776)
Overall approach ill-considered, not NPPF compliant or reflective of the SHLAA, residential and employment sites are distant from the centre and fails to bring forward regeneration/redevelopment opportunities, particularly the former creamery and meat processing factory sites. (708)
Focus development in locations with a closer proximity to the town centre and increase housing and employment yield. (709)
Provide for off-road parking to enable traffic to flow freely on major through routes. (1625 (Peters Marland PC))
Reference the need for enhanced education infrastructure; contributions are anticipated to be required for education and early years provision to mitigate development impacts. Population growth will result in a deficiency of school places. (2863 (DCC)) (3209)
Absence of a reference to the Children’s Centre which is an integral element of education provision, forming part of the continuum of learning. (3207)
Question as to whether the limited scale of housing and economic growth is sufficient to meet the towns future needs, or will relocation and out commuting result. (3210)
280 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Support provided for the identified future function of the town and the scale of growth planned. (456)
Support for small scale housing development, with priority being given to previously developed sites. (459)
Housing levels considered too high. (461) (462)
Provision should be made for small scale business units. (461)
Regeneration of the former Creamery site on the proposed basis unlikely without grant aid. (461)
A holistic approach is required to sustain services and a the vitality of the community; increasing affordable housing and employment skills are local priorities, together with securing and improving the town centre function which is vital for tourism. Questions if the scale of housing development is sufficient to support the town centre or meet housing needs. (777)
To support the town’s tourism role a site for a hotel should be defined as a priority [no site is proposed]. (777)
Criteria (f) make explicit reference to the historic environment and Conservation Area; the strategy should ask "how can these areas beneficially address the Conservation Areas at Risk?" (2576 (EH))
The Water Framework Directive here fails for Phytobenthos and Macrophytes (attributed to diffuse agricultural inputs). A population increase of about 20% could result from planned development. (2541 (EA))
The area opposite Mill Street, above the Leper Fields should be protected; it is a valuable tourist attraction. (3603)
Focus job creation on the town centre, encourage usage and investment and former employment sites, the former creamery and meat processing plant must be subject to regeneration proposals. (4048)
Inadequate recreation provision for the town. (4050)
The sewerage system, which is under capacity should be upgraded before any new development occurs. (3536)
Officer Comments
1056 A limited number of comments were received in response to the Great Torrington Spatial Strategy. There was no consensus of view received in relation to the strategy with a balance between the number of representations received in support and those registering objections.
1057 The comments in support of the strategy and individual components of it are noted. It is possible to confirm that the Strategic and Development Management Policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan are drafted to enable appropriate windfall development to come forward within development boundaries. Such development is likely to contribute to an increased level of housing delivery and also provides an element of flexibility to ensure adequate delivery.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 281 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1058 Support for the tourism focus of the strategy is noted. This is a key aspect of the strategy and the importance tourism assets such as Dartington Crystal is recognised. The call for the identification of a site for hotel accommodation is noted. However, there are no identified proposals for such development known to the Council and as such it is not possible to allocate a site to facilitate delivery of such development within the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. The Strategic and Development Management Policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan, together with the Vision and Strategy for Great Torrington would enable appropriate proposals for hotel development to gain support if they are to come forward during the lifetime of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. Additionally, Policy GTT01 relating to the former creamery site has a focus on enabling leisure and recreation development and as such would support the delivery of a hotel.
1059 The support for SUDS is noted. Flood risk matters are also covered by National Planning Policy and also by the wider collection of Strategic and Development Management Policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. The comments relating to the failures in respect of the Water Framework Directive are also noted, however no change to the strategy is proposed on this basis.
1060 The calls to make explicit reference to the historic environment and Conservation Area in part (1)(f) of Policy GTT by English Heritage are noted and accepted. Enhancement of heritage assets and the Conservation Area is accepted as a key consideration and it is recognised that such action is also likely to contribute to the delivery of the Vision and spatial strategy by making the town more attractive to residents and visitors.
1061 The calls for the protection of the area opposite Mill Street above the Leper Fields are noted. If identified correctly, the area falls outside of the proposed development boundary and as such is considered as countryside where a general principle of development constraint is applied. As such, the area is afforded protection from significant built development which is likely to significantly impact on its character. It is also proposed to increase the coverage of the ‘sensitive areas’ identified on the key diagram (see below) to recognise that the hillside to the south of the town holds an important role in the setting and outlook from the town.
1062 The strategy places an importance upon job creation and the economy and comments related to it are noted. The importance of the town centre is recognised and the strategy supports the improvement and enhancement of the towns retail function to enable job creation and to ensure it meets the needs of tourists and residents. There are calls to make reference to the opportunities afforded by the former creamery (to the south west) and abattoir site (to the north) for employment use and these are noted. The former creamery site is addressed through Policy GTT01 which offers the opportunity for mixed use development which may incorporate employment development. It is recognised that the former abattoir site to the north of the town supports employment and offers the opportunity to deliver an enhanced employment offer. As such it is recommended that the site is recognised by explicit reference within Part (1)(d) of Policy GTT. The vision and strategy are intended to act as a catalyst for investment.
1063 A range of comments advocate that the sites identified for development are generally remote and do not take account of opportunities, suggesting that sites closer to the town centre should be identified. The selection of sites has been guided by evidence on land availability and suitability, having regard to the findings of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and also by reviewing the outcomes of community consultation and engagement. Torrington has limited identified development opportunities within the existing built form and opportunities for appropriate greenfield extensions to the town are limited by topography and environmental sensitivities. Where brownfield redevelopment opportunities exist, such as the former creamery and the former abattoir (subject to recommendation for inclusion) it is believed that they have been identified within the Plan and opportunities for development advocated. Greenfield site opportunities are generally limited to
282 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
the south or north and east of the settlement and the spatial strategy, based upon land availability and community engagement has favoured the north and east. As such, the sites selected for inclusion within the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan are considered the most appropriate selection to deliver the Vision for the settlement. The wider policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan are also considered to offer significant flexibility so that where possible development proposals are afforded support on unidentified sites, particularly within settlement development boundaries.
1064 The scale of housing and employment growth advocated through the strategy has received a mixed reaction with some suggesting that the proposed levels are too low and advocating an increase whilst others consider the growth levels to be too high. It was also questioned whether the level of growth proposed is likely to lead to increased levels of out commuting. In response it should be noted that the scale of growth has been established upon the basis of evidence of need and demand, having regard to evidence such as the Strategic Housing Market Assessment - North Devon and Torridge SHMA Update (Housing Vision, 2012) and the Torridge Urban Housing Needs Survey (JG Consulting, 2012). It has also had regard to the environmental and landscape constraints relating to the town along with community aspirations. Employment growth is also enabled with the identification of additional land for traditional employment development on the basis of reducing out communing to higher order settlements and increasing self containment and sufficiency.
1065 A call has been made to enable the delivery of off-road parking to enable traffic to flow freely on routes though out the town. There have been no proposals or sites identified to support such the delivery of such an approach and therefore it is not considered that there would be a realistic prospect of potential delivery through the Local Plan. Policy DM06 does require development proposals to provide an appropriate scale and range of parking provision to meet anticipated needs. As such, additional development within and around the town should not exacerbate any on-street parking issues.
1066 Devon County Council has sought recognition of the need for enhanced education provision, including early years provision within Torrington. Policy ST22: Infrastructure addresses the general need for development to provide or contribute towards generated infrastructure requirements. It is however considered appropriate to recognise within Policy GTT and supporting text that development in Torrington will generate a need for educational infrastructure improvements. Other respondents have highlighted the importance of Children’s Centre provision and this is noted although it is considered to be sufficiently addressed through the provisions of Policy ST22.
1067 A potential deficit in recreation provision in highlighted by a respondent. It is advocated that the town does not have an appropriate central park and that the strategy should address such a deficit. There are however no proposals, sites or strategies identified to support the delivery of a new central park for the town. As such, the proposal is not seen to be deliverable and could not be considered for inclusion within Local Plan. It should be noted that Policy DM08: Open Space Provision requires that development proposals provide adequate additional public open space and green infrastructure to meet the needs of the intended occupants. Furthermore, consultants commissioned on behalf of the Councils are currently undertaking a Green Infrastructure Study which will identify any deficits in provision and establish appropriate ‘standards’ to help secure the appropriate future delivery of provision.
1068 It is suggested that the strategy should enable provision of small scale employment units. This is reflected within Policy GTT02 which seeks the delivery of additional employment provision. In doing so it advocates that the development delivers ‘a mix of unit sizes to enable business start up and expansion’
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 283 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1069 The comment highlighting concerns that the sewerage system is under capacity and should be upgraded before any new development occurs is noted. South West Water has not however objected to the scale or distribution of planned development for the town. The Council will continue to work with South West Water to influence investment plans and affect any necessary capacity improvements.
1070 A range of matters are raised in relation to the former Creamery site and these are addressed with in response to Policy GTT01 (see below).
1071 The spatial strategy for Great Torrington is considered to be sound with no significant objections raised that are considered likely to jeopardise its deliverability. As such, only minor amendments are recommended.
Additional Points
1072 Housing land and dwelling completion information is now available with a 1st April 2013 base date which can be used to update and inform the scale of housing delivery, commitments and requirements.
Policy GTT01: The Former Creamery Site
Summary of Key Issues
1073 Comments made in response to Policy GTT01, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 19
Number of responses in support 2
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 4
Number of responses in objection 8
Number of responses providing a general comment 5
Table 5.82
Support for leisure and recreation uses, development should relate to the tranquil setting and access avoided from Rolle Road, which cannot be used for motor vehicles. (2115) (3539) (3541) Extend the GTT01 allocation, provide for comprehensive mixed-use development on an extended site and reflect in Figure 10.6. (1885) (627) (1892) Mill Street is not suitable as a primary access; harmful to the existing community, the historic fabric of the area and increase existing traffic nuisance and hazard. B3227 to the A386 and Limers Hill are proposed as an alternative access point. (463) (619)(654) (779 (Great Torrington TC)) (3373) (3602) Incentivise the regeneration of the former creamery site in preference to greenfield sites; a flexible approach is required to bring GTT01 forward, include measured to support grant added development, particularly for community/tourism use. (626) A flexible range of uses should be enabled on site, including housing and office development, without which viability issues will inhibit regeneration (628) The site is suitable for a range of leisure and associated uses the delivery of which would benefit the local community; local authority engagement is however required to bring the site forward. (779 Great Torrington TC))
284 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
In additional to leisure and recreation the site will support significant employment, have funding sources been pursed to bring forward realistic plans for the site. (3208) No demand or promotion of the leisure uses, question the viability and deliverability of such uses having regard to on site constraints relating to the need for extensive remediation and demolition of existing industrial buildings and significant flood risk coverage. Unsound rationale for proposed use which is not based on evidence of commercial viability, appropriateness or to meet an identified local need. (1890) (3239) Alternative allocation for residential led mixed use. An approach consistent with community aspirations to reduce pressure for greenfield site release that would better enable the town’s setting to be preserved and with the NPPF encouragement of making effective use of land, primarily previously developed land. Reflect an alternative land use proposal in Figure 10.6. (3241) (4051) (3240) Reference significant flood risk, as part of the functional flood plain to the southern element of the site. (2538 Environment Agency)) At paragraph 10.197 correct locational error in relation to the former creamery site. (2117)
Officer Comments
1074 Representations overwhelmingly support the policy approach and this is noted. There were however issues raised in relation to deliverability of leisure and recreational focused development proposals and these concerns are noted. The reuse of the site for leisure and recreation provision is a community led approach arrived at through a range of engagement activities to support the preparation of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. However, it is recognised that the site is likely to be subject to significant remediation and clearance costs to enable redevelopment. This is recognised within the policy, whereby the site is allocated for mixed use development. It is considered that there may be some legitimacy to the concerns raised over the viability of the proposal as drafted.
1075 Representations have cited a lack of evidence supporting a demand for leisure uses and hence question the justification for development of such uses on the site. This is noted. Leisure is a strong thread running through the strategy and vision for the town, linked to the aim to ‘Enhance and promote Great Torrington through tourism and leisure utilising its unique cultural heritage as well as the natural environment. The proposals for leisure uses have been community led and been established through engagement with the community, its representatives and other stakeholders. The North Devon and Torridge Local Plan has been founded following the spirit of Localism and as such, community aspirations have been offered significant weight. The former creamery site offers a significant opportunity to contribute towards the delivery of the vision for Great Torrington and as such the policy seeks to enable development that delivers leisure and recreation opportunities. The Policy recognises however that leisure uses are only likely to be one of a mix of uses to be delivered as part of a comprehensive site development package.
1076 Alternative proposals are advocated through a range of representations. These include calls for a more flexible approach to the mix of uses, proposals for residential led development and incorporation of employment based development. It is recognised that the site offers the opportunity to deliver a range of development uses, including all of those advocated above. It is proposed that economic development is additionally included as a preferred on site use, having regard to the potential loss of an economic asset and the relationship of adjacent employment uses. In considering proposals, the relationship of new to existing uses will require careful management to avoid conflict and threat to the continued operation of established business. Paragraph 10.199 provides for the safeguarding of employment uses within and adjoining the site.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 285 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1077 The policy identifies the opportunity to deliver a mixed use development and paragraph 10.198 recognises that it may be necessary for the site to deliver some more profitable uses as enabling development such as housing. In doing so, it is recognised that the site will potentially make a contribution towards housing delivery to meet the needs of the town. It is not however considered appropriate to afford the site a potential housing yield because it is the intention that the housing component of any proposal should be minimised and only incorporated to secure development viability.
1078 The concerns about the viability of delivering a mixed use proposal ‘focused on the delivery of leisure and recreation’ development are noted. It is recognised that the site is subject to significant constraints including flood risk and potentially high development costs associated to demolition and remediation. As such it is recognised that some high value development is likely to be required to enable comprehensive redevelopment.
1079 The policy is drafted in such a manner as to enable a flexible approach to be taken towards the mix of uses delivered on site to help ensure that development is achievable and deliverable. To ensure a continued focus on recreation and leisure, with the additional of economic development, it is proposed that a reference is added within the supporting text to advocate that the development proposals should seek to maximise opportunities for leisure, recreation and economic development provisions in line with the aspirations of the spatial vision. It is also recommended that the supporting text is amended to recognise that an element of housing development may be appropriate on the site as part of a mixed use development to facilitate delivery.
1080 An additional parcel of land to the north-west of the existing allocation, extending to approximately 2.1 hectares is promoted as an extension to the existing allocation (see Alternative and Additional Development Sites below). The proposed extension is currently poor quality, under-used greenfield land. It is considered that the inclusion of this additional parcel of land within the allocation should be supported as it will enable more flexibility to be applied to the redevelopment of the site and also be likely to enhance the viability of delivery. As such, it is recommended that this parcel is brought within the scope of an extended Policy GTT01.
1081 The identification of flood risk on southern portion of site is noted and development proposals will need to respond to the constraints imposed. Issue of flood risk are covered by National Planning Policy and by other Strategic and Development Management Policies within the Local Plan. As such, it is not considered necessary to make any specific reference within the policy. However, a reference within the supporting text could be afforded for clarity.
1082 The comment on the need for development to reflect the tranquil setting of the site is noted although no change to the policy or supporting text is considered necessary, with such matters afforded consideration through the Strategic and Development Management Policies of the Plan.
1083 A representation was received that advocated that access should not be from Mill Road. This is a drafting error and access was always intended to be off of B3227. As such, it is recommended that this drafting error is corrected. The comment noting that Rolle Road is not appropriate for providing highway access is noted although no change to the policy or supporting text is advocated.
1084 An error is highlighted in relation to paragraph 10.197 whereby the locational reference for the creamery is incorrect. This is a drafting error and it is recommended that the paragraph is redrafted to indicate that the site lies to the south west and not south east of the town.
286 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1085 A range of respondents advocate that public funding is likely to be required to enable delivery of the site, or that it should be pursued to support development. It is not considered necessary to make reference to such matters within the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan although it is recognised that such a course of action may be beneficial and could potential enable delivery or enhance the package of development that could be delivered on the site.
Additional Points
1086 Additional parcel of land promoted for inclusion within allocation (see consideration of Alternative and Additional Development Sites below).
1087 It is recommended that an additional element is added to the Policy to require the site to be redeveloped on a comprehensive basis. Whilst considered unlikely, this is proposed to safeguard against the site being developed on a piecemeal basis with more developable elements being developed in lieu of the less development elements.
Policy GTT02: East of Hatchmoor
Summary of Key Issues
1088 Comments made in response to Policy GTT02, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 4
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Number of responses in objection 2
Number of responses providing a general comment 0
Table 5.83
Preserve part of the allocation for business start ups (464) The site contributes to a pleasant approach to the town which would be lost if developed and consequently have a prejudicial impact on tourism activity in the town. Quality agricultural land would also be lost and surface water run off to the B3227 would be exacerbated. (518) Policy support, the site integrates well with the existing employments area; the proximity of the nursing home should not prejudice potential activities, or future development negatively impact on the nursing home. (780 (GTTC)) Objection to the site: extend the linear nature of the settlement, which does not assist in the creation of a cohesive or sustainable community, Existing development provide a natural “end point”, the site is open and important to the setting of the town acting as a rural gateway that supports the town’s tourism role. A Defra level 3 site, justification required for such a loss for employment when viable and preferable options exist. No justification to support the loss of the playing pitch allocation, in the absence of a needs assessment. There are few suitable options for playing pitches/recreation in Torrington. The site is of archaeologically significant from the 1646 civil war ‘Battle of Hatchmoor’, a sequential test is required to justify employment use. The site is poorly located to the wider transport network and access via B3227/Umberleigh/South Molton is not appropriate. The allocation of GTT02 is not based on evidence, in the absence of an Employment Land Review, revisit employment allocations and opportunities to regenerate the former Creamery and meat processing sites. (4052)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 287 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Officer Comments
1089 A limited quantity of comment was received in relation to Policy GTT02 with a balance between those in support and raising objections.
1090 The support for the proposal is noted. Concerns were however raised as to the form of the proposal and the fact that it delivers a linear extension of the settlement into the countryside. Allied to this, respondents note that the existing development forms a natural ‘end point’ to the town, with the open site an important to the setting of the town which acts as a rural gateway. It is contested by respondents that the loss will have an adverse impact on tourism. Converse to the objections, it is considered that the site offers an opportunity to enhance the gateway to the town which is currently focused upon the entrance to the industrial estate and offers limited landscaping and transition from countryside to the built form. Whilst the encroachment into the countryside is noted, suitable land for the delivery of employment development in and around Great Torrington is significantly limited, due to topographical constraints and environmental sensitivities with no reasonable alternatives in accessible locations considered appropriate.
1091 Part (2)(b) of Policy GTT02 requires that the site is developed with an integrated package of landscaping and green infrastructure that is intended to ensure that the development delivers an attractive and appropriate transition between the built form and the open countryside. This should in turn offer the opportunity to deliver a more attractive entrance to the town.
1092 Concerns are raised that the site is subject to archaeological sensitivities. The fields making up the southern element of the site have been appraised as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) exercise under site reference SHA/GTT/15, whereby Devon County Council’s archaeology service provided a response raising no significant concerns relating to archaeology on the site.
1093 Concerns are raised about increased surface water run-off being generated as part of any development proposal; however it is considered that such matters can be appropriately dealt with by planning applications having regard to National Planning Policy alongside the relevant Strategic and Development Management Policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
1094 The concerns about compatibility of development with the adjacent nursing home are noted. However the landscaping element of the policy along with the wider Strategic and Development Management Policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan are considered sufficient to ensure that any adverse impacts will be ameliorated.
1095 The site is allocated within the existing Torridge District Local Plan for playing pitch development (Proposal GT6) and an objection is raised in relation to the loss of opportunity for this form of development. The site has been subject to such allocation for the lifetime of the adopted Local Plan and proposals have not been forthcoming for playing pitch provision and there is no indication that there is a reasonable prospect of such development coming forward over the lifetime of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. It is therefore not considered appropriate to continue to protect the land for future recreation provision.
1096 An objection is also raised in relation to the loss of agricultural land, however whilst regrettable, this is a necessary consequence if local employment growth is to be supported as limited opportunities for alternative provision exist. The spatial strategy for Great Torrington (Policy GTT) already seeks to maximise reuse of brownfield sites within and around the town. Comment was provided in response to this Policy to suggest that the scope of employment allocations should be revisited, with a mind to the reuse of the former creamery and former Abattoir site. As a result of comment received on this policy and others on Policies relating to Great Torrington, it is recommended (see below) that the
288 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
former abattoir is identified for employment development. As such, this offers an opportunity to reduce the scale of this allocation and hence go some way to addressing some of the issues raised as objections in relation to this policy.
1097 Concerns are raised in relation to the site and the potential inadequacy of access to the wider highway network. No objections have been raised in relation to the site from the Highways Authority. Furthermore, highway improvements are proposed for Hatchmoor Common Lane as part of development enabled through Policy GTT03 which would improve highway connectivity to and from the site.
1098 It is considered appropriate to allocate additional employment land at Great Torrington to support local business aspirations and support the local economy and it is considered that this site continues to offer an appropriate location for such development.
Additional Points
1099 The south-western element of the proposal, extending to 2.1 hectares in now subject to planning consent for the relocation of Advanced Pallet Systems from their existing site on Greenbank. The consent (1/0009/2013/FULM) enables the erection of a new production factory, associated offices, open storage and car parking.
Policy GTT03: Hatchmoor Common Lane
Summary of Key Issues
1100 Comments made in response to Policy GTT03, including the supporting text:
Number of responses 5
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 4
Number of responses providing a general comment 0
Table 5.84
Objection to the allocation (465) Objection to the allocation; poor connectivity to the town centre and relationship to the industrial estate. An alternative site, west of GTT05, is promoted. (629) Objection to proposed use, employment use allocated in the TDLP should be retained; it provides a natural extension to the Hatchmoor Industrial Estate and is located along Hatchmoor Common Lane, primarily used for industrial traffic which joins on to B3232. (4053) Support allocation; for new hosing ideally located for town expansion, however Common Lane requires improvement for increased traffic use. Employment activities, on existing and future sites must not impact on GTT03 residential development. Cycle and pedestrian routes should link the site to the town. (781 (GTTC)) Northern part of the site subject to flood risk, 10-70m wide strip may be undevelopable. (2539 (EA))
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 289 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Officer Comments
1101 A limited scale of representation was received in relation to Policy GTT03 although the responses received were overwhelmingly registering an objection to the allocation.
1102 The flood risk to a small element of the site as identified by a respondent is noted although no change is recommended to the policy or supporting text to reflect this matter. The scale of impact is limited and will not have an impact on the deliverability of the site for the proposed development. Such matters will be dealt with through the application of National Planning Policy in addition to the relevant Strategic and Development Management Policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan as more detailed proposals for the site are advanced in accordance with Policy GTT03.
1103 Concerns are raised in relation to the sustainability of the site and the poor connectivity to the town centre. The site proposed for allocation through GTT03 lies close to employment opportunities, the secondary school, offers relatively level access to the town centre and lies adjacent to pre-existing bus routes linking to the town centre as well as higher order centres. As such, whilst the site may seem geographically distant to the town centre, the site is considered to offer a logical and sustainable extension to the town.
1104 Furthermore, the town offers a limited supply of identified available and suitable land for housing development, principally due to topographical and environmental sensitivities around the town and an absence of suitable and available land within the existing built form of a scale suitable to meet the identified housing needs.
1105 Whilst the site will lie adjacent to industrial development, and concerns on this matter are noted, this is not considered to afford a conflict. Part (2)(b) of the policy requires that strong boundary treatments are afforded between the sites and adjoining established and planned employment development.
1106 Comments are noted in relation to the need for improvements to Hatchmoor Common Lane and requirements for cycle and pedestrian routes to link the site to the town centre and employment opportunities. These aspects are covered by parts (a) and (c) of the existing draft Policy GTT03.
1107 It is recognised that an alternative site is proposed. However this site is discounted on basis of highway advice. Further and more detailed consideration of this site is offered below (see Alternative and Additional Development Sites).
1108 The site is currently allocated within the Torridge District Local Plan for employment development. Calls have been made for the site to remain allocated for employment development. The site has however been allocated for such use for some considerable time, throughout the lifetime of the existing Local Plan and without any development forthcoming. In part this is considered to be a response to the topography of the site and the highway works required to enable development. The National Planning Policy Framework indicates that employment land should not be protected for its own sake if there is not a reasonable prospect of delivery. As such, it is considered appropriate to release the site from the existing allocation and enable the site for housing development to meet identified needs and demands. It should be noted that alternative employment land is provided for through Policy GTT02.
Policy GTT04: Adjacent to Dartington Fields
Summary of Key Issues
1109 Comments made in response to Policy GTT04, including the supporting text.
290 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Number of responses 4
Number of responses in support 2
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 0
Number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.85
Support for the allocation. (466) (4054)
Support allocation; for new hosing ideally located for town expansion, however Common Lane requires improvement for increased traffic use. Cycle and pedestrian routes should link the site to the town. (783 GTTC))
Watercourse runoff along the northern boundary, but flood risk does not appear to extend into the site. (2540 (EA))
Officer Comments
1110 A limited scale and range of comments were received in relation to Policy GTT04, with no objections received and no major issues identified.
1111 The support for the allocation is noted. A respondent noted that there is a need to ensure that cycle and pedestrian routes link the site to the town. This is already explicitly afforded for within the Policy under Part (c) which makes reference to the requirement to facilitate connections for motor vehicles, cycles and pedestrians between the site, town centre and key employment area whilst increasing opportunities for public transport links and sustainable transport opportunities.
1112 The comment referencing potential watercourse run-off adjacent to site is noted. Any potential impacts from such constraints upon development or as a consequence of development are deemed to be sufficiently considered through National Planning Policy on such matters along with relevant Strategic and Development Management policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
Policy GTT05: North of Burwood Lane
Summary of Key Issues
1113 Comments made in response to Policy GTT05, including the supporting text:
Number of responses 4
Number of responses in support 2
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Number of responses in objection 1
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 291 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Number of responses providing a general comment 0
Table 5.86
Support for the allocation. (4055) Support allocation, access secured from Burwood Lane with measured to avoid Burwood estate roads being a “rat run”. (657) Support allocation subject to access via the existing estate, not Burwood Lane, with the application of a 20mph estate limit. (467) Burwood Lane not suitable for additional traffic without major infrastructure works, which might not be viable on the basis of 60 dwellings, particularly if a high proportion are affordable. (784 GTTC))
Officer Comments
1114 A limited number of representations were received in relation to Policy GTT05 through the pre-publication consultation, with those received holding a bias towards support, although some conditional and only a single objection registered.
1115 The support for the allocation is noted. All of the comments received are associated to potential highway matters. Contradictory comments were received with some respondents seeking assurance that development would not enable ‘rat-runs’ through the existing Burwood estate, whilst another respondent offers support subject to access being enabled through the existing estate. The highway solution presented through Policy GTT05 is the preferred solution advocated by the Highways Authority and is intended to ensure highway safety by directing traffic away from the existing housing estate, school and nursery. As such, no changes are recommended to the policy on this basis.
1116 The policy recognises that off-site highway works will be required to Burwood Lane to enable comprehensive residential development to occur. Whilst the comment questioning the potential of a scheme of 60 dwellings to be financially viable to support the delivery of the required highway improvements is noted, there is no indication that the scale of development will not be able to support the required works. As such, no changes are recommended to the policy on this basis.
Policy GTT06: Local Green Spaces
Summary of Key Issues
1117 Comments made in response to Policy GTT06, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 5
Number of responses in support 3
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 0
Number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.87
292 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Policy support. Note The Common is controlled by The Great Torrington Commons Act, which is administered by The Conservators. (468) (785 (GTTC)) (2120) Reduced landscape protection could impact on the Commons and consequently negatively impact on the attraction for visitors/walkers. (3371) (3538)
Officer Comments
1118 The Policy was subject to a limited range of comments through the consultation with no objections received.
1119 It is noted that The Commons are subject to controls through The Great Torrington Commons Act and which is administered by The Conservators. The role of The Conservators should be recognised within the Local Plan.
1120 Comments are noted as to the extent of landscape protection afforded to The Commons and the indication that reduced landscape protection is afforded to them. Policy GTT06 does however afford the same protection as that currently offered through Policy GT9 of the adopted Torridge District Local Plan. Furthermore, as noted above, The Commons are subject to other legislative protection.
Additional Points
1121 Whilst the Policies Map (figure 15.6) identifies the extent of the Local Green Space designation, it has omitted to incorporate a notation to associate it to Policy GTT06 (i.e. not depicted with policy number in a circle). It is therefore proposed to introduce appropriate notation.
Policy GTT07: East of School Lane
Summary of Key Issues
1122 Comments made in response to Policy GTT07, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 3
Number of responses in support 3
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 0
Number of responses providing a general comment 0
Table 5.88
Support for the allocation. (469) (786 (GTTC)) (4056)
Officer Comments
1123 A very limited number of representations were received in relation to Policy GTT07 with all indicating support. As such, the support offered towards the Policy is noted and no further analysis is offered.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 293 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
MAP CHANGES
Summary of Key Issues
1124 Comments made in response to Key Diagram for Great Torrington (Figure 10.6) and alternative/additional development sites.
Number of responses 3
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 2
Number of responses providing a general comment 0
Table 5.89
Extend the extent of the sensitive landscape to the skyline south of the river from Town Mills to Taddiport. The economic future of Torrington lies in a heritage based tourist destination in relation to which the views from the Commons and Castle Hill are important and require protection. (624) Alternative allocation for residential led mixed use. An approach consistent with community aspirations to reduce pressure for greenfield site release that would better enable the town’s setting to be preserved and with the NPPF encouragement of making effective use of land, primarily previously developed land. Reflect an alternative land use proposal in Figure 10.6. (3240) Alternative to GTT03, west of GTT05; higher quality development with an improved relationship to the town and schools. (629) Allocate the former meat factory for employment. (656) To prioritise sustainable economic growth and the use of previously developed sites allocate a site of 1.24 ha on land fronting onto School Lane; providing for a mixed use employment, service and housing scheme. An extension of the site (2.68ha), providing infill to the town could accommodate employment or housing subject to priority. (801) Allocate the old Torridge Transport depot at School Lane and car park for housing, suitable for high density affordable housing. (470) Allocate a small site for residential use at Rolle Road Taddiport; a predominantly derelict site that would provide 2 dwellings. (1682) Allocate Sydney House Car Park and vacant land to the west for retail and bring the allocated site within the town centre boundary, where currently excluded. (3518) Allocated site north of GTT07 for housing, to be accessed via the church car park or Best's Lane (LR). (3545) Encourage relocation of Dartington Crystal, to better support its tourism function with expansion opportunities and allow the existing centrally located site to be redeveloped for housing. (4049) Expand allocation of former Creamery site to incorporate additional land and facilitate regeneration and enable mixed use development. (1892)
294 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Officer Comments
1125 The sensitive landscape identified on the key diagram is only intended to be indicative and identify the setting of the town. However the importance of the hillside to the south of the town as referenced in the comment is recognised and the extension of the identified sensitive landscape is supported.
1126 Land West of GTT05 (dlp629)(SHA/GTT/7) A significant site is promoted (dlp629) for residential development and put forward as an alternative to the proposal currently enabled through Policy GTT03. The site has been subject to appraisal through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and it was considered to be potentially developable for comprehensive residential development. The respondent advocates the inclusion of the site in lieu of the land proposed for residential development through Policy GTT03 on the basis of its more sustainable and central location. The SHLAA indicates that the site does offer a housing yield broadly equivalent to that proposed through Policy GTT03.
1127 The site has received consideration through earlier stages of plan preparation and has been dismissed as an appropriate development option. The spatial approach developed and supported through previous stages of Core Strategy and Local Plan preparation have advocated the provision of housing by realising opportunities on regeneration sites and provision of small scale greenfield extensions to the settlement, with a locational preference for the north east of the town. This is an approach that has received general support through community and stakeholder engagement activity. The site now advocated has not generally received support with various objections cited such as the scale of development, impact of traffic on the existing Burwood residential estate, school and nursery and historical significance of site.
1128 An argument is presented that the site forms a more sustainable option that that advocated through GTT03, however this is not considered to hold validity. The site proposed for allocation through GTT03 lies close to employment opportunities, the secondary school, offers relatively level access to the town centre and lies adjacent to pre-existing bus routes linking to the town centre as well as higher order centres. As such, whilst the site may be geographically further separated than that proposed, the site is considered to offer a logical and sustainable extension to the town. To this end, whilst the alternative site could offer a developable alternative, no changes are recommended to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan on the basis of the representation.
1129 Former Abattoir/Meat Processing Plant (dlp656) The former meat processing plant on School Lane, to the north of Great Torrington is promoted for inclusion within the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan as an identified employment site. The site comprises a previously developed site within the countryside and is established for employment uses.
1130 Whilst general employment development would not generally be advocated in a location divorced from the existing built form of a town, the site represents a legacy of its former ‘bad neighbour use’ and a brownfield opportunity for employment development.
1131 As such, it is considered that the site should be recognised as an employment site within the Local Plan through Part (1)(d) of Policy GTT.
1132 Land adjacent to Former Abattoir / Meat Processing Plant (dlp801) (SHA/GTT42 & 43) In addition to the calls for the previously developed site of the former abattoir to be allocated for employment use, two parcels of land adjacent to the site and extending to approximately 4.1 hectares, are promoted as opportunities for delivering a range of employment, service and housing development.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 295 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1133 The sites are registered for consideration through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) exercise however the outcomes of the appraisal are not yet available. An initial officer view is however that the sites are not appropriate for comprehensive development as they are considered unsustainable due to their countryside location, the fact that they lie divorced from the built form of the town and at the foot of a valley accessed by narrow country lanes. It is therefore recommended that the sites are not allocated through the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan for any form of development.
1134 Torridge Transport Depot (dlp470) (SHA/GTT/26) A site on School Lane which comprises a car park and the former Torridge Transport depot is proposed by a third party for comprehensive residential development (dlp470). The site has been subject to appraisal as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) exercise under reference SHA/GTT/26, and whilst deemed potentially suitable for housing, it is not identified as being available for residential development. Furthermore, planning consent received in July 2013 for extension of time of planning consent for the erection of retail food store (1/0162/2012/EXTM). As such, there is no indication that the site is available and therefore developable for housing development. Note that site lies within development boundary where principle of development is established. Any proposal on the site could be considered in the future having regard to the relevant Strategic and Development Management Policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
1135 Rolle Road, Taddiport (dlp1682) A small site on Rolle Road, Taddiport is presented through representation (dlp1682) for development of two dwellings. The site considered too small for specific identification and allocation within the Local Plan. An alternative to allocation would be to amend the development boundary to incorporate the site, which would in turn enable appropriate development proposals to be supported on the site should they come forward during the lifetime of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. It should be noted that the site does not meet the size criteria to receive consideration through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) exercise. However, on review of the site, it is considered that residential development upon it is likely to extend the boundary of the built form and encroach on the setting of the town and the transition to the open countryside. As such, it is not considered appropriate to either allocate the site, nor amend the settlement development boundary to incorporate the site.
1136 Land at Best's Lane (dlp3545) (SHA/GTT/48) A site lying between Best’s Lane and Gas Lane is proposed for comprehensive residential development (dlp3545). The site comprises of greenfield land adjacent to the existing built form and extends to approximately 0.9 hectares. The site is registered for assessment as part of the SHLAA under reference SHA/GTT/48, but has not yet been subject to full appraisal. However, initial highway advice has been received in relation to the site that indicates that appropriate highway access could not be secured to enable comprehensive development without addition of third party land. As such, the site is not considered to be developable for residential development and the site is therefore not recommended for allocation within the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
1137 Sydney House Car Park and Land to the West (dlp3518) A site for the provision of a new convenience retail store is proposed through representation dlp3518, incorporating Sydney House Car Park and vacant land to the west. The car park currently lies within the Town Centre boundary with the vacant land outside but adjacent to it. The representation seeks the allocation of the site for a new convenience retail store and an associated amendment to the town centre boundary to take in the extent of the site. The North Devon and Torridge Retail and Leisure Study (Peter Brett Associates, 2012) indicates a limited requirement for additional convenience retail provision in Torrington over the plan period. The study notes a combined requirement for Great Torrington and Holsworthy equating to only 1000 sq m of floorspace. As such, there is no identified need for the allocation of a site within Great Torrington for the provision of an additional convenience retail foodstore.
296 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Furthermore, the study does not advocate any changes to the Town Centre Boundary as advocated through the representation. Having said that, the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan would not preclude the development of the identified site for the provision of a convenience retail foodstore. Should any such proposal be forthcoming during the lifetime of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan, it may be considered having regard to the relevant Strategic and Development Management Policies of the Local Plan. No change is recommended to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan in relation to this proposal.
1138 Relocation of Dartington Crystal (dlp4049) A representation received (dlp4049) has proposed amendment of the Local Plan to encourage the relocation of Dartington Crystal from its existing site so as to enable the enterprise to better support its tourism function and operations and enable its existing, well located site to be released for housing development. The proposal is put forward by a third party and there is no indication from Dartington Crystal to indicate that they are seeking to enable such a proposal. In lieu of such an indication, it is not appropriate to allocate site for relocation or existing site for housing redevelopment as it is not considered that there would be a realistic prospect of proposals being developable. Having said that, should such proposals be forthcoming during the lifetime of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan, they would not be precluded and may be considered having regard to the relevant Strategic and Development Management Policies of the Local Plan. No change is recommended to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan in relation to this proposal.
1139 Land north and west of Former Creamery (dlp1892) A parcel of land to the north and west of the former creamery site is promoted (dlp1892) for inclusion as an extension to the proposal enabled through Policy GTT01. The site lies to the north-west of the existing allocation and extends to approximately 2.1 hectares. The site has not been subject to any formal assessment in relation to considering its suitability for development however it is intended that it will be appraised through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) in due course. The proposed extension is currently poor quality, under-used greenfield land which superficially does not seem to have any fundamental constraints that would preclude development. The inclusion of this additional element within the allocation will enable more flexibility to be applied to the redevelopment of the site and is also likely to enhance the viability of delivery. Subject to a successful outcome following a more detailed assessment of the site it is recommended that the site be brought within the extents of the proposal enabled through Policy GTT01.
Agreed Actions
1. Add reference within Part (1)(f) of Policy GTT to reflect support for the enhancement of heritage assets and the conservation area.
2. Add reference within Policy GTT and supporting text to recognise that qualifying development proposals will be required to support the provision of expanded and enhanced education and early years provision on existing sites.
3. Update Table 10.7 and any other references to housing provision / requirements to reflect up-to-date housing completions and commitment information.
4. Amend Part (1) add economic development to the range of required uses.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 297 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
5. Amend paragraph 10.198, add a reference to employment uses and relate the form of enabled development to that which will contribute to the delivery of the spatial vision for Great Torrington. Further add that a flexible approach will be taken towards the mix of uses delivered on site, which could include housing, while retaining the objective of securing development which is focused on the uses specified in Policy GTT01.
6. Add additional element to Policy GTT01 to require the site to be redeveloped on a comprehensive basis.
7. Extend allocation to incorporate additional land promoted through representation dlp1892 and in doing so: (a)Increase site area in Part (1) of GTT 01 and 10.198 from 4.2 ha to 6.3ha (b)Amend boundary of proposal on Key Diagram and Policies Map to have regard to extended site area.
8. Amend part (1)(C) of Policy GTT01 to recognise that access is to be achieved from the B3227 rather than Mill Road.
9. Amend supporting text to add statement advocating that the development proposals should seek to maximise opportunities for: employment, leisure and recreation provision in line with the aspirations of the spatial vision.
10. Add reference within supporting text to indicate significant flood risk to southern part of site.
11. Correct locational error relating to former Creamery in paragraph 10.197 to note that the former creamery lies to the south west of Great Torrington and not to the south east as currently stated.
12. Reduce scale of allocation to 4 hectares, removing northern field which extends to 5.1ha upon which availability has not been established. In doing so: (a) Amend Policies Map to account for change; and (b) Alter reference to size of site within part (1)(a) of Policy GTT02 and paragraph 10.200.
13. Add reference within supporting text to note that proportion of site is subject to proposal for relocation and expansion of existing local business.
14. Amend Policy GTT03 to include provision for a primary school with a housing capacity reduced from 160 to 130.
15. No changes recommended to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan in response to comments received to Policy GTT04.
16. No change is recommended to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan in response to comments received to Policy GTT05.
17. Propose addition to the supporting text to GTT06 to recognise that the area subject to Policy GTT06 is that of The Commons.
18. Propose reference within supporting text to recognise that The Commons is subject to control through The Great Torrington Commons Act which is administered by The Conservators.
19. Add notation to Local Green Space designation on Policies Map to reference GTT06.
298 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
20. No change is recommended to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan in response to comments received to Policy GTT07 although the site area should be extended eastwards to include the site subject to dlp3545.
21. Amend the boundary of the sensitive landscape depicted on the Key Diagram (Figure 10.6) by extending the southern boundary of the southern ribbon to incorporate the wider hillside. Town Strategies: Holsworthy
HOLSWORTHY - Chapter 10
Total number of responses 42
Total number of responses in support 10
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Total number of responses in objection 13
Total number of responses providing a general comment 17
Total number of additional housing sites 9
Table 5.90
Policy HOL: Holsworthy Spatial Strategy
Summary of Key Issues
1140 Comments made in response to Policy HOL: Holsworthy Spatial Strategy, including supporting text regarding the Place, evidence, the future, the development strategy and development proposals
Number of responses 20
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Number of responses in objection 11
Number of responses providing a general comment 7
Table 5.91
Use Plain English; avoid reference to visions, deliverable and strategies. (59) Evidence: questions the rationale for reduced housing numbers from the draft Core Strategy and its relationship to local aspirations. (2906(HTC)) Evidence: question the scale and form of the Holsworthy affordable housing requirement, 333 units: 300 social rent/33 affordable rent having regard to existing affordable provision and future growth. (2920(HTC)) The allocated sites present no significant problems. (2906(HTC))
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 299 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
No indication of the delivery mechanism for broadening the economic base, retaining market town character, increasing self-containment, enhancing countryside connectivity and combating retail leakage. (2910(HTC)), (2924(HTC)) No detail on how support will be provided for the ageing population with regard to health and transport. (2924(HTC)) No delivery strategy especially in respect of securing improvements to education and elderly care. (3516) Support scale of proposed development, but greater utilisation of previously developed sites required to achieve HOL (1) (b). (1640) Support for the strategy, providing a clear vision for growth based on suitable and cohesive developments. (29) Additional equestrian facilities, such as indoor schools, all weather riding surfaces are required. (1549) Planned growth could deliver population growth of 58%, potential implications for waste water treatment. (2548(EA)) No reference to enhanced education infrastructure; contributions likely to be required to expand education and early year’s provision. (2864 (DCC)) Additional use of the highway by car should be minimised by promotion of non-car modes and network improvements, safe and sustainable access should be provided to new employment based development, including the agri-business centre. (2865 (DCC)) Alternative development strategy focused on the Rydon Road / Trewyn Road area, which offers the opportunity to provide new road link from A3072 to Trewyn Road. (3494) Strengthen the growth strategy; Holsworthy is becoming a more desirable place to live and work and housing land supply needs to be flexible to meet these demands. Ensure the town has the ability to prosper in the future, additional housing sites are proposed to provide flexibility to meet increased demands. (3516)
Additional Points
Housing land and dwelling completion information is now available with a 1st April 2013 base date. The commitments update will determine new site requirements to meet the local housing target.
Officer Comments
1141 The comment provided in respect of Plain English is noted. In revising the Local Plan the District Councils seek to achieve an appropriate balance between providing a robust technical document that is fit for purpose in respect of long term decision making which is also accessible to all who wish to use it.
1142 The comments in respect of evidence are noted. Supporting materials to the Local Plan, in relation to the strategy and housing needs are provided the Holsworthy Town Study, the Torridge Urban Housing Needs Study and the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. As the Local Plan progresses towards submission the evidential references contained in the Local Plan will be reduced but the related material will be made separately available.
1143 With regard to the reduced scale of the housing requirement, the move from 1,070 in the draft Core Strategy to about 650 has resulted from the need (NPPF paragraph 47) to introduce a locally determined housing target from a dictated position provided by the draft Regional Spatial Strategy. The Regional Strategy for the South West which provided a Torridge housing requirement of 10,700 dwellings (2006-2026) has been revoked. The now locally determined target established by the North Devon and Torridge Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update determines a supply
300 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
requirement of about 7,800 dwellings (2011-2031). The reduced local target in Holsworthy reflects the overall target change with regard to locally expressed views and aspirations and the towns capacity to achieve sustainable and balanced growth.
1144 The identified affordable housing requirement is evidenced through the North Devon and Torridge Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update. The scale and tenure split is reflective of assessed needs over the plan period.
1145 The Local Plan provides the framework to meet the stated vision through directing delivery on all development sites, and defining the consideration against which other proposals will be assessed. The Local Plan defines policy to ensure necessary supporting infrastructure is provided in step with development and that it is provided in a manner which reflects local needs and aspirations, including meeting specific population needs, such as newly forming families or the elderly. The District Council will also work with its local partners and stakeholders to implement key aspect of the Local Plan, such as the delivery of the agri-business centre and redevelopment of the current livestock market site.
1146 With regard to the use of previously developed sites, there is limited scope for allocation, as indicated through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. Of significance in Holsworthy is the reuse of the livestock market and the related western site subject to Policy HOL03. The majority of housing and employment allocations have necessarily been allocated on greenfield sites in the absence of the quantity and suitability of previously used sites. However, if opportunities for redevelopment come forward, the general policies of the Local Plan will determine if the proposed use is acceptable and development on a windfall basis can be achieved.
1147 The suggestion for equestrian facilities is noted. No development proposals or evidence to suggest the need for such facilities has been presented to the District Council. The Local Plan provides for equine development; Policy DM13 indicates support for horse related facilities and equestrian enterprises in the countryside subject to detailed considerations, including the need to minimise impacts on the character of the countryside. There is no defined need or suitability assessed site that would lend support to the allocation of a site for equestrian facilities at Holsworthy.
1148 The level of planned growth is accepted as proportionately high, comment from the Environment Agency is noted with regard to waste water treatment. South West Water has not objected to the scale of planned development, it is however understood that treatment capacity will be required to support further development. The District Council will work with South West Water to influence investment plans to affect necessary capacity improvements. Development will be required to meet related infrastructure deficiency costs.
1149 Devon County Council has sought recognition of the need to enhanced education infrastructure including early year’s provision in Holsworthy. Policy ST22: Infrastructure, addresses the general need for development to provide or contribute towards generated infrastructure. It is however considered appropriate to recognise that development in Holsworthy will generate a need for educational infrastructure. Policy HOL and the supporting text could reference the need for improved education capacity resulting from locally delivered growth.
1150 Devon County Council also seek a policy reference that relates to minimising the additional use of the highway by car, the promotion of non-car modes and network improvements to new employment based development, including the agri-business centre. The need to minimise additional car use by providing modal choice is accepted and provided for ST02: Principles of Sustainable Development and DM05: Design Principles. A reference relating to employment site connectivity in Holsworthy is considered to be a useful additional to ensure new employment opportunities are supported by sustainable transport options.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 301 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1151 The Holsworthy development strategy, including growth levels is considered to have general community support and is assessed to be deliverable in respect of key contributors to the local vision and strategy. The scale of planned development remains significant, further growth that would take population growth above 60% over the plan period from 2010 levels is considered excessive. A significant proportion of housing and employment growth is subject to commitments to the extent that adopting an alternative strategy would be difficult to deliver without detrimentally impacting the local vision and retaining the current balance between housing and employment growth.
1152 The spatial strategy for Holsworthy is considered to be sound with no significant objections raised that are considered likely to jeopardise its deliverability. As such, only minor amendments are recommended.
Policy HOL01: Agri-Business Park
Summary of Key Issues
1153 Comments made in response to Policy HOL01, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 3
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 0
Number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.92
With account of the proposed agri-business centre and redevelopment of the existing livestock market site, improved north-south highway links are required via a by-pass. (1596)
(2)(f) improvements to upgrade the A388 / unnamed Road junction to a roundabout are vital in order to safely accommodate the increased turning movements of large slow moving vehicles. (2866 (DCC))
Supportive of the Agri-business park and associated development proposals. (2907 (HTC))
Additional Points
Planning permission for the agri-business centre and livestock market was granted on 20th January 2012, form which on site works have commenced and completion is programmed for summer 2014. Development of the allocated site is supported by a site development brief agreed by the Torridge District Council in March 2011, which will also guide the planned delivery of five hectares of adjoining employment land associated with the agri-business centre.
To provide protection to the employment generating site it is considered appropriate to remove the development boundary from the allocated site subject to HOL01.
302 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Officer Comments
1154 Holsworthy Town Council has indicated support for the proposed development. The delivery of which has previously been subject to extensive community engagement for the preparation of the related site development brief and in support of the planning application for the agri-business centre.
1155 The highway improvements required for the development of the agri-business centre have been agreed through the process of gaining planning permission on the allocated site and are reflected as requirements in Policy HOL02. The required improvements associated with the agri-business centre, associated employment development and the redevelopment of the exiting livestock market have been considered through the referenced site development brief through which the need for a north-south by-pass has not been identified. The route or delivery mechanism for a by-pass proposed in comment dlp 1596 has not been defined; no revision to the Local Plan is consequently recommended.
Policy HOL02: Land South of Under Lane - Phase l
Summary of Key Issues
1156 Comments made in response to Policy HOL02, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 2
Number of responses in support 2
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 0
Number of responses providing a general comment 0
Table 5.93
Support (2)(e) requiring proposals to preserve or enhance the adjoining Conservation Area (2578 (EH(SW))
Supportive of inclusion of SUDS (2543 (EA))
Additional Points
Torridge District Council has resolved to grant consent for a new foodstore (gross external area 2,213 sqm, gross sales area 1,394 sqm) on the north-eastern element of the site in accordance with planning application 1/0082/2012/FULM.
On the balance of the site, Torridge District Council has resolved to grant consent for 91 dwellings in accordance with planning application 1/0923/2012/FULM.
Officer Comments
1157 Only two comments have been provided both of which are supportive in response to Policy HOL02. No change is recommended in response to the received comments, revision is however proposed to delete HOL02 (2)(f), which requires “management of surface water and drainage so as
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 303 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
not to increase flood risk on the site and beyond.” The need for Sustainable Drainage Systems is a standard consideration and should be included within Policy DM05: Design Principles, not through individual allocations.
Policy HOL03: Land South of Under Lane - Phase ll
Summary of Key Issues
1158 Comments made in response to Policy HOL03, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 2
Number of responses in support 2
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 0
Number of responses providing a general comment 0
Table 5.94
Support (2)(d) requiring proposals to preserve or enhance the adjoining Conservation Area (2580 (EH(SW)) Supportive of inclusion of SUDS (2544 (EA))
Officer Comments
1159 Only two comments have been provided both of which are supportive in response to HOL03. No change is recommended in response to received comment, revision is however proposed to delete HOL02 (2) (f), which provides for “management of surface water and drainage so as not to increase flood risk on the site and beyond.” The need for Sustainable Drainage Systems is a standard consideration and should be included within Policy DM05: Design Principles, not through individual allocations.
Policy HOL04: West of Dobles Lane Industrial Estate
Summary of Key Issues
1160 Comments made in response to Policy HOL04, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 2
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 0
Number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.95
304 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Downstream flooding issues, as with other allocations, but no SUDS reference (2545 (EA)) Support proposal industrial estate spine road extension, it will improve western access to the estate and the agri-business centre (28679 (DCC))
Officer Comments
1161 Only two comments have been provided, one in support one providing a general comment. The Environment Agency has identified the presence of flooding issues and suggests the need for Sustainable Drainage Systems to be included within Policy HOL04. As set out in discussion of Policy HOL02 and HOL03, the need for Sustainable Drainage Systems should be provided within Development Management Policies not as part of site allocation requirements.
Policy HOL05: Land between Dobles Lane and North Road
Summary of Key Issues
1162 Comments made in response to Policy HOL05, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 2
Number of responses in support 0
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Number of responses in objection 0
Number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.96
Support joint point of access for HOL05 and HOL06 but question the legitimacy and deliverability of the “enhanced gateway”, need to provide for a transition from rural to urban areas. Landowners will work together to deliver Policies HOL05 and HOL06. (30) The diagrammatic representation of policy includes the cemetery and existing residential development (30) Downstream flooding issues, as with other allocations, but no SUDS reference (2546 (EA))
Officer Comments
1163 Only two comments have been provided in response to Policy HOL05 one in support one providing a general comment, the comment dlp 30 has however been split for ease of response. It is noted that the landowners of HOL05 and HOL06 have accepted the required joint delivery of the respective sites. With regard to the need for an “enhanced gateway”, it is appropriate that there is an effective transition between the built form of the town and Countryside beyond and that the entrance point to the town is defined. Development of the two sites will create a new entry into the town along a significant route, it is important that the developments provide an appropriate and attractive entrance into Holsworthy Town.
1164 The comment relating to the Holsworthy Key Diagram is noted, but as indicated the presented material is in representative form. It is however recognised that accuracy in the presentation of information is essential on which basis Figure 10.7 should be reviewed. Detailed boundaries to each allocation are provided by the relevant Policies Maps, Figure 15.7 for Holsworthy.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 305 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1165 The Environment Agency has identified the presence of flooding issues and suggests the need for Sustainable Drainage Systems to be included within Policy HOL05. As set out in discussion of Policy HOL02 and HOL03, the need for Sustainable Drainage Systems should be provided within Development Management Policies not as part of site allocation requirements.
Policy HOL06: Land East of North Road
Summary of Key Issues
1166 Comments made in response to Policy HOL06, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 2
Number of responses in support 0
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 0
Number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.97
Downstream flooding issues, as with other allocations, but no SUDS reference (25479 (EA)) Pedestrian route between HOL5/06/07: if undertaken at road level, it would be hazardous, if by bridge it would be expensive. (3318) Environmental assessment required on the basis of the presence of bats and the potential presence of other important species. (3318)
Officer Comments
1167 Only two comments have been provided in response to Policy HOL06 both providing a general comment, the comment dlp 3018 has however been split for ease of response.
1168 The Environment Agency has identified the presence of flooding issues and suggests the need for Sustainable Drainage Systems to be included within Policy HOL06. As set out in discussion of Policy HOL02 and HOL03, the need for Sustainable Drainage Systems should be provided within Development Management Policies not as part of site allocation requirements.
1169 The comment relating to the need for an Environmental Assessment is noted. Appropriate wildlife and ecological assessments will be undertaken if warranted with regard to the presence or impact on protected species. The Local Authorities duties in respect of protected species and sites are defined through the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.
1170 The comment in relation to the proposed pedestrian route to be delivered through Policies HOL5/06/07 is noted; no adverse comment has been provided by Devon County Council as the Local Highway Authority in response to the proposal either in respect of deliverability or suitability.
Policy HOL07: Land off Menors Place
Summary of Key Issues
1171 Comments made in response to Policy HOL07, including the supporting text.
306 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Number of responses 5
Number of responses in support 3
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 1
Number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.98
Site available for development in the short term; a well related site providing a logical extension to the town. The joint owners of the site support the allocation. (1595) (1721) (1907) Access in to HOL07 not up to Devon County Council Highways standards for additional development (3496) Pedestrian route between HOL5/06/07: if undertaken at road level, it would be hazardous, if by bridge it would be expensive. (3328)
Officer Comments
1172 Five comments have been provided, three in support, one in objection and one providing a general comment. It is noted that the joint owners of the site have confirmed the availability of the site.
1173 The comment in relation to the proposed pedestrian route to be delivered through Policies HOL5/06/07 is noted; no adverse comment has been provided by Devon County Council as the Local Highway Authority in response to the proposal either in respect of deliverability or suitability.
1174 With regard to the adequacy of access onto the site subject to Policy HOL07 no adverse comment has been received from Devon County Council. The Highway Authority has confirmed that access from Menors Place only would be acceptable and that a development of 16 units could achieve compliance with Design standards. The supporting text at paragraph 10.257 indicates that the access will be taken from an extension to an existing estate road and that the dwellings to be developed will be restricted to a capacity to reflect achievable highway improvements.
Policy HOL08: Safeguarded Pedestrian and Cycle Route
Summary of Key Issues
1175 Comments made in response to Policy HOL08, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 5
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 1
Number of responses providing a general comment 3
Table 5.99
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 307 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Support for increased cycle lane provision for live/work as well as recreation journeys (907)
Add “close consultation will take place with landowners from the outset” (2322)
Safeguarded as a multi-use route, subject to planning approval and consideration of the multi-use process developed by Devon County Council (2324) (1551)
How will the route be achieved that utilises the former railway viaduct? TDC should play a stronger role in supporting the completion of the Holsworthy-Bude link (2912 (HTC))
Officer Comments
1176 Five comments have been provided, one in support, one with support subject to amendment, two in objection and one providing a general comment.
1177 With regard to consultation with landowners, such is a necessary component of the process of completing the link and is being undertaken by Devon County Council who are the lead authority on the overall project of the Ruby Cycle Path. An additional comment within the Local Plan relating to consultation is considered unnecessary. With regard to the involvement of Torridge District Council, the repair and utilisation of the Cole Mill Viaduct, as part of the wider route is an identified Torridge priority within the Devon Districts Infrastructure and Planning Framework, for which funding will be sought.
1178 Comment in respect of the multi use nature of the site is noted. Devon County Council has confirmed it is their aim to accommodate multi-use where possible (including horse-riding). However in this area the County have established that horses will hot be permitted over Colesmill Viaduct for safety reasons and as a result of an owner to the east not permitting the extended use.
MAP CHANGES
Summary of Key Issues
1179 Comments made in response to the Policies Maps for Holsworthy (Figure 15.7), proposed amendments to allocated sites and/or the development boundary:
Self build (8) and market house (6) at Whimble Hill site promoted by CLT. 0.5 m from Holsworthy town centre, accessible by a range of modes with DCC support (1881) Supports the scale of development but to achieve the objective in respect of brownfield regeneration allocate site at Bude Road for housing, providing for 20 units within the built form of the town and without constraints (1640) Extend the development area to include an infill site south of Trewyn House; all services provided to the site and recommended for inclusion by the TDLP Planning Inspector. A deliverable site of low ecological value. (3489) (3547) Housing sites to the west of Holsworthy, capacity of 120/130 dwellings to meet the towns long term needs. Avoid piecemeal approach to development with infrastructure gains including a distributor road with reduced landscape impact consequent of site topography. (1734) (3494) Additional housing site at Twiney Park for 6/8 dwellings. (2055) Housing site south of Under Lane, accessible and well integrated small greenfield site which could add value to HOL2 and HOL3 and contribute to a new PRoW along the river. The site is determined to be developable by the SHLAA. (3491) (3555)
308 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Officer Comments and Recommendations
1180 All sites proposed as new allocations or subject to development boundary extension are presented for residential use.
1181 The proposed site to the south east of Holsworthy at Whimble Hill (dlp 1881) could not be considered to form an extension to the urban form of Holsworthy. Whimble Hill is distinct from Holsworthy; it is clearly removed form the built form of Holsworthy. Proposals in locations such as Whimble Hill would be considered on the basis of the strategic rural strategy policy. Recommended revisions to the policy would allow for development in qualifying Countryside Settlements which is of a modest scale, subject to community support and in response to locally generated needs. There is no basis on which the proposed site could be considered as an allocation for Holsworthy or to be included as an extension to the Holsworthy Development Boundary; no change is consequently recommended.
1182 The proposed site at Bude Road (dlp 1640), which consists of a petrol filling station, car workshop and associated areas of hard standing, has in part been subject to examination through the Strategic Housing and Availability Assessment process. The outcome of the assessment determined that while the site was generally suitable for residential development, it was not developable as availability had not been established. The site was judged as “not currently developable”. In allocating sites for development availability is an essential element, which must be established, in the absence of confirmation of such it is not appropriate to allocate the site. The comment in respect of brownfield regeneration is noted and subject to meeting the detailed provisions of the Local Plan the site, which is within the built form of the town and thus the defined development boundary, could come forward as a windfall site. An additional allocation to define the site subject to dlp 1640 is not recommended.
1183 The proposed site referred to as an infill site south of Trewyn House (dlp 3547 and 3489) was examined, as part of a larger site through the process of Strategic Housing and Availability Assessment. The site, which is greenfield and in agricultural use, was judged to be developable. The proposal is considered to provide a suitable small site that would readily fit within the built form of the town without resulting in an outward extension. An estimated site yield suggests delivery of about 13 dwellings. In bringing forward the site care would be required to ensure impacts on the adjacent listed building are minimised. While the general policies of the plan (ST12 and DM05) will required the protection of historic assets, a reference within the supporting text to reflect the presence of the adjacent listed building is suggested to be useful. A new policy to allocate the site subject to dlp 3547 and 3489 is recommended.
1184 The proposed site to the west of Holsworthy (dlp’s 1734, 3494) was examined through the process of Strategic Housing and Availability Assessment and was judged to be developable. In meeting the overall housing requirement the draft strategy provides for small to medium allocations well related to the town, the approach was generally supported in preference to a significant western expansion of the town. The proposed level of housing development at Holsworthy of 650 dwellings, while reduced from the earlier draft Core Strategy requirement of 1,070, remains significant and is considered to be of an appropriate scale to meet growth aspirations with regard to existing settlement size and infrastructure/ service availability and capacity. Further development in the region of 120/130 dwellings would extend overall growth within the town to about 67% over the plan period. While accepting the potential gains to be provided by the site, including a road link between Rydon Road and Trewyn Road the scale of growth is not considered necessary within the plan period. The site is considered to have long term development potential beyond the plan period. An additional allocation to define the site subject to dlp’s 1734, 3494 is not recommended.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 309 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1185 A housing site at Twiney Park for 6/8 dwellings is proposed through dlp 2055. The site is boarded by the area subject to Policy HOL05 to the south and west. The site is considered to represent an appropriate addition to Policy HOL05, which would enable resultant development to better contribute to the sought “gateway enhancement”. An extension to the allocated site subject to Policy HOL05 is recommended.
1186 Two sites to the south west of Holsworthy are presented for development (dlp 3491, 3555). The Strategic Housing and Availability Assessment judged the sites to be developable and to have a potential combined yield of 64 dwellings. The sites are not presented as an alternative to the draft allocations and thus would further increase growth within the plan period to a level which is considered unnecessary. The sites if developed would result in an extension to the town into an area which is distinctly rural. The existing boundary point provides a clear division between urban and rural, which is appropriate to retain. The western site in particular is located within an attractive valley setting which holds a rural feel and is important to the south western approach and setting to the town. An additional allocation to define the site subject to dlp’s 3491, 3555 is not recommended.
Agreed Actions
1. Amend Policy HOL and the related supporting text to include a specific reference for the need for additional educational capacity. 2. Amend Policy HOL and the related supporting text to include a specific reference to non-car modes of transport and network improvements to new employment based development.
3. Update Table 10.8 and any other references to housing provision / requirements to reflect up-to-date housing completions and commitment information.
4. No amendment to Policy HOL01 is recommended in response to received comments.
5. Remove the development boundary from the allocation subject to Policy HOL01.
6. Delete HOL01 (2)(c):management of surface water and drainage so as not to increase flood risk on the site and beyond.
7. Delete HOL02 (2)(f):management of surface water and drainage so as not to increase flood risk on the site and beyond.
8. Delete HOL03 (2)(f):management of surface water and drainage so as not to increase flood risk on the site and beyond.
9. No amendment to Policy HOL04 is recommended in response to received comments to the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
10. Amend the supporting text to Policy HOL05 to clarify the purpose and required form of the “enhanced gateway”.
11. Review for accuracy Figure 10.7: Spatial Strategy for Holsworthy.
12. No amendment to Policy HOL06 is recommended in response to received comments to the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
13. No amendment to Policy HOL07 is recommended in response to received comments to the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
310 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
14. No amendment to Policy HOL08 is recommended in response to received comments to the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
15. In response to comments dlp 3489 and 3547 amend the draft Torridge and North Devon Local Plan to include two new housing allocations at Land South of Trewyn House and Land to North-East of Trewyn House. Add related new policies and apply consequential changes to the the development boundary as defined on the Policies Map.
16. Amend the area of Policy HOL05 to include the site proposed by comment dlp 2055 and consequently amend the development boundary.
Town Strategies: Ilfracombe
ILFRACOMBE – Chapter 10
Total number of responses 110
Total number of responses in support 10
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 21
Total number of responses in objection 45
Total number of responses providing a general comment 35
Total number of additional housing sites 3
Table 5.100
Policy ILF: Ilfracombe Spatial Strategy
Summary of Key Issues
1187 Comments made in response to Policy ILF: Ilfracombe Spatial Strategy, including supporting text regarding The Place, Evidence, The Future, The Development Strategy and Development Proposals:
Number of responses 23
Number of responses in support 4
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Number of responses in objection 4
Number of responses providing a general comment 13
Table 5.101
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 311 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Support the recognition of key employers in the town. Support the spatial vision for the town and the development aspirations. Support for the regeneration of the seafront. Support the provision of more affordable homes. Support the spatial strategy for the town and the development aspirations, in particular the urban extension.
The limited early years and youth provision in the town are a key consideration for Ilfracombe and should be recognised accordingly (DCC). Recent census data would suggest the population figures for Ilfracombe are inaccurate and the aspiration to increase to 15,000 has already been exceeded. Should include reference to journey times and service quality on the Tarka rail line linking Exeter and the wider network (ITC). The strategy needs to seek improvements to bus links for Tiverton Parkway and the strategic rail network. Should include reference to ‘increased partnership working with One Ilfracombe’ (ITC). By not proposing car parking on the former bus station is in direct conflict with the regeneration strategy for the harbour. The bus station site should be removed from the housing supply table to avoid over intensive development to the detriment of the harbour. Average gross densities are around 20-30 dph but bus station is 133 dph which is questioned on the basis of deliverability. The housing numbers proposed for the town should be amended so that the provision is to deliver ‘at least’ in response to the requirements of the NPPF. Any development in the harbour area would need to improve existing sea defences (EA). Impacts on the bathing waters must be considered and mitigated (EA). Explicit reference should be made to the historic environment and how the strategy can benefit those areas at risk (EH). Additional housing site proposed off Kingsley Avenue by amending the existing development boundary (see attached plan).
Other Key Issues identified
Add to the spatial strategy the need for effective conservation to secure the future of Ilfracombe's distinctive historic environment, and the need to promote its proper maintenance including investigating opportunities for grant schemes.
Officer Comments
1188 There is broad support for the Ilfracombe spatial strategy and the development aspirations of the town including the strategic southern extension and the regeneration of the harbour and seafront tourist area. The overall strategy is in accordance the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which underpins the NPPF.
1189 Evidence gathered through DCC would suggest an estimated population figure for Ilfracombe of approximately 12,500 people (2012 PPSA - Patient and Practitioner Services Agency data), so the town has not yet exceeded the 15,000 target population. The aspiration of population growth to about 15,000 remains relevant although the text should be updated to recognise that the current population is 12,500 rather than 11,500.
312 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1190 The need for limited early years and youth provision in the town is recognised and could be referenced more explicitly as part of the strategy for the southern extension. Reference could also be made to seek improvements to the public transport links connecting Ilfracombe with the strategic rail network, with cross reference to Policy ST10 (Transport Strategy).
1191 The spatial vision for Ilfracombe already recognises the increased importance of partnership working with the local community, naming one particular partner may underestimate the importance of recognising other community and voluntary sectors within the town. However, following Member’s recommendations ‘One Ilfracombe’ including other local organisations will be referenced within the spatial vision.
1192 All issues concerning the former bus station site are considered under Policy ILF03.
1193 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 Ilfracombe through site allocations is based on a realistic assessment of each site based on the SHLAA and detailed master planning work on the land around Channel Farm, Bowden Farm and Winsham Farm. 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 meet the spatial vision for Ilfracombe to 2031 and deliver the specific development requirements as set out in Policy ILF01. As such, the spatial strategy for Ilfracombe delivering approximately 1,550 dwellings including about 1,100 through specific site allocations is not contrary to the requirements of the NPPF.
1194 The need to potentially improve sea defences in and around the harbour and seafront when considering regeneration sites is recognised. There would be merit in referencing this in the Ilfracombe Spatial Strategy and cross referring to Policy ST09 (Coast and Estuary Strategy). The potential impacts on bathing waters from development in Ilfracombe and the appropriate measures to mitigate against any adverse harm should be recognised in the Ilfracombe chapter, cross referring to Policy ST09 and an ecosystem approach.
1195 It is accepted that the strategy should make an explicit reference to enhancing the historic environment and how the strategy could benefit those areas within the conservation area that are at risk. This approach is advocated within paragraph 156 of the NPPF.
1196 The site promoted off Kingsley Avenue was considered as part of the 2010 SHLAA process as one of the options to deliver a strategic urban extension for the town (ILFH2), albeit this was a larger area than that currently being promoted. However, it was considered the land was not suitable due to the potential impact on the Cairn and Old Railway Local Nature Reserve and County Wildlife Site with limited access opportunities. Although this is a much smaller site and would not be allocated but included within an amended development boundary, it is considered the same concerns still apply albeit the site would only deliver about one or two houses.
Policy ILF01: Ilfracombe Southern Strategic Extension
Summary of Key Issues
1197 Comments made in response to Policy ILF01 including supporting text:
Number of responses 20
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 313 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Number of responses in support 0
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 9
Number of responses in objection 6
Number of responses providing a general comment 5
Table 5.102
Support development on land at Worth Meadows as part of Policy ILF01 but would consider a separate site allocation to be more appropriate due to physical separation of land. Support the mixed use development of Policy ILF01 (x2). Support for new school and extra care housing but should be expanded to include a 52 place nursery for early years provision and facilities for a new Children’s Centre. Contributions to the new school will be required from other developments in the town (DCC). Include a revised policy that gives greater clarity about the location of required employment and other infrastructure/community facilities. Worth Meadows is only likely to deliver housing. The policy should refer to ‘dark night skies’ and supporting text should include reference to ‘good external lighting design’ (ENPA). The delivery of infrastructure, community facilities and affordable housing is subject to viability. The Plan and IDP should set out clear priorities for delivery. Over ambitious sustainable design standards should be balanced against the need to deliver new homes in the town. The policy needs to reflect some flexibility with regard viability of development and overall delivery. Seeking to achieve ‘exemplar’ and ‘radical’ values to the development may not be achievable. The ambition should be to deliver a ‘high quality sustainable development’. Development should provide on-site sport and recreation or off site contribution (SE). Site is within a ‘critical drainage area’ and will require a higher standard than normal SUDS (EA). Reference should be made to the relevant measures in the Ilfracombe Transport Masterplan intended to directly support the southern extension (DCC). Green infrastructure for Worth Meadows should seek a wildlife corridor to avoid over intensification of the area and enable important vistas from east and west (ITC). Strengthen the importance of protecting the setting of the AONB (NE). Where is the evidence a 1,000 families want to live in the new development. There are not enough jobs for the existing population let alone the residents of 1,000 new houses. Concern that the houses are small with no gardens All issues regarding design, amenity, transportation, landscape, nature conservation, historic environment and Government policy need to be considered. The provision and capacity of all schools in Ilfracombe should be considered. A new community hospital is required in the town to alleviate pressure on the beds in North Devon Hospital. Extend site allocation to include land in the north-east corner of the county wildlife site (see attached plan). Extend site allocation to include land east of Score View (see attached plan).
Other Key Issues identified
An outline planning application for the strategic southern extension (excluding Worth Meadows) was submitted in July [app no].
314 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Officer Comments
1198 There is general support for the delivery of a strategic mixed-use development as part of a southern extension. One developer response was that 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. However, delivery of the neighbourhood hub will need to be jointly funded by development of both sites.
1199 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 applications. Allocating the sites 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.
1200 The policy and supporting text should be amended to safeguard the ‘dark night skies’ over the National Park instead of the ‘dark skies’ here and elsewhere in the plan. It is also accepted that reference should be included to ensure a good external lighting design as part of the overall development.
1201 There needs to be a balance between delivering new homes to the town, viability of the development in general and realising a scheme that will incorporate sustainable construction standards and techniques in order to help tackle the challenges of climate change. The balance between achieving sustainable development and viability is a key consideration of NPPF (paragraph 173). Any development must meet the requirements of Building Regulations (which will change over time) and therefore cross-reference should be made to the requirements set out within Policy ST05 (Sustainable Construction and Buildings). It is accepted that achieving ‘exemplar’ and ‘radical’ thresholds within the vision for the southern extension may be ambitious, but it is a vision rather than policy. It would be appropriate to replace the word ‘radical’ with ‘incorporate measures that will reduce carbon emissions’.
1202 Policy ILF01 already recognises the need to deliver additional sport and leisure facilities as part of the development. However, it is likely that the development around Winsham Farm, Channel Farm and Bowden Farm will deliver the formal sport facilities rather than Worth Meadows for topographical reasons, with land at Channel Farm providing the flattest area of land. Detailed design work on the Worth Meadows site will establish a development that incorporates a level of GI that respects the site’s visually prominent location and landscape setting, particularly when viewed from the east.
1203 Ilfracombe 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. Policy relating to ‘Critical Drainage Areas’ throughout northern Devon will be added to ST03 (Adapting to Climate Change). The supporting text should refer to being in 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.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 315 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1204 It is accepted that the transportation strategy within Policy ILF01 should make reference to the measures set out within the Ilfracombe Transport Masterplan that support the southern extension.
1205 Policy ILF01 already recognises and addresses the importance of protecting the setting of the AONB and minimising the potential impacts from the proposed new development. No further changes are required.
1206 The overall level of growth and its distribution across the two districts is addressed through Policy ST07, informed by up-to-date evidence such as the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2012). The large majority of this housing growth will be delivered in the main towns, including Ilfracombe in accordance with local community aspirations. The importance of creating new and sustaining existing jobs in the town is a key component of the Ilfracombe Spatial Strategy. The delivery of new housing must meet the needs of the local community although it is recognised that a proportion of the new housing will meet the needs of the economically inactive.
1207 All the statutory providers have been consulted as part of the plan, including Devon County Council and the Health Authority. Evidence would suggest there is spare capacity in the Secondary school to meet the proposed growth but there is a need for a new Primary school, which should also deliver a nursery school and children’s centre. The policy and supporting text should recognise the need for this expansion to the school. The health authority has not indicated a need for a new community hospital although the southern extension will deliver a new medical centre. However, in order provide a degree of flexibility, it is proposed to amend the policy to include a ‘medical facility’ rather than ‘medical centre’ which could facilitate it’s use as a community hospital if the need exists within the town over the Plan period.
1208 The additional land promoted would encroach in to Winsham Wood County Wildlife Site where an extended housing development would have a potential adverse impact on this important wildlife designation. Neither a change to the site allocation nor the development boundary is considered appropriate in this location. However, Member’s resolved to include the additional land in the north-west corner within the development boundary in recognition that the site is currently used as managed grassland and does not contribute toward the biodiversity of the CWS. By including the site within the boundary will help to facilitate improved pedestrian linkages from the southern extension to TDK Lambda and Bicclescombe Park.
Policy ILF02: Land at the Shields / Fernway
Summary of Key Issues
1209 Comments made in response to Policy ILF02 including supporting text:
Number of responses 2
Number of responses in support 0
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 0
Number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.103
316 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Site is within a ‘critical drainage area’ and will require a higher standard than normal SUDS (EA). If houses are built then a new road is needed to link through.
Other Key Issues identified
Negotiations are being undertaken with the developer of Fern Way / The Shields in order to resolve issues around the disposal of surface water drainage from adoptable highways on the site. If a satisfactory solution cannot be found then this site may not be deliverable.
Officer Comments
1210 Ilfracombe 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. It is accepted that the policy and supporting text should refer to Ilfracombe being in a CDA and therefore the development should provide additional water storage areas to be created within the site contributing to a reduction in flooding of the Wilderbrook or Hele Stream downstream.
1211 Policy ILF02 and supporting text already recognises the need to provide a new road linking Fern Way with the Shields. Therefore no changes are required.
Policy ILF03: The Bus Station, Ropery Road
Summary of Key Issues
1212 Comments made in response to Policy ILF03 including supporting text:
Number of responses 16
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 12
Number of responses providing a general comment 3
Table 5.104
Pedestrianisation of the area is welcomed. Would like to see housing on the site rather than a car park. Car parking on the site should not be rejected completely but considered as a use that could help regenerate the harbour area. The statement that rejects the option should be deleted (x5). The site should provide a maximum of 38 dwellings in accordance with the Terence O’Rourke report (ITC). Affordable housing should not be built in a tourist area as it will lead to a drop in standards of social behaviour. Residents should comply with a standard of behaviour that is acceptable to the rest of the community.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 317 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Site is at risk of fluvial and surface water flooding but measures to address tidal flooding should be sufficient to address all flooding (EA). The site should not be used for residential uses due to the risk of tidal flooding. Add new criterion to allow ‘alternative uses that have community support’ and ‘car parking should be considered if aspirations to make the pier car park pedestrian friendly are realised’. (ITC) Develop a two-storey building with car parking on the ground floor and all year round leisure facility on the upper floor. The bus station site should be used for car parking as it will be required when pedestrian priority in the harbour is achieved and the pier car park is closed (ITC). Part of the site should be retained for a bus station and some for car parking. Overwhelming local opposition to the plans, proposed development seems short sighted. Housing density is unacceptable the scale of development is too over intensive. Low density housing only and car parking. High-density development would impose its own character on the area rather than enhancing and improving the site. The requirement for a landmark building should be removed from the plan to avoid further unsuitable proposals on the site. This important site needs to be developed in a manner that reflects its importance to regeneration of the area. Over development of the site with high density, poor quality dwellings would only add to the current surplus in the town. 40 houses is very much an over development of the site. A private development provides no benefit to the town and has no place in the plan. Why are these plans still being considered? The harbour is the main attraction for tourists and this prime site should be put to better use. Develop the site for a spa, a valuable addition to the harbour for locals and tourists. A prime site in heart of harbour and conservation area. Should not be developed for housing the site should be used for leisure or retail facilities. The area is of a Victorian style and should remain so. An over intensive development would restrict natural light to the existing properties. The new shops would only be open during the summer months.
Other Key Issues identified
The development of 50 flats and commercial units on the bus station site was dismissed on appeal in June 2013 due mainly to ‘the over intensive nature of the scheme & resulting massing & form which fails to preserve the character and appearance of the harbour area and would have harm to the living conditions of surrounding properties’. The applicant has not re-submitted an application but is expected to place the site on the open market in the coming weeks.
Officer Comments
1213 There is some concern that the policy for the former bus station site is still encouraging an over development of the site (about 133 dph) and the density should be reduced on the basis of deliverability but also to reflect the importance of the site in terms of regeneration for the area. One response suggested that the site should deliver a maximum of 38 units, although a maximum housing number is inappropriate and contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 58) where the potential of a site to accommodate development should be optimised. The proposed site capacity could be lowered whilst being flexible enough not to prevent higher numbers being delivered given an acceptable well designed scheme that adequately addresses all the previous concerns.
318 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1214 Planning application 47450, for 50 residential units and 4 commercial units was refused by NDC and dismissed on appeal. The indicative figures below give an idea of alternative capacities that could be considered (on the site of 0.33 hectares). It is worth noting that the site is within a relatively high density area with a relatively narrow streetscape:-
Total Number of Dwellings Gross Density (dph)
50 dwellings 152 dph
40 dwellings 121 dph
38 dwellings (ITC Rec) 115 dph
35 dwellings 106 dph
30 dwellings 91 dph
25 dwellings 76 dph
Table 5.105
1215 A number of representations have suggested alternative uses on the site including, leisure, retail and car parking to help regenerate the harbour area and provide an alternative to allow car parking on the pier to be removed but others would prefer to see housing, albeit at a lower density. The former bus station is an important previously developed site in the heart of the harbour and conservation area of the town. It is critical the site is redeveloped in a manner that is not detrimental to overall regeneration of the harbour and seafront areas and meets the requirements of paragraph 56 of the NPPF in achieving a development of ‘high quality and inclusive design’. It is considered that a car park, either surface or multi-storey will not conserve the character and appearance of the harbour and conservation area and it will also have an adverse impact on surrounding residential properties through noise and air pollution. Such a use is not considered appropriate for this key regeneration site. However, a car park could be considered in association with a lower density housing and commercial scheme.
1216 The local community has a desire to take buses out of the harbour area and therefore terminate the service at the bottom of Wilder Road. DCC have designed a roundabout to facilitate buses turning around on Wilder Road but the cost (approx. £250,000 plus cost to re-configure the crazy golf) may be prohibitive without a viable redevelopment of the bus station and public finances through the Local Transport Plan. Whilst there is this desire to remove buses from the harbour area, the policy and supporting text offers enough flexibility to assess alternative proposals should they come forward.
1217 The supporting text already recognises that part of the site is within the indicative flood zone and any redevelopment of the area will need to address flooding issues.
Policy ILF04: Mullacott Strategic Employment Site
Summary of Key Issues
1218 Comments made in response to Policy ILF04 including supporting text:
Number of responses 3
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 319 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Number of responses in support 0
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Number of responses in objection 0
Number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.106
Refer to ‘dark night skies’ and supporting text should include reference to ‘good external lighting design’ (ENPA). In recognition of existing uses, the policy should consider allowing all classifications on the estate apart from A1 (retail) uses (ITC). Cycle and footpath links to the town centre would benefit businesses at Mullacott and improve safety.
Other Key Issues identified
Early indications from the updated ‘Employment Land Review’ highlights that the Plan has an over provision of employment land to meet the anticipated demand. The implications of this will be considered under Policies ST07 and ST14 but ELR recommendations could have implications for this site.
Officer Comments
1219 It is accepted the policy and supporting text should be amended to safeguard the ‘dark night skies’ over the Park instead of the ‘dark skies’. It is also accepted that reference should be included to ensure a good external lighting design as part of the overall development.
1220 Mullacott Cross Industrial Estate includes a number of businesses that are outside of the Use Classes B1, B2 and B8. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to allow a more flexible policy approach to proposed new employment uses at Mullacott but this should not include open A1 (retail) or any residential uses. Policy ILF04 and supporting text already recognises the need to provide enhanced cycle and footpath links from Mullacott to the town centre so it is not considered necessary to make any further changes.
1221 The potential oversupply of employment land across northern Devon original allocation, as set out in Policy ST14 warrants a potential 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 should be halved, retaining the land adjoining the B3123 plus 2 hectares currently undeveloped within the existing estate. However, opportunities should be secured to extend this reduced site further south if or when this land has been delivered and the market still dictates an increase in employment delivery at Mullacott Industrial Estate.
Policy ILF05: Harbour / Seafront Tourist Area
Summary of Key Issues
1222 Comments made in response to Policy ILF05 including supporting text:
320 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Number of responses (incl. comment from rejected options) 36
Number of responses in support 2
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 7
Number of responses in objection 21
Number of responses providing a general comment 6
Table 5.107
Support pedestrianisation of the harbour area (x2). Object to the pedestrianisation of the High Street as it will adversely impact on the surrounding residential roads and will not work without a alternative car parking strategy (x15) Any pedestrianisation scheme should make reference for the need to allow access to the Quay for commercial and service vehicles. Support a Park and Ride scheme for the town (ITC). There is no policy commitment to provide alternative off-street car parking in the Quay, necessary to achieve pedestrian priority (DCC). Extend swimming pool to include a fun zone with slides and wave machine. General support for the policy (EH). Sea defences will need to be improved as part of any development. A passenger and/or a car/freight ferry service to Ireland and Wales could significantly increase prosperity in the town (EA). Provision for a large outer harbour/marina should be developed for larger vessels to visit the town. Support the introduction of public art/gallery but this would net generate revenue. Add coffee/souvenir shop. Businesses in the town are working together to promote the area as a single retail and leisure destination. The Plan should support this. The text refers to Proposal ILF04 (Bus Station) where it should refer to Policy ILF03. The former Montebello Hotel should be referred to as a key regeneration site in Fore Street.
Other Key Issues identified
Redevelopment proposals should be of a form that is appropriate to the historic context in which they are set.
Officer Comments
1223 There is general support for the overall policy set out in Policy ILF05. Pedestrianising the harbour / seafront would appear to be supported subject to a policy commitment to provide alternative off-street car parking in order to achieve pedestrian priority. Consideration has been given to developing an extended seasonal car park at Hillsborough using grass-crete rather than tarmac, Policy ILF05 ‘Harbour/Seafront Tourist Area’ could reflect this.
1224 Policy ILF05 already makes it clear that any pedestrianisation of the harbour area should not prejudice the necessary access to the quay for service and commercial vehicles. Policy would not preclude the extension of the swimming pool. Also, the opportunity to enhance the harbour to facilitate
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 321 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
larger vessels to be accommodated and to provide new cross channel links with South Wales and Ireland is already recognised. The harbour / seafront areas are liable to flooding and the supporting text recognises the need to safeguard the area from rising sea levels.
1225 The introduction of public art and an art gallery is supported, but the plan should not be overly prescriptive by adding text to include a coffee/souvenir shop. Policy ILF05 and supporting text offers the flexibility in the harbour / seafront tourist area and will allow such uses within any new art gallery without needing changes to the Plan.
1226 The supporting text should recognise the town as a holistic shopping experience that includes the town centre and seafront / harbour area as promoted by the business community. The former Montebello Hotel site is important but is outside of the area defined as the harbour / seafront tourist area. However, Fore Street does provide an important gateway from the Town Centre down to the harbour and vice versa. Therefore, the supporting text should be amended to identify the former Montebello Hotel as a key regeneration site. Accept that the supporting text should be amended to read ‘Policy ILF03’ and not ‘Proposal ILF04’.
1227 It is accepted the Plan should reflect the support for a ‘Park and Ride’ facility or some other agreed alternative to reduce traffic congestion in the town centre and harbour / seafront. However, this would be better reflected within Policy ILF: ‘Ilfracombe Spatial Strategy’.
1228 The overwhelming objection to the pedestrianisation of the High Street has been noted. However, this is not proposed or referenced directly by the Local plan and should be addressed through detailed projects within the Ilfracombe Transport Master Plan.
Policy ILF06: Local Green Space
Summary of Key Issues
1229 Comments made in response to Policy ILF06 including supporting text:
Number of responses 5
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Number of responses in objection 0
Number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.108
General support for the policy (EH). Any buildings should also be designed to minimise noise as well as visual impact (x2) Additional text required that will support development that will broaden the scope and quality of the town’s cultural offer including the provision of a hotel with leisure and conference facilities to give tourists a greater choice (ITC). Additional text required that will support the provision of a motor home park close to the town centre (ITC).
322 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Officer Comments
1230 It is accepted that any new buildings within this area will generate an element of noise from construction through to the end user. Whilst the concerns are valid it is considered more appropriate to assess these issues within Policy DM01 (Amenity Considerations) and through licensing. The Plan should be read as a whole and any proposals for new buildings in the area should have due consideration to this policy.
1231 Policy ILF05 will support tourism related development such as a hotel and motor home park and that policy has been drawn specifically to include the areas considered by the local community as potential options for such uses, whereas the general principle of ILF06 is seeking to retain the area’s open character and recreational value.
1232 TOWN CENTRE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Summary of Key Issues
1233 Comments made in response to the section and supporting text regarding the town centre and community facilities:
Number of responses 2
Number of responses in support 0
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 1
Number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.109
Residential development in the High Street should not be limited to the upper floors. Ilfracombe has the potential to market its strong independent retail offering. Changing commercial properties to residential uses should be avoided. Allow flexibility in types of commercial uses within town the centre should be adopted. Encourage businesses in the town to improve their offer to meet the public’s expectations.
Other Key Issues identified
Responses received since the consultation period has highlighted the need to consider how to restrict opportunities for the development of HIMOs within the town centre.
Officer Comments
1234 Residential uses are already supported in town centres (Policy ST15). The supporting text already allows a degree of flexibility to encourage commercial uses in the town centre both on the ground and upper floors providing there is no harm to the vitality and viability of the town centre. The
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 323 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
supporting text could be more explicit to facilitate residential uses on the ground floor, albeit outside of the primary shopping frontage. The recognition that residential uses can play an important role in ensuring the vitality of town centres and to encourage such uses on appropriate sites is set out in paragraph 23 of the NPPF.
MAP CHANGES
Summary of Key Issues
1235 Comments made in response to the Policies Maps for Ilfracombe (Figure 15.8) and Mullacott (Figure 15.9) propose amendments to allocated sites and/or the development boundary:
Site Address Rep No. SHLAA Proposed Change to Officer Response No. Allocation or Development Boundary
Land adj. The dlp1352 ILF185 extends development Reject - adverse impact on the Halliards, Langleigh boundary AONB and adjoining county Park wildlife site
Mullacott Industrial dlp2108 ~ N/A Partially Accept – Cross refer Estate to Policy ST09. Add text to explain change from CPA to coastal and estuarine zone
North-east corner of dlp3309 ~ extends ILF01 and Reject - adverse impact on Winsham Wood development boundary county wildlife site CWS
Land east of Score dlp3310 ILF412 extends ILF01 and Reject – adverse impact on View development boundary county wildlife site
Land off Kingsley dlp3316 ILF343 extends development Reject - adverse impact on the Avenue boundary local nature reserve and county wildlife site
Table 5.110
Officer Comments
1236 The location of these proposed map changes are shown on the attached plan. The two sites adjoining ILF01 both form part of the Winsham Wood county wildlife site, which forms a key part of the green infrastructure within and adjoining the proposed development. There is no justification for extending the proposed development over these corners of the designated site.
1237 The proposed boundary change west of Kingsley Avenue forms part of both the Cairn & Old Railway Local Nature Reserve and the Cairn & Old Railway county wildlife site. Even if the site were included, Kingsley Avenue is considered unsuitable to accommodate any increase in traffic. The site is currently woodland and an amendment to the development boundary here is not justified.
324 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1238 The proposed boundary change is around a property known as The Halliards. The site is within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjacent to Torrs Park county wildlife site. Previous outline planning application submitted (49550) but was subsequently withdrawn. Even if the site were included, access on to the Langleigh Park estate involves the demolition of an existing dwelling in to a cul-de-sac which is potentially unsuitable to accommodate any increase in traffic.
1239 With the potential over supply of employment land to meet likely demand within the Plan, it is proposed that the allocation for Policy ILF04 be reduced in accordance with the attached plan.
1240 Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy distinguishes between the developed and un-developed coast. The land to the immediate north of Mullacott Industrial Estate is within the un-developed coast where development constraint would still apply unless it is for agricultural purposes, the benefit of the local community or to enhance opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation. Such development should not detract from the unspoilt character, appearance and tranquility of the area. Add text to Policy ST09 that clarifies the reasons behind the change from CPA to Coastal and Estuarine Zone (WDPC).
Officer Recommendations
1. Update Ilfracombe’s current population to about 12,500. 2. Add text to recognise ‘One Ilfracombe’ and other key local organisations as important partners in delivering the spatial vision. 3. Add more explicit reference in the strategy to improving public transport links from the town to the strategic rail network. 4. Amend Policy ILF01 and supporting text in order to ensure the southern extension delivers or contributes towards delivering new early years and youth provision within the town. 5. Reference the need within the strategy to improve sea defences and mitigate against adverse harm on bathing waters from development. 6. Make an explicit reference in the Strategy to enhancing the historic environment and how the strategy could benefit those areas within the conservation that are at risk. 7. Amend Policies ILF01 and ILF04 to safeguard the ‘dark night skies’ instead of the ‘dark skies’ and add references to ensure a good external lighting design as part of the overall development. 8. Amend policy text in terms of sustainable construction to cross-refer to Policy ST05. 9. Amend the vision for the southern extension by replacing ‘radical’ with ‘incorporate measures that will reduce carbon emissions’. 10. Amend policy ILF ‘Spatial Strategy’ to refer to Ilfracombe being within a ‘Critical Drainage Area’ (CDA) where development should provide additional water storage areas to be created within development sites compared to the normal SUDS design. 11. Refer to the measures set out within the Ilfracombe Transport Masterplan that supports the southern extension. 12. Amend Policy ILF03 to reduce the proposed housing numbers to about 30 units including new wording to encourage community led regeneration of the site. 13. Allow a more flexible approach to employment uses at Mullacott Cross Industrial Estate other than only considering B1, B2 and B8 uses. However, the policy should not permit open A1 (retail) and any residential uses. 14. Reduce extent of the employment allocation at Mullacott but add wording that will allow additional land to be developed if the market demand dictates and add text to ensure development protects landscape setting and provides a transitional boundary with adjacent countryside. 15. Amend policy wording and supporting text to consider proposals for car parking as an alternative to parking on the pier in order to achieve pedestrian priority in the area.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 325 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
16. The Plan should recognise the holistic approach the business community is taking with regard to promoting the shopping experience in the town as a whole. 17. Paragraph 10.284 should be amended to read ‘Policy ILF03’ and not ‘Proposal ILF04’ and add the former Montebello Hotel as a key regeneration site. 18. Amend Policy ILF to reflect support for a ‘Park and Ride’ facility or some other agreed alternative to reduce traffic congestion in the town centre and harbour / seafront. 19. Amend the supporting text of Policy ILF06 to cross-refer to Policy DM01 (Amenity Considerations). 20. Provide more flexibility to allow residential uses in the town centre outside of Primary Shopping Area. 21. Paragraph 10.289 should be amended to add Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy. 22. Paragraph 10.290 should be amended to recognise the strong independent retail offer, encourage new business and improve existing offer. 23. Add text to Policy ST09 that clarifies the reasons behind the change from CPA to Coastal and Estuarine Zone. Town Strategies: Northam
NORTHAM - Chapter 10
Total number of responses 350
Total number of responses in support 19
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 29
Total number of responses in objection 255
Total number of responses providing a general comment 47
Total number of additional housing sites 21
Table 5.111
Policy NOR: Northam Spatial Strategy
Summary of Key Issues
1241 Comments made in response to Policy NOR: Northam Spatial Strategy, including supporting text regarding the place, evidence, the development strategy and development proposals.
Number of responses 110
Number of responses in support 5
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 12
Number of responses in objection 48
Number of responses providing a general comment 45
Table 5.112
326 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Excessive scale of development; Appledore will not require 50 dwellings per annum 2011-2031. (1478) Proposed development levels will require improvements to B3236, a section of Daddon Hill and consideration to improvements to the junction A39/B3236. (2877 (DCC)) Sites are relatively remote from existing services; provision of enhanced local services within the sites is therefore encouraged. (2878 (DCC)) Overall scale of housing growth disproportionate to employment opportunities and infrastructure capacity and would result in negative impact on the areas character. (1729) (2110) (2180) (2421) (2590) (2725) (3128) (3099) (3126) (3236) (3379) (3394) (3560) (1228) (3445) Flood risk consequences from surface water run off must be considered when developing the proposed housing sites. (3205) (3553) Housing development should be supported by infrastructure and focused on affordable housing for local people. (3204) Support for appropriate housing levels but no employment land allocated to provide for balanced communities. (3333) (3490) (3474) Impacts on bathing water must be considered and mitigated. (2570 (EA)) Improve the service balance for residents and visitors; the importance of tourism must be stated and supporting funding provided. (3260) Westward Ho! sea defences may require significant investment, contributions may be sought from local allocations. (2562 (EA)) Change classification of Appledore to a Local Centre. (2421) All residential development will have to contribute to increasing educational capacity. (2875 (DCC)) The special qualities of the designated landscape (AONB), including its setting should be maintained. (3030 (NE) The objectives of ST02 (1)(c) in respect of providing balanced communities cannot be achieved in Northam in the absence of an improved public transport system. (3403) In providing for future housing needs, reflect the aging nature of Northam’s population. (3699) The areas maritime attributes and assets should be maintained. (1468) Revisit demographic data and assess housing needs. (445) The future of Appledore shipyard should not be prejudiced by development in close proximity. (1470) (2287) Important to maintain the historic urban character of Westward Ho! (301) (1483) Review commitment tables which contain inaccurate information. (3490) Support for the defined Development Boundary and proposals. (889) (3381) Conflict between the rejected option at 10.342 (2) and the vision. (451) Maintain the Rural Gap between Northam and Appledore, seek the “prevention” not “avoidance” of coalescence and extend to include Westward Ho! (1517) (602) (3202) (3558) (2288) Support the continued avoidance of coalescence, but no related policy on strategic gaps. (2426) (3395) (3401) Ensure the consistency between the vision and the strategy; ensure a clear strategy is conveyed. (2876 (DCC)) Support for the level of development proposed and more could be provided; provide for at least 1,550 dwellings and avoid an annualised development limit. (811) (1771) (1780) (812) Support for the scale of housing growth to achieve infrastructure improvements; on the basis of expanded NOR01/02/03 replacing NOR07 and NOR09. (3698) Clarify the means of delivering 400 units on non-allocated sites and reflect in Table 10.10. (1785) (1788)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 327 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Inadequate infrastructure to support planned growth, sustainable proposals required with necessary infrastructure, including green infrastructure. (487) (3387) Wooda and Northam surgeries undersized for the existing population; developer contributions required for GP primary care medical services to offset impact of population increase. (740) Avoid long term protection of maritime assets (Richmond and Middle Dock) if no longer suitable for maintained use, provide flexibility for mixed use redevelopment. (2424) NOR01 and NOR02 break the ridgeline; a special quality of the AONB, development appropriate only if there is no significant impact on the AONB which the evidence base should demonstrate. (3032) Alter the yield on NOR09 to 250, reflecting proposed development. (1774) Housing development in Appledore should be restricted to low cost housing. (2290)
Additional Points
Housing land and dwelling completion information now available with a 1st April 2013 base date will be incorporated into the Local Plan. The Land Availability account has been interrogated to ensure the contained information is accurate as at 1st April 2013.
Officer Comments
1242 A range of comments were received in relation to the Northam Spatial Strategy, of which the majority provided objection or a general comment in relation to the scale, form and location of proposed development. The content of the comments is noted.
1243 Concern has been raised regarding the proposed level of development in respect of housing growth. The scale of planned development is not considered excessive. The Torridge Urban Housing Needs Assessment identified a total housing need for Northam of 1460 dwellings, including 518 affordable dwellings. It is appropriate that housing needs are provided for at the point of generation and where demand is demonstrated if deliverable and developable sites are available.
1244 The suggestion that 50 dwellings annually will be developed in Appledore results from a misunderstanding. The draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan provides for 1,550 dwellings in Northam 2011-2031, across Northam, Westward Ho! and Appledore. The allocations at Appledore provide only for l58 additional dwellings over the plan period in addition to existing commitments. The planned level of growth at Appledore does not equate to 50 dwellings per annum and falls short of evidenced need and a result of the limited availability of suitable sites. The balance of Appledore’s housing needs and demands are provided for across Northam parish.
1245 Devon County Council has identified the need for a range of highway improvements to meet the needs of planned growth. Policy NOR provides that development meets their infrastructure needs and additional detail is provided through individual site policies. However, securing network improvements to the A39/B3236 junction and B3236 is critical to the development of planned growth to the west of Westward Ho! a reference to which is therefore consider appropriate in Policy NOR.
1246 Devon County Council’s comment regarding the need for integrated services within proposed development sites where relatively remote from local service is noted. Providing for much of Northam’s housing requirement in closely related substantial sites (NOR01, NOR02 and NOR03) will provide for the better delivery of social and physical infrastructure in response to generated needs.
1247 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. Deliverable and developable sites are available in Northam on which basis there is no justification to seek a
328 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
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 draft Employment and Housing Study indicated the 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 Districts Council will be supporting through initiatives centred around established maritime assets, which are focused at Appledore.
1248 Issues relating to flood risk are covered by national planning policy and also by the wider collection of Strategic and Development Management Policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. Where site specific measures are required, provisions will be set out through allocating policies, which in respect of Northam will result from impacts on the Bideford Critical Drainage Area. No change to the strategy is proposed on this basis. Separately, the Environment Agency has identified that sea defences at Westward Ho! may require improvement on which basis it is considered appropriate to add a reference within Policy NOR(i) to reflect the potential for such as a necessary infrastructure improvement.
1249 The calls for housing to be supported by infrastructure and service improvements are noted. Infrastructure matters will be covered by the wider collection of Strategic and Development Management Policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan and where appropriate included within allocating policies. The Local Plan in providing for identified housing needs and demands seeks to provide for associated infrastructure where needs are generated both in respect of allocated and windfall sites.
1250 The need to increase the supply of affordable housing is established through the Torridge Assessment of Affordable Housing Needs. The wider collection of Strategic and Development Management Policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan will cover related matters. Local targets and thresholds will be set to secure housing that will contribute to affordable needs. The importance of increasing the supply of affordable housing is recognised (Strategic Aim 3, Objective (b)) but the suggestion that there should be a focus on affordable housing would not be deliverable or appropriate having regard to evidenced housing needs and demands and the required achievability of development in respect of viability.
1251 The call to make a more explicit reference to the importance of tourism is noted and accepted. The Spatial Strategy provides for safeguarding and securing improvements to the resort of Westward Ho!, but it does not confirm its significance, which could be usefully be added. The suggestion that funding should be provided to support tourism is noted but such falls outside the scope of the Local Plan. The Local Plan provides the framework to support investment that would improve the function and appearance of the resort both for visitors and residents.
1252 The suggestion to reclassify Appledore to a Local Centre is noted. Policy ST06: Spatial Strategy for Northern Devon, defines the hierarchy of settlements based on an assessment services and facilities. 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. No change to the strategy is proposed.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 329 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1253 Natural England comment that the special qualities of the designated landscape (AONB), including its setting should be maintained. The need to protect the special qualities of the AONB is recognised and is provided for through the strategic and development management policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. Policy NOR: Northam Spatial Strategy also provides that in accommodating the areas development needs regard will be given to the settlements setting and special character provided by a coastal location. No change to the strategy is proposed.
1254 The need to provide for all the communities housing needs, including those required by an aging population, is recognised and provided for through the Strategic and Development Management policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment provides the basis for seeking elderly specific housing and lends support to the Local Plan requirement to deliver Lifetime Homes. With regard to Northam, paragraph 10.309 makes a specific reference to the need to provide for a range of housing and that a particular focus on meeting the housing needs of an increasingly elderly population. Having recognised the importance of securing a range of housing to meet an expanding elderly population, which will be significant in scale in Northam, it is considered appropriate to reflect such a need within the Spatial Strategy.
1255 The importance of marine based sectors to the economy of Northam and the wider area is accepted and recognised. The Strategic and Development Management Policies of the Local Plan reflect the clear guidance provided by national planning policy on the use of marine based assets. The emerging Estuary Study and Northern Devon Economic Strategy recognise the importance of marine based assets and how support will be provided to achieve related economic development. The significance of marine assets, both in respect of safeguarding existing operations and infrastructure and encouraging future development will be a key contributor to improving the economic performance of Northam. Amendment to NOR(d) is recommended to emphasis the economic importance of marine based industries, which will be safeguarded and supported in respect of future development.
1256 The importance of Appledore Shipyard to the current and future economy of Northam and the wider area is recognised both through the Local Plan and the Council’s Economic Strategy. The Local Plan seeks to safeguard the operation of the shipyard, including through the avoidance of potentially conflicting new development. The Spatial Strategy provides for the safeguarding of important economic resources and provides a specific reference to the shipyard. No change to the strategy is proposed.
1257 The housing needs and demands for Torridge are established by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment update (2012) and detailed needs evidence is provided by the Torridge Urban Housing Needs Assessment (2012). Both evidences are considered to be robust and up-to-date. It is not considered necessary to review the assessed housing requirement for the area and thus no change to the strategy is proposed.
1258 Comment is provided on the need to maintain the historic character of Westward Ho!. Proposals that could impact on heritage assets or the character of an area will be considered with regard to the Strategic and Development Management Policies of the Local Plan. The Local Plan seeks to preserve and enhance heritage assets and in respect of new development ensure such is to a high standard of design, and respects its context, promotes or reinforces local distinctiveness any where possible improves the character and quality of the area. No change to the strategy is proposed.
1259 The need to ensure accuracy of presented information is accepted. In response to the suggestion that Table 10.10: Northam Housing Provision, contains inaccurate information, a review of the baseline information has been undertaken together with an update to April 2012. Table 10.10 will be amended to reflect any revisions from the review, the update of commitments and changes to allocated sites as considered below.
330 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1260 Support for the development boundary and level of proposed development is noted. Comment is provided that additional development could be provided. The strategy provides for Northam’s housing needs and demands to be met. The housing allocations proposed to meet the related land supply will deliver more than is locally required. Additionally, the Strategic and Development Management Policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan are drafted to enable appropriate windfall development to come forward within development boundaries. Such development is likely to contribute to an increased level of housing delivery and also provides an element of flexibility to ensure adequate delivery. No change to the strategy is proposed in relation to the overall housing target in respect of the scale or the related qualification of “about”, which reflects the scale of housing anticipated to be delivered. It is however accepted that the annualised development rate should be viewed only as a guide; the development rate will be determined by market conditions and be impacted by infrastructure requirements. Policy ST20: Managing the Delivery of Housing, confirms the Council’s intention to work positively to ensure delivery and the actions to be taken if monitoring indicates housing delivery performance is falling below required levels. It is considered unnecessary to prescribe localised development rates, amendment to the Northam Strategy is proposed to delete the 70 dwelling per annum reference.
1261 Comments are provided in support of the continuing strategy of the avoidance of coalescence between Appledore and Northam. The “Rural Gap” Policy ENV6 of the Torridge District Local Plan is not brought forward in the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. The development strategy in respect site allocations is proposed taking account of the need to avoid coalescence while meeting assessed housing needs and demands and without prejudice to established economic interests. No change to the strategy is proposed.
1262 A number of matters have been raised in relation to individual site allocations and these are addressed below in relation to the respective Policies’.
1263 The spatial strategy for Northam is considered to be sound with no significant objections raised that are considered likely to jeopardise its deliverability. As such, only minor amendments are recommended.
Policy NOR01: Daddon Hill Farm
Summary of Key Issues
1264 Comments made in response to Policy NOR01, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 58
Number of responses in support 1
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 10
Number of responses in objection 44
Number of responses providing a general comment 3
Table 5.113
Support for NOR01; the site is available for development and technical studies have been commissioned. (1789) Support subject to retention of Green Infrastructure and proposals to direct traffic onto A39 via Daddon Hill. (3685)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 331 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Support subject to amendment; on site management of surface water, significant planting to the north and west to maintain the integrity of existing buildings and contribute to local ecosystems, upgraded infrastructure and extension of healthcare facilities in the development. (547) (550) (555) Enable a refinement of access solutions through the sought site development brief. (1790) Site drains towards the possible Critical Drainage Area of Bideford, higher than normal SUDS required and/or contribution to Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme Improvements. (2563 (EA)) (438) Provide onsite sport and recreation or contributions for off-site provision. (2227 (Sport England)) Support primary school provision, but accompanying nursery provision also required. Children’s Centre base required to be accommodated within the school. (2879 (DCC)) If enabled: strong boundary treatment, maximise effective landscaping between existing dwellings, school located distant from existing homes, development should reflect topography. (2592) Reduce allocation, add playing fields with the school and provide a medical centre. (3293) Objection to NOR01: unsustainable proposal in the absence of local employment opportunities to support housing growth. There is no spatial connectivity to Westward Ho! or Northam, the scale of development, for which there is no need would negatively impact the existing community, light and noise pollution would result together with loss of privacy and views, inadequate local infrastructure (education, retail, health, public transport, sewerage and drainage) and highway network which could not be adequately upgraded; congestion will result. Development would negatively impact on the AONB and the rural/coastal character of the area and consequently tourism. The proposed density is not reflective of the locality. (484)(1045)(1726)(1955)(2059)(2141)(2299)(2350)(2366)(2579)(2597)(2598) (3102)(2930)(3196)(3245)(3275)(3278)(3317)(3342)(3363)(3389)(3478)(3550) (3599)(3604)(3614)(3624)(3636)(3646)(3673)(3680)(3749)(3757)(3759,)(3776) (3777)(458)(38). Further public consultation following Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. (553) Transport infrastructure capacity must be increased in advance of new development, assess the impact of traffic flows on Westward Ho! A road safety assessment and peak traffic flow analysis is required. (437) (438) (339) (440) Planning obligations should be sought only where justified, contributions in relation to sought network improvements should be sought from NOR02 and NOR03, not only NOR01. (1792) All residential development in the area will need to contribute to the new school or expansion to existing provision. (2880 (DCC)
Additional Points
Officers from Torridge District and Devon Council Councils have met on a without prejudice basis the development interests for the site subject to Policy NOR01. The development interests confirmed the site, in its entirety, was available for development and that the requirements defined in the draft policy with regard to the scale of development, infrastructure including highway improvements and strategic landscaping could be delivered.
Additional land has been presented for development to the west of the principal allocation, which has been confirmed to be in the control the development interests for NOR01. Gaining linkage and control between the elements of NOR01will allow for an improved highway solution in respect of achieving satisfactory access to the site and capacity improvements beyond.
Having regard to the age characteristic of Northam and finding of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment which identified there to be a district wide need for 865 units of specialist housing for older households (designated 368, sheltered 176 and 321 extra care units over the plan period), it is considered appropriate that specific provision is made within the strategic allocation
332 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
of NOR01to contribute to the accommodation of housing needs for the areas increasingly aging population.
Officer Comments
1265 Fifty-eight comments have been received in response to the draft Policy NOR01: one in support, ten in support subject to amendment, forty-four in objection and three provided a general comment.
1266 Support for the proposal is noted as is the suggested infrastructure requirements related to the housing development. Devon County Council as the Local Highway Authority have confirmed the need for vehicular traffic from the site to be forced to travel in a westerly direction, avoiding the increased use of Daddon Hill, Chope Road and Cluden Road that would significantly add to A386 traffic onto the Heywood Road Roundabout from Northam. Similarly, pedestrian/cycle links only will be enabled from the site through to Bay View Road; improving the relationship and connectively between the site and adjoining development without encouraging additional traffic movements through the northern element of the Heywood Road Roundabout. To facilitate the western movement of traffic, highway network improvements will be required to Buckleigh Road, the Silford Cross Junction and B3236 on to A39. The draft policy makes provision to direct traffic movements on to the B3236 and requires the stated highway improvements, no policy amended is required in response to the expressed concerns. For clarity an additional reference within the supporting text at paragraph 10.318 could be made indicating that eastern movements form the site along Daddon will be prevented.
1267 Further detail of access arrangement, together with issues relating to landscaping, green infrastructure, the form of the housing development, including how locally occurring needs should be addresses (such as for the elderly and affordability levels if at variance from the policy standard), the location and scale of recreation facilities and infrastructure including education provision will be set out in the required site development brief. Policy NOR01 and the supporting text will provide the framework on which the site development brief will be prepared.
1268 The on-site management of surface water is a recognised issue that will be required to be addressed by all development, and which will be provided for through a recommended revision to draft Policy DM05. The Environment Agency have identified that the site subject to Policy NOR01 drains towards the Bideford Critical Drainage Area and thus a higher standard of sustainable drainage will be required for the site and contributions may be required to secure improvements to the Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme. It is considered appropriate that a policy reference is made to require an enhanced Sustainable Drainage System and contributions as required for improvement of the Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme.
1269 Devon County Council supports the need for a new primary school on site which is required as a consequence of planned growth, within and beyond the N0R01site. In addition to the need for a new school, generated educational needs determine a requirement for a nursery and a children’s centre within the school; a policy revision is recommended to clarify the educational infrastructure requirements to be provided on the NOR01 site. Where educational needs are generated beyond the NOR01site, either on allocated or windfall sites contributions will be sought to deliver the new school or expansion to existing provision when required by capacity deficits.
1270 Thirty-eight objections have been received to the principle of development at Daddon Hill The Strategic Housing Land Available Assessment has determined the site subject to NOR01 to be developable and the Affordable Housing Needs Assessment identified a total housing need for Northam of 1460 including 518 affordable dwellings. The site is judged to be suitable for development and to make an essential contribution to meeting local housing needs. Policy NOR01 together with
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 333 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Policies NOR02 and NOR03 provide an opportunity to secure locationally focused development that will create a new area hub that delivers significant infrastructure improvements in addition to accommodating identified housing needs.
1271 Concerns expressed regarding infrastructure and impacts on the existing community are noted and recognised. However, generated infrastructure needs will be provided through the sites development, necessary highway improvements secured and a high quality development delivered that appropriately takes account of the sites landform, its position within the landscape and relationship to existing development.
1272 Further consultation on how the site will be developed will take place though the preparation of the required site development brief.
1273 Contributions to highway improvements and social infrastructure will be sought from other developments where appropriate. The development to be delivered through Policy NOR01 is significant and thus it is appropriate that secured development is reflective of generated needs in scale and form. The District Councils are aware of the need to take account of site viability in determining the affordable and non-housing components of the site.
1274 Concern has been raised on the proposed density required to deliver 500 dwellings. The planned level of housing development is 56% less that the capacity determined by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) of 888 dwellings. The SHLAA assumed yield is based on a site discount of 30% from which a yield of 35 dwellings per hectare is applied. 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 with integrated green infrastructure not to maximise site yield.
Policy NOR02: Site West of Buckleigh Road (North)
Summary of Key Issues
1275 Comments made in response to Policy NOR02, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 68
Number of responses in support 3
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 5
Number of responses in objection 57
Number of responses providing a general comment 3
Table 5.114
Support for NOR02; an unobtrusive natural extension. (1882) (3294) Support subject to amendment; development should minimise impact on the skyline and the setting of the AONB, adequate green space to support the development. (1645 (NT)) (3382) Support development subject to improvements to the highway network, avoiding additional traffic at Heywood Road Roundabout via Bay View Road. (3688) Support subject to amendment to remove the retail element of the proposal, which is not required; facilities are accessible in Westward Ho! (563)
334 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Objection to NOR02: unsustainable in the absence of local employment opportunities to support housing growth for which there is no need having regard to locally available properties for sale. Alternative more appropriate sites should be developed. Inadequate local infrastructure (education, retail, health, public transport and sustainable transport opportunities, sewerage and drainage) and highway network which could not be adequately upgraded; congestion and safety issues will result. Negative environmental impact on: ecology and wildlife, the AONB/SSSI and the rural/coastal character of the area and consequently tourism. Erosion of the separation between Westward Ho! and Abbotsham, increasing the risk of coalescence. The proposed density is inconsistent with adjacent properties; loss of privacy and views would impact on existing residents. The site does not relate to an established boundary; urban sprawl will result. 15 years of noise pollution as the area is developed and food production capacity will be lost. (112) (485) (519) (645 (NT)) (1576) (1987) (1946) (1957) (1957) (2054) (2190) (2300) (2363) (2367) (2581)(2605) (2647) (2727) (3110) (2931) (3197) (3252) (3304) (3268) (3327) (3375)(3237) (3375) (3238) (3246) (3250) (3307) (3321) (3482) (34103) (470) (3345) (3354) (3366) (3390) (3479) (3481) (3551) (3600) (3606) (3625) (3637)(3641),(3644) (3647)(3652) (3675) (3675) (3681) (3752) (3760) (3774) (57). NOR02 excluded from development in the TDLP and held to be unsustainable by the Local Plan Inspector. (3119) The site subject to NOR02 is suitable for allotment use. (3416) Site drains towards the possible Critical Drainage Area of Bideford, higher than normal SUDS required and/or contribution to Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme Improvements. (2564 (EA)) If development enabled, add landscaping/”green belt” to benefit existing residents as provided for at NOR01. (3119) Bottleneck into Bideford and at the river crossing on to A39 will result from development in Northam. (455)
Additional Points
An application (1/0251/2013/FULM) is registered with Torridge District Council: residential development of 132 units and 126m2 of retail floor space including access associated engineering works, infrastructure, drainage and landscaping, on the eastern part of the site (4.6 hectares). The application is not yet determined.
A number of sites adjoining Policies NOR02 and NOR03 have been presented through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment which provide an opportunity to combined and extend the policy area. Extending the site area would provide for improved connectivity throughout the sites and a further focus for the areas development that would allow for enhanced infrastructure delivery through comprehensive development that could be secured without detriment to valued landscape assets . Formal assessment are not yet concluded but appraisals are on going in relation to the sites, which are referenced; SHA/NOR/122, SHA/NOR123, SHA/NOR124, SHA/NOR125 and SHA/NOR126. Initial officer opinion suggests the sites could be developable as part of a wider comprehensive development in association with sites NOR02 and NOR03.
An extension to SHA/NOR/105, located on the road frontage to Cornborough Road has been presented as available; it is a small site which includes a single property.
Officer Comments
1276 Sixty-eight comments have been received in response to the draft Policy NOR02: three in support, five in support subject to amendments, fifty-seven in objection and three provided a general comment.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 335 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1277 Support for the proposal is noted as are the suggested additions and provided comments. With regard to the highway network, improvements to Buckleigh Road and as necessary to Silford Cross will be required. Additional traffic onto the Heywood Road Roundabout will be as a result of movements from Bay View Road and the B3236; new traffic management measures will seek to prevent the eastern movement of vehicles along Daddon Hill.
1278 The importance of the form of development in the context of the AONB and the need to conserve its setting and special character is established through ST11: Enhancing Environmental Assets and in respect of detailed design Policy DM05: Design Principles will secure the delivery of quality design in respect of form, appearance and function.
1279 The suggestion that retail element of Policy NOR02 should be removed is not accepted. It is appropriate that local facilities are provided in an area where significant growth is planned. The retail facility will contribute to meeting day to day needs without the need to travel.
1280 Fifty-seven objections have been received to the principle of development on the site to the west of Buckleigh Road (north site).The Strategic Housing Land Available Assessment has determined the site subject to NOR02 to be developable. The Affordable Housing Needs Assessment identified a total housing need for Northam of 1460 including 518 affordable dwellings; there is a significant housing need in Northam that must be provided for. The NOR02 site is judged to be suitable for development and required for the contribution it can make to meeting local housing needs.
1281 Concerns expressed regarding the need for additional housing are noted but the referenced evidence demonstrates that demands and needs will generate a significant requirement for housing in Northam across the plan period. With regard to local employment to support housing growth, it is recognised that employment allocations are not present in Northam, but as evidenced in the draft Employment and Housing Study an increasing proportion of future employment growth will not require locations on industrial estates. 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 Council’s emerging 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 is planned for Bideford which is easily accessible, including by public transport from Northam.
1282 The suggestion that alternative more appropriate sites should be developed is noted. Having regard to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment the scope for alternative allocations is very limited and “alternative more appropriate sites” are not apparent. There is no other site or sites that have comparable delivery potential with regard to the scale of development and infrastructure improvements.
1283 The issue of density is raised in relation to the adjacent properties, as is the impact on amenity. In respect of all development the objective will be to secure high quality development as guided by Policy DM05: Design Principles, with amenity issues taken into account through Policy DM01: Amenity Considerations. With regard to the proposed level of development such is provided a guide as considered appropriate for general application through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. A housing number is required to be defined as a contributor to the land supply the starting point for which will be agreed SHLAA assumptions. Variations from the assumed yield can occur dependent upon local characterises, non-housing elements within the site or considerations such as progressed or committed planning applications. The objective for the site is to achieve a
336 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
quality development not to maximise density levels. An amendment to the site yield provided by the NOR02 site is proposed to reflect the enabled supply if the proposal subject to 1/0251/2013/FULM is consented.
1284 As indicated by comment 3119 the Inspector to the Torridge District Local Plan (May 2003) discounted the site subject to an element of NOR02 (formally draft TDLP Proposal WHO2) as not being suitable for housing. The Inspector’s comments outlined issues relating to the sites position within the landscape, limited containment with associated development and the absence of nearby services and facilities including local schools. Taking account of the Inspection’s position, it is asserted that the need for the site to make a contribution to the housing supply has altered significantly, as have the sustainability credentials of the site. The site considered by the Local Plan Inspector is incorporated within a larger site proposal that will significantly change the consideration of containment as a strong boundary position will be established with defined relationships to the established and future built form of the area. The sites NOR01, NOR02 and NOR3, provide for a quantum of housing that is necessary to address local needs and demands which can be delivered with infrastructure improvements and supporting services. The benefits to be derived from the collective delivery of the referenced sites could not otherwise be provided through a more dispersed development strategy, if such were deliverable.
1285 The on-site management of surface water is a recognised issue that will be required to be addressed by all development, and which will be provided for through a recommended revision to draft Policy DM05. The Environment Agency have identified that the site drains towards the Bideford Critical Drainage Area and thus a higher standard of sustainable drainage will be required for the site and contributions may be required to secure improvements to the Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme. It is considered appropriate that a policy reference is made to require an enhanced Sustainable Drainage System and contributions as required for improvement of the Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme.
1286 Comment on the Spatial Strategy (dlp 3698) suggests the need to expand the policy areas from NOR01, NOR02 and NOR03. Increasing the housing yield on the Buckleigh Road and Daddon Hill sites is presented as necessary to meet the areas housing needs and deliver the associated infrastructure improvements and allow for the replacement of Policies NOR07 and NOR09. Policies NOR07 and NOR09 are separately discussed below.
1287 Having regard to the housing requirement for Northam, the delivery potential and consequences of development, it is proposed that the policy areas NOR02 and NOR03 are combined and extended to include: SHA/NOR/122, SHA/NOR/123 and SHA/NOR/124. The gains from extending the policy area include the opportunity to follow the principles “Garden Cities”, providing for the comprehensive delivery of enhanced levels of physical and social infrastructure as a contributor to establishing a new community hub to the southwest of Westward Ho! The area recommended to be included within an extended Policy NOR02, would result in a new policy area of about 26 hectares, with a potential yield of about 550 dwellings. Increasing the housing yield from development around Buckleigh Road provides for review of the other draft Northam allocations without prejudice to meeting the areas housing needs and demands.
Policy NOR03: Site West of Buckleigh Road (South)
Summary of Key Issues
1288 Comments made in response to Policy NOR03, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 52
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 337 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Number of responses in support 2
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Number of responses in objection 46
Number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.115
Support for NOR03; an unobtrusive natural extension. (3295) Support development subject to improvements to the highway network, avoiding additional traffic at Heywood Road Roundabout via Bay View Road. (3690) Support subject to amendment; cycle route from NOR01, NOR02, NOR03 to Bideford town centre, a cycle and footpath from Buckleigh Road to Abbotsham village and uninterrupted footways along Bay View Road. (447) (560) Site drains towards the possible Critical Drainage Area of Bideford, higher than normal SUDS required and/or contribution to Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme Improvements. (2565 (EA)) Objection to NOR03: unsustainable in the absence of local employment opportunities to support housing growth for which there is no need having regard to locally available properties for sale. The scale of development is disproportionate to the existing community and existing service, which are additionally not within a safe walking distance. Alternative more appropriate sites, including brownfield sites, should be developed. Inadequate local infrastructure (education, retail, health, public transport and sustainable transport opportunities, sewerage and drainage) to support proposed growth. The highway network has limited capacity, which could not be adequately upgraded; congestion and safety issues will result. Negative environmental impact on: ecology and wildlife, the AONB/SSSI and the rural/coastal character of the area and consequently tourist attraction would be diminished. Erosion of the separation between Westward Ho!, Bideford and Abbotsham. The proposed density is considered inconsistent with adjacent properties; loss of privacy and views would impact on existing residents. The site does not relate to a well-defined boundary; urban sprawl will result. 15 years of noise pollution would result from the area being developed and food production capacity will be lost. (486) (1953) (1990) (1947) (1958) (2301) (2364) (2368) (2582) (2606) (2648) (2729)(2932) (3105) (3120) (3198) (3305) (3377) (3248) (3280) (3324) (3412) (3471) (334)(3367) (3391) (3480) (3601) (3607) (3610) (3619) (3628) (3638) (3642) (3645) (3648) (3653) (3676) (3682) (3761) (3754) (3758) The SHLAA determined the site to be unsuitable and unsustainable on the basis that it was “outside and divorced from the existing development area”. (3120) The site provides an opportunity for accessible local food growing. (3417) Buckleigh Laundry will be left as an island of industry, potential for complaints and the loss of employment. (3682)
Officer Comments
1289 Fifty-two comments have been received in response to the draft Policy NOR03: two in support, two in support subject to amendments, forty-six in objection and two provided a general comment.
1290 Support for the proposal is noted as are the suggested additions and provided comments. With regard to the highway network, improvements to Buckleigh Road and as necessary to Silford Cross will be required. Additional traffic onto the Heywood Road Roundabout will be as a result of movements from Bay View Road and the B3236; new traffic management measures will seek to prevent the eastern movement of vehicles along Daddon Hill.
338 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1291 The suggestion of a cycle link to Bideford is noted as is the cycle link and footpath from Buckleigh Road to Abbotsham village and for an improved footpath along Bay View Road. Opportunities to secure improved sustainable transport links will be pursued through development, but such can only be achieved where reasonable to do so and where the developer has land ownership. The principle of developing quality local pedestrian and cycle links is established through Policy ST10: Transport Strategy, which will be delivered with Policy DM05: Design Principles, which requires development to incorporate adequate and well-integrated pedestrian and cycle routes and facilities. With regard to connections from Bideford to Abbotsham, improved footpath provision will be secured through the development of the Moreton Park and the Winsford Park sites.
1292 The on-site management of surface water is a recognised issue that will be required to be addressed by all development, and which will be provided for through a recommended revision to draft Policy DM05. The Environment Agency have identified that the site drains towards the Bideford Critical Drainage Area and thus a higher standard of sustainable drainage will be required for the site and contributions may be required to secure improvements to the Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme. It is considered appropriate that a policy reference is made to require an enhanced Sustainable Drainage System and contributions as required for improvement of the Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme.
1293 Forty-two objections have been received to the principle of development on the site to the west of Buckleigh Road (south site). The Affordable Housing Needs Assessment identified a total housing need for Northam of 1460 including 518 affordable dwellings; there is a significant housing need in Northam that must be provided for. The NOR03 site is judged to be suitable for development and required for the contribution it makes to meeting local housing needs. Noting the comments regarding the currently availability of properties for sale, it is important to consider the 20 year timescale of the Local Plan, during which time there will be variations in market conditions that will impact on delivery and sales both of existing and new property. The need for the proposed level of housing is evidenced from which it is necessary to provide for the planned growth levels as a minimum where opportunities exist to do so.
1294 Concerns expressed regarding the need for additional housing are noted but the referenced evidence demonstrates that demands and needs will generate a significant requirement for housing in Northam across the plan period. With regard to local employment to support housing growth, it is recognised that employment allocations are not present in Northam, but as evidenced in the draft Employment and Housing Study an increasing proportion of future employment growth will not require locations on industrial estates. Identified short term growth is assessed to be focused on service based industries, including care and retail with tourism continuing to be significant contributor to employment opportunities; all of which occur and have potential for growth in Northam. In the longer term and as reflected by the Council’s emerging 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 opportunities in Northam, an expansion of employment opportunities are planned for Bideford which is easily accessible, including by public transport to Northam.
1295 Comments regarding the adequacy of infrastructure are noted and similar have been made in respect of Policies NOR01 and NOR02. Necessary infrastructure will be secured in step with housing development as provided for by Policy ST22: Infrastructure. In providing for a significant proportion of the areas housing needs on three well related and substantial sites opportunities to achieve local infrastructure improvements will be maximised, and include outcomes that will secure wider community benefits, such as the provision of a new school, local retail provision and significant highway improvements.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 339 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1296 The importance of the form of development in the context of the AONB and the need to conserve its setting and special character is established through ST11: Enhancing Environmental Assets and in respect of detailed design Policy DM05: Design Principles will secure the delivery of quality design in respect of form, appearance and function.
1297 The suggestion that alternative more appropriate sites should be developed is noted but having regard to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment the scope for alternative comparable allocations is very limited.
1298 The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (2010), as indicated discounted the site subject to Policy NOR03 as a consequence of the sites relationship to the built form of the settlement. The sites relationship to the built form of Westward Ho! will however change as a result of proposed development on the sites subject to Policies NOR01 and NOR02. The recommendation to add approximately 2 hectares to NOR02 to bring together NOR02 and NOR3 will further improve the sites relationship as development occurs to the south west of Westward Ho! The relationships of the proposed development sites will discount the former assessment that the site is ““outside and divorced from the existing development area".
1299 The potential impact on neighbouring land uses will be taken into account when considering development proposals. Policy DM01: Amenity Considerations seeks to protect new and existing occupants both residential and other users from the consequence of inappropriate disturbance and intrusion. Care will be required to ensure that established business is not disadvantaged following the development of nearby housing, this issues is specifically recognised in paragraph 12.4 in support of Policy DM01. Employment, in the support of existing business and the establishment of new is a priority for Torridge District Council, and thus ensuring the compatibility of neighbouring uses to employment activity is recognised as a significant issue that will be addressed.
Policy NOR04: Tadworthy Road (Northam)
Summary of Key Issues
1300 Comments made in response to Policy NOR04, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 10
Number of responses in support 2
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 6
Number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.116
Support for NOR04: well-located site to support Northam and Westward Ho!, potential access routes could provide significant highway network improvements. (3415) (3692) Objection to NOR04: the distinction between settlements would be lost, encroachment into the rural gap, adverse effect on tourism and traffic in Northam Square. Tadworthy Fields provides natural drainage; development would channel more water to lower lying areas of Northam Burrows. Tadworthy Road is not suited to increased traffic use that would result from development. Development would put a stain on infrastructure, affecting water quality with a consequent impact
340 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
on tourism and there is no local employment to enable housing to be afforded. (125) (603) (1184) (3368) Address flooding and climate change risks, potentially by allowing time limited planning permissions (10 years) for certain types of development, in area at risk today or in the future. (2566 EA)) Playing fields with housing may result in noise pollution conflict, an alternative location with the new school in NOR01would be preferable. (3296) Development at Tadworthy Fields would provide a contradiction to the stated objective of avoiding coalescence and “respecting the sensitive landscape and environmental setting. (1180) The aspiration to achieve a continuation of views of Northam Burrows is misplaced having regard to the planned scale of development. (1181)
Officer Comments
1301 Ten comments have been received in response to the draft Policy NOR04: two in support, six in objection and two provided a general comment.
1302 The comments in support of and in objection to Policy NOR04 are noted. The site subject to Policy NOR04 is judged to be developable by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. The housing yield from the site is a required contribution to meet the areas overall housing needs and the gains to be achieved through comprehensive development are considered to be significant.
1303 It is recognised that the site currently forms a break in the built form between Westward Ho! 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. A comprehensive wildlife survey will be required to support development proposals from which any necessary mitigation measures will be defined.
1304 The Highway Authority have confirmed that highway access can be provided to support the comprehensive development of the site and that wider benefits could be achieved by providing the proposed highway route between Atlantic Way and Golf Links Road.
1305 It is not accepted that tourism would be affected by development on the site subject to Policy NOR04. The site is not considered to contribute to the tourism offer of the resort, it is not subject a tourism designation in respect of future use or protected as a tourism asset. Providing a quality development that is appropriately integrated with adjoining uses and which provides improved linkage to the resort could deliver tourism gains in respect of appearance and access.
1306 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.
1307 Policy NOR04 includes provision for football pitch provision, which is identified as a potential source of conflict in respect of amenity with existing and planned residential development. This point is accepted. The need for playing pitch provision is evidenced (Torridge Playing Pitch Strategy). It is viewed as important that opportunities are taken to secure recreation improvements and to address known deficiencies where opportunities exist. To avoid potential amenity issues but retain the playing pitch provision it is recommended an associated site to the north of Golf Links Road is include within the proposal. The identified site has been brought forward by the development interests as a means by which all policy objectives can be delivered. The recreational element of the site is an essential component to meet the areas wider needs, the proposed site in respect of suitability of size and
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 341 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
location is considered acceptable by the Torridge Council’s Health and Recreation Officer. Amendment to Policy NOR04 is recommended to extend the site area to allow the locational separation of the required recreation and housing elements of the policy. An amendment to the development boundary to include the proposed recreational element of the site is not proposed.
1308 The need to provide transparency through the site is important in respect of delivering a gateway and opening to Westward Ho! It is intended that a “boulevard” style route is provided through the site to maintain visual links to the Burrows.
Policy NOR05: Westward Ho! - Core Tourism Area
Summary of Key Issues
1309 Comments made in response to Policy NOR05, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 2
Number of responses in support 0
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 1
Number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.117
No definition of a Westward Ho! boundary; assert that Westward Ho! begins at the sign on Buckleigh Road on which basis the protective measures of NOR05 should apply to NOR02 and NOR03. (3124) Address flooding and climate change risks, potentially by allowing time limited planning permissions (10 years) for certain types of development, in area at risk today or in the future. (2568 (EA))
Officer Comments
1310 Two comments have been received in response to the draft Policy NOR05: one in objection and one as a general comment.
1311 The development boundary for Northam, embraces all the component settlements, no distinction is made between the built forms of Westward Ho! and Northam. Policy NOR05 provides for the protection of a defined area which makes a significant contribution to the resort function of Westward Ho! by the nature of the contained uses which have a focus on tourist accommodation, attractions and supporting facilities and services. The area which includes the sites subject to NOR02 and NOR03 does not make a comparable contribution to the function of resort. No amendment to the area coverage of Policy NOR05 is recommended.
1312 The comment from the Environment Agency is noted, consideration of flood risk will be undertaken as proposals emerge through a detailed flood risk assessment and as required location and design solutions will be pursued to minimise the consequences of climate change.
342 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Policy NOR06: Westward Ho! - Tourism and Recreation Sites
Summary of Key Issues
Comment made in response to Policy NOR06, including the supporting text.
One comment (3385) providing support subject to amendment was provided. The comment sought increased green space provision.
Officer Comments
1313 The intent of Policy NOR06 is to secure new and improved tourism and or recreation facilities on identified sites. The defined sites are considered to be significant in improving the resort function of Westward Ho!, the range of acceptable uses could include green space but such is not defined as a flexible approach is considered necessary with regard to the purpose of the policy. Improving access to quality Green Infrastructure is separately addressed and is of recognised importance; Policies DM07: Safeguarding Open Space and Green Infrastructure and Policy DM08: Open Space Provision provide for its protection and provision through development.
Policy NOR07: Site adjoining Pitt Hill (Appledore)
Summary of Key Issues
1314 Comments made in response to Policy NOR07, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 17
Number of responses in support 3
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 14
Number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.118
Support for NOR07: the site provides the best site option in respect of sustainability and transport links. The rural gap between Appledore and Northam can be maintained with Wooda Road providing a natural boundary. A natural extension to the settlement. (110) (411) (3298) Objection to NOR07: prejudicial to settlement separation and maintaining the rural gap, it provides part of the visual character of the village and contains the only remaining woodland in Appledore, no regard to the impact on the AONB/SSSI. The site is in a prominent countryside location. Additional traffic Churchill Way to Heywood Road, along an already overloaded route. Poorly related site, unsustainable in respect of achievable footpath links and access in inadequate. (3396) (6) (1535) (1984) (2229) (2650) (604) Potential conflict resulting from the proximity of Appledore Football Club, provide for appropriate boundary treatment. Discuss potential of providing parking and new access with the Football Club. (2440) Site too close to the shipyard and next to a difficult road leading onto Heywood Road. (3693) The south-east portion of the site contains a spring and the contained stream provides localised flooding, existing trees stabilise moist ground and prevent land creep, which would be jeopardised by development. An increased risk of flooding would result from development. (356) (2650)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 343 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Would below acceptable living standards result from 150 dwellings? (2337) Sites for affordable housing alternatively favoured at Fords Boat Yards, the edge of the car park at West Appledore and at the edge of existing houses at Tomouth with access from Wooda Road. (604) 150 dwellings should be affordable in perpetuity and include provision for the elderly. (3186) The full extent of NOR07 has not been subject to the SHLAA process. (814) Alternative site proposed west of Hubbastone provided for the Core Strategy, SHLAA with DCC highway improvement strategy. (1888) (1984) (2299) (814) Clause (c) the requirement should be for off-site improvements to improve pedestrian safety. (2431)
Officer Comments
1315 Seventeen comments have been received in response to the draft Policy NOR07: three in support, fourteen in objection and one provided a general comment.
1316 Support for Policy NOR07 is noted as are the comments in objection. In considering development options at Appledore it is important to consider there is a evidenced need and demand for housing at Appledore (309 dwellings, including 108 affordable) as well as more widely within Northam (1458 dwellings, including 510 affordable). Additionally, while a range of sites have been considered through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment the extent is limited and the majority of sites at Appledore are not without issue.
1317 It is recognised that development of the site subject to Policy NOR07 would result in some localised landscape impact, no concerns have however been expressed by Natural England in respect of the AONB. Access to the site is achievable, as confirmed by the Highway Authority in relation to which the necessary highway improvements and access arrangements are set out within Policy NOR07.
1318 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. There are however no alternative sites presented and assessed as available adjoining Appledore that could make a comparable contribution to housing need which offer a better relationship to the village. With regard to the potential impact of the site, policy requirements dictate the need for development to be located so as to minimise any loss of landscape character.
1319 Issues relating to localised flooding or surface drainage have not been raised by the Environment Agency. The location of the spring to the south-east is however within the area proposed to accommodate green infrastructure and to support enhanced biodiversity.
1320 Concerns raised in relation to the potential amenity conflict with Appledore Football Club are noted. Care will be required to ensure existing and future uses can coexist and Policy DM01: Amenity Considerations will be applied to ensure the compatibility of the neighbouring uses. With the application of Policy DM01 and DM05: Design Principles, an additional reference within Policy NOR07 is considered unnecessary, it is however considered appropriate to provide a policy cross reference within the supporting text to ensure any proposed development takes account of the neighbouring recreational use in respect of site design.
344 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1321 The proximity of the site to the Appledore shipyard is not considered to raise issues in respect of traffic movement or amenity conflict. It is recognised however that generated traffic would feed into the northern route to the Heywood Road Runabout, but all development provided at Appledore would have such a result.
1322 The suggested yield is based on assumed development rates provided by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, it provides for development at an overall density of 30 dwellings per hectare. The density is not high and is considered reasonable as an assumed level to set against the housing land supply. The suggestion that to deliver 150 dwellings on site would result in below standard accommodation is not accepted. The attributed yield should not be viewed as a minimum or maximum, the Council’s aim in respect of site development is to achieve a high quality outcome with integrated green infrastructure not to maximise site yield.
1323 The suggestion that all 150 dwellings should be affordable, including for the elderly is not accepted as appropriate. The Local Plan seeks to provide for mixed and balanced communities, which would not be achieved through such a concentration of affordable housing. Housing types need to be integrated in the interests of cohesive and well-functioning communities. Additionally while the housing need in Appledore is significant it would not require the delivery of 150 affordable dwellings. Market housing which is also required must be provided for. A further key consideration is delivery, which includes development viability. In a time of diminishing public funding grant aid to provide affordable housing is being reduced and increasingly difficult to achieve; market housing is an essential part of the delivery mechanism for affordable housing. A scheme of 150 affordable dwellings could not be delivered and would not be desirable in respect of the objective of securing mixed communities.
1324 The site, in part has been subject to appraisal through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) under reference SHA/NOR/18 and it was considered to be potentially developable for residential development. The balance of the site, to the west of Pitt Hill is registered for assessment as part of the SHLAA although it has not yet been subject to full appraisal. Initial officer assessment, including consideration form Devon County Council as the Local Highway Authority suggests the site as presented through Policy NOR07 is developable.
1325 The extent of further off-site highway improvements if required, including pedestrian links will be established through negotiation in accordance with the Strategic Development Management Policies of the Local Plan. No amendment is recommended to Policy NOR07 (2) (c) to reference unspecified pedestrian related highway improvements.
1326 A significant site is promoted (dlp1888, 1984, 2299 and 814) to the south of Appledore for residential development and is put forward as an alternative to the proposal currently enabled through Policy NOR07. Consideration of the alternative is address through the Proposed Alternative Development Sites from which it is not recommended that the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan is amended in response to the comments: dlp1888, 1984, 2299 and 814.
Policy NOR08: Site West of Staddon Hill
Summary of Key Issues
1327 Comments made in response to Policy NOR08, including the supporting text
Number of responses 4
Number of responses in support 2
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 345 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 2
Number of responses providing a general comment 0
Table 5.119
Support for NOR08: a natural extension to existing housing that should be retained for affordable housing. (3299) (3695) Development would impinge on woodland which provides scarce wildlife habitat in Appledore, it is prominent in the local landscape; development would contravene the biosphere and environment objectives of the Plan. (1265) (3184) The proposal was submitted by the Community Land Trust, it has nothing to do with the community. (3184)
Additional Points
A scheme to delivery 10 affordable houses has been pursued by the Appledore Community Land Trust, which Torridge District Council enabled through granting access across the adjoining car park. The scheme has not progressed to the submission of a planning application. Funds allocated to the scheme by the HCA have been withdrawn and redistributed as a result of investigative works highlighting additional site costs that could not be meet by available funds. Project delivery is now uncertain.
The Strategic and Development Management Policies of the Local Plan support the delivery of appropriately located affordable housing to meet demonstrable need. In the absence of a site allocation affordable housing on an exceptional basis can be supported on sites adjoining defined development boundaries. A future affordable housing scheme on the area of Policy NOR08 could in principle be supported if funding became available.
Officer Comments
1328 Four comments have been received in response to the draft Policy NOR08: two in objection and two provide support; comment dlp 3184 has been dealt with in two parts for ease of providing a response.
1329 Support for the proposal is noted as is the comment with regard to the Community Land Trust.
1330 The proposed level of housing is of a scale that would avoid the need to impact on the wooded area contained within the site subject to NOR08 and will be located so to minimise local landscape impact.
Policy NOR09: Land South-West of Heywood Road Roundabout
Summary of Key Issues
1331 Comments made in response to Policy NOR09, including the supporting text.
Number of responses 45
Number of responses in support 2
346 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Number of responses in objection 39
Number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.120
Support for NOR09: suitable site not subject to significant constraints could yield 250 dwellings while protecting heritage and environmental assets with integrated green infrastructure. Proposed vehicle and pedestrian access is confirmed as deliverable. (1775) (1776) Unobtrusive site, bounded by the highway network improvement to which could improve existing traffic movement. (3300) Objection to NOR09; unnecessary development that would destroy an attractive wooded valley that is important as a wildlife habitat and for residents/visitor recreation; development may dilute the PRoW. The site is a gateway into Bideford, it should remain open; urban sprawl would result from development. Ecological studies are required to assess the impact of development proposals; a proposed County Wildlife site which contains protected species. The site has flooding issues. (324) (815) (1589) (1581) (1585) (1588) (1590) (1950) (2112)(2070) (2328) (2338)(2567) (2929) (3235)(3407) (3392) (3414)(3544) (3554) (3559)(3633) (3635) (3651)(3679) (92) (1054)(800) Remove the wooded areas from the development proposal. (2328) 3 appeals dismissed on the site that was also rejected by a Local Plan Inspector, the site is not suitable for development. (1589) (1510) (3235) (3407) (3356) (3557) Unsuitable access, existing traffic levels excessive, additional congestion would result and incomplete pavements for pedestrians. (1578) (1581) (1588) (2007) (2164) (2929) (3407) (3414) (3557) (3635) (3640) (3643) (92) (800) Enable development only if access taken from the Atlantic Highway. (324) (1510) (2007) (2164) (3556) (3330) (3696) In the absence of housing needs assessment there is no evidence of the form of housing need. (1589) Why build more affordable housing when low cost housing is available, empty houses will result. (1054) Impact on infrastructure capacity and essential services. (2929) No local employment to support housing growth. (3356) Northam Brook runs through the site with its functional floodplain and part of the Kenwith flood defines scheme in the SE corner; development must provide betterment. Site drains towards the possible Critical Drainage Area of Bideford, higher than normal SUDS required and/or contribution to Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme Improvements. A Green Infrastructure buffer will be required along the watercourse. (2569 (EA)) The site contains two listed building, potential for impact resulting from development. (2911) (3407)
Additional Points
Development interests have confirmed that there is a single controlling ownership for the majority of the site subject to the allocation NOR09.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 347 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Officer Comments
1332 Forty-five comments have been received in response to the draft Policy NOR09: two in support, two in support subject to amendment, thirty-nine in objection and two provide a general comment.
1333 Support for Policy NOR09 is noted as are the comments in objection. Comment is made that the development of the site is not necessary. This contention is not accepted; the yield from the site makes an important contribution to the residential land supply for Northam which is required to meet identified housing needs and demands. District wide the assessed housing need and demand, which must be addressed as a minimum is 7,800 dwellings (2011-2031), as evidenced by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment update (2012) and within which there is an identifiable need for 1,461dwellings in the Northam Parish. The NOR09 site is judged to be suitable for development and required for the contribution it makes to meeting local housing needs. The site also provides variance to the distribution of development opportunities across Bideford and Northam, which would otherwise be focused to the west and south of Bideford and south and west of Northam and Westward Ho!
1334 The site subject to Policy NOR09 has been subject to appraisal through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) under the references: NOR32, NOR36 and NOR32 and it was considered to be potentially developable for comprehensive residential development. The appraisal found that the site(s) was: available and suitable in principle for development, located nearby to existing residential development and not subject to any significant landscape or environmental constraints. The site was recognised to be relatively distant from services although good public transport links were available. The area of flood risk within the site was determined to be limited and not a constraint to site delivery, but was discounted from the calculated developable area. The main constraint to site delivery was road access which required all the referenced SHLAA sites to be available to provide an appropriate access.
1335 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.
1336 The significance of the natural assets within the site is recognised. The contained wooded valley and Public Right of Way are protected through Policy NOR09; the concerns relating to potential loss or dilution expressed in objection to the policy are specifically addressed. With regard biodiversity, appropriate wildlife and ecological assessments will be undertaken if warranted with regard to the presence or impact on protected species. The Local Authorities duties in respect of protected species and sites are defined through the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and will be accordingly undertaken.
1337 The contention that development would result in urban sprawl is not accepted. 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.
1338 The presence of the listed building Rose Hill is recognised as is the need to ensure the comprehensive development of the site does not adversely impact its setting. Policy NOR09 (2) (f) specifically address the issue of the contained listed building and the need to maintain the integrity of the building and its setting. It is considered appropriate however to add further detail within the supporting text of the need for and means by which the setting of the contained heritage assets should be protected with a cross reference to Policy ST12: Conserving Heritage Assets.
348 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1339 It is recognised that the site has been the subject to a range of planning application refusals and subsequently dismissed appeal decisions: 01/41/0339/86 for a petrol filing station adjacent to the A39, 1/1495/1995 for retail food store and petrol filing station and most recently 1275/2007/OUT for a retirement care village comprising care home, independent living apartments (84 no.) together with social/wellbeing and communal facilities.
1340 Recognising the sites planning history, it is worth noting that the previously considered 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. The strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment has determined the site to be developable in respect of a comprehensive development scheme.
1341 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. The Environment Agency’s suggestion of: the need for betterment, a higher standard of sustainable drainage and contributions to secure improvements to the Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme and a green infrastructure buffer along the water course is considered appropriate. Amendment to Policy NOR09 to reference the Environment Agency’s proposed policy references is recommended. The contained flood risk is determined not to be a constraint to comprehensive site development but its management is required.
1342 With regard to employment, it can be accepted that there are no opportunities in close proximity to the site subject to Policy NOR09. Opportunities within northern Devon’s main centres are however accessible from the site and the Local Plan provides a framework for economic development, significantly in respect of NOR09, at Bideford, Northam and Barnstaple that is supportive and flexible to assist new and expanding business.
MAP CHANGES
Summary of Key Issues
1343 Comments made in response to the Policies Maps for Northam (Figures 15.10 & 15.11) proposed alternative development sites, amendments to allocated sites and/or the development boundary.
Alter the site area of NOR07 in the interest of a more contained settlement pattern; avoid encroachment onto open fields and the Coastal Preservation Area. Provide for similar level of development, by relocating the Football Ground. (1405) Development Boundary extension to include site at Lower Cleave with related removal of Coastal Preservation Area which does not satisfy the qualification criteria. (111) (893) Development boundary extension at northern end of the site between Watertown and Staddon Road, housing to meet demand; site identified as developable for 5 dwelling in the SHLAA. (1574) Allocate site at Knapp House for mixed use development including a marina; supports the vision for Appledore and objectives for Northam. The proposal is reflective of NPPF objective. (1620) Allocate site for housing at Hubbastone Road in preference to NOR07. Site identified in the Core Strategy and determined to be developable through the SHLAA. (1887) Allocate 2 acre site south of Hawkswood and Acers for housing. (312) (331) (348) (1573) Designate a strategic footpath from Bideford to Bidna Lane and Windmill Lane to the Estuary path. (602)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 349 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Area south of Knapp House to the estuary should be designated as a Local Green Space; recreation and wildlife importance. (605) Allocate a site for 100% affordable housing at Ford's Boat Yard. (3185) New site proposal off Clevelands Park that would integrate with the existing settlement and assist in meeting the local housing requirement, including affordable housing. An environmentally appropriate site. (3243) (3244) (3243) Allocation site at Tomouth Crescent as an exceptions site to deliver affordable housing (3446) Excessive housing for the area, alternatively provide a new village at Steart Farm. (3236) Replace NOR07, which is in the Strategic Gap with a site a Hubbastone Road; a viable sustainable alternative and revise Figure 10.8. (813) (2233) (817) Allocate a housing site of about 2 hectares of Chircombe Lane. (333) Development proposal at 28 Atlantic View. (3548) New site housing allocation adjacent to Landsdowne Park, no significant highway issues, low ecological value and good infrastructure, deliverable for the immediate provision of 30 houses. (3549)
Officer Comments
1344 Land West of Churchill Way – Alternative site area for Policy NOR07. An amendment to the site area of Policy NOR07 is promoted (dlp 1405) in the stated interests of retaining a more contained settlement pattern and avoiding the need for encroachment into the Coastal Preservation Area. The proposal in addition to maintaining a comparable housing supply to the draft Policy NOR07 also seeks to relocate the Appledore Football Ground. The proposal is put forward by a third party and there is no indication that the football club are seeking to enable such a proposal. In the absence of such an indication, it is not appropriate to seek to allocate a site for relocation or the existing site for housing as it is not considered that there would be a realistic prospect of the proposal in this respect being developable.
1345 The site area of the proposed allocation also includes a significant element which has not been promoted either through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment or in response to consultation on the draft North Devon and Torridge District Local Plan. Again in the absence of a realistic prospect of delivery during the lifetime of the Local Plan no amendment is recommended.
1346 Site at Lower Cleave. A site to the west of Lower Cleave and north of Durrant Lane is promoted (dlp 111,893) on the basis that it should be included within an amended Northam Development Boundary, with revision being made to the remove the overlapping Coastal Preservations Area.
1347 The site of 2.77 hectares comprises greenfield land, it includes woodland of recognised value and falls entirely within the Coastal Preservations Area and its northern and eastern boundaries are subject to flood risk. The site adjoins the draft Northam Development Boundary only in part along its southern boundary, it is considered to have a generally poor relationship to the built form of the area, which is characterised by large properties within substantial grounds. The site if developed would significantly reduce the current separation of Northam between Durrant Lane and Clevelands Park.
1348 The site is registered for assessment as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, but has not yet been subject to full assessment. As such and with regard to the charter of the area and its designation as part of the Coastal Preservation Area, it is not considered appropriate to recommend the sites allocation or inclusion within an amended development boundary.
350 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1349 Site at Staddon Road. A small site on Staddon Road, Appledore is presented through representation (dlp 1574) for development of five dwellings. The site, as a potential extension to part of the Main Centre of Northam is considered too small for specific identification and allocation within the Local Plan. An alternative to allocation would be to amend the development boundary to incorporate the site, which would enable appropriate development proposals to come forward during the lifetime of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
1350 The site (0.25 hectares), as part of a much larger site of 5.9 hectares was subject to appraisal through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment under reference SHA/NOR/02. The appraisal determined the site subject to representation dlp 1574 to be developable, allowing for a limited quantum of residential development, following the existing line of adjoining development. The scale of potential development was proposed to be restricted in the interest of achieving appropriate highway access, the balance of the site being discounted with regard to the high visibility within the wider landscape and poor relationship to existing built development. The small site extension is considered to offer a logical extension to Appledore that would be of a scale to contribute to affordable needs and provide local construction opportunities. As such it is considered that the site should be included within an amended Appledore Development Boundary.
1351 Knapp House. A significant site is promoted (dlp1620) for a mixed use development, including a marina at Knapp House. The 21 hectare greenfield site comprises a significant parcel of land within the generally open landscape to the south of Appledore and east of Northam. The site is formed from a tract of land running from the foreshore of the River Torridge to the east and Churchill Way to the west and is adjacent to the significant built form of Appledore Shipyard which lies to the north east. The land rises steeply from the foreshore to the east moderating as it moves towards the western boundary. A swathe of woodland, designated as a Site of Local Nature Conservation Importance, dissects the centre of the site in an east-west direction flanking a small watercourse. Around a third of the site, to the north and east currently forms a holiday and activity centre and encompasses the 18th Century Knapp House.
1352 The site has been subject to appraisal through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, under reference SHA/NOR/100. The conclusion to which determined the site to be not currently developable on the basis that it was principally divorced from any existing settlement within open (and partially protected) countryside, that comprehensive development would not hold a good relationship to the existing built form and in an unsustainable location and that development would likely have an adverse landscape character impact and result in the loss of existing employment and tourism functions.
1353 A planning application 1/0138/2012/OUTM for a mixed use development comprising marina, hotel, medical centre, food store, community hall, retail units/cafe, care home/dementia unit, assisted living units, 295 dwellings and 80 holiday dwellings was refused on the site in September 2012. The Council’s refusal reasons related to: the location of the site within the open countryside, the coverage of the Coastal Preservation Area over the majority of the site and its relationship to the Taw/Torridge SSSI. The proposal was considered to have an adverse affect on a relatively isolated rural location which forms an attractive and unspoilt riverside site which is readily visible. The viability of the marina as a stand alone project was not established, on which basis the associated economic benefits were considered insufficient to outweigh the harm resulting from the significant associated development. Furthermore, insufficient evidence was submitted to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the noise and disturbance generated from the adjoining shipyard would not result in a statutory nuisance to new residents. Residential development in close proximity to the existing commercial operation was considered to be potentially restrictive on future business development and operations which was judge to not to be reasonable.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 351 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1354 The issues which resulted in the conclusions provided through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and in the determination of the referenced planning application remain. The site is principally divorced from the built form of Northam which would impact on the ability of resultant development to achieve integration with the established community. Development of the site would significantly reduce the separation of the built form between Northam and Appledore; impacting on the objective to avoid coalescence between settlements.
1355 With regard to landscape impact much of the site lies within a Coastal Protection Area (CPA) where development will only be appropriate where there is a proven need and that the need outweighs the potential harm. Whilst part of the site lies outside of the CPA, the site as a whole does command some long views from across the river. The site also adds to the rural character and open feel perceived from Churchill Way. As such, development has the potential to have a detrimental impact on landscape character.
1356 The potential for impact on Appledore Shipyard, one of the areas most important employers is a recognised concern. Noise and air contaminants emanating from the shipyard have the potential to impact on a significant area of the proposed site. The Strategic and Development Management Polices of the Local Plan seek to protect residential amenity and to safeguard employment. As such there is no basis on which development that could be significantly impacted by an established business or where a business activity could be prejudiced should be enabled.
1357 The proposal is presented as an additional site to the development strategy in the draft Local Plan. The scale of development enabled would make a significant addition to the planned level of growth at Northam, which already meets identified housing needs and demands. There is no need to provide for the additional scale of housing development that could be generated from the site at Knapp House. If the site were presented in lieu of land proposed through draft allocations, the deliverability and potential to achieve sustainable development without significant impacts on the landscape and neighbouring development would result in the retention of the allocated sites, which are considered to represent more suitable development opportunities.
1358 No change is recommended to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan in relation to the proposal.
1359 Knapp House - Local Green Space. A received representation (dlp 605) seeks an area to the south of Knapp House to be defined as a Local Green Space. The area subject to the proposal has not been presented as a defined area. National Planning Polices allows the designation of such areas through Local or Neighbourhood Plans, where the subject area is of particular local importance and that the designation can endure beyond the plan period. Guidance provides that most green space could not be appropriately designated and that the designation should only be used where: there is reasonable proximity to the area it serves; where the area is demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance and where the green area is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.
1360 Although undefined the area to the south of Knapp House can be reviewed in respect of the qualification criteria, having regard to which it is not recommended to define a Local Green Space. The basis on which the site is demonstrably special to the local community and is of particular local significance is not established. No change is recommended to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan in relation to the proposal.
1361 Land at Hubbastone Road. A significant site is promoted (dlp 1574, 813, 2233, 817) for residential development and put forward as an alternative to the proposal currently enabled by Policy NOR07. The site is formed by a large parcel of agricultural land principally bound by hedgerows
352 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
located to the south of the existing built form of Appledore and to the north of Wooda Road and west of Hubbastone Road. The site has a fairly close proximity to Appledore Shipyard to the south and commands views over the nearby estuary, it holds a hillside location with a southerly to easterly aspect and is relatively visible within the wider landscape.
1362 The site has been subject to appraisal through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment under reference SHA/NOR30. Through the appraisal the site was considered to be potentially developable 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.
1363 The respondents advocates the inclusion of the site in lieu of the land proposed for residential development through Policy NOR07 on the basis that it is more sustainable and deliverable. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment indicates that the site offers a yield broadly equivalent to that proposed through Policy NOR07.
1364 The respondent contends that the site, which extends to 6.2 hectares was identified in the draft Core Strategy. This position is not accepted the draft Core Strategy, in providing for development to the west of Hubbastone Road the focus was on housing to meet locally occurring needs, i.e. affordable housing. The intended form of development was affordable housing of a limited scale immediately to the south of Appledore.
1365 The Hubbastone site is not considered to provide a preferable option to the site proposed by Policy NOR07. 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 shipyard in respect of to both noise and air impacts which could result in a statutory nuisance to closely developed housing.
1366 No change is recommended to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan in relation to the proposal.
1367 Land at Clevelands Park. A collection of sites have been presented (dlp 1573, 348, 312, 331, 3242, 3243 and 3244) for residential development to the north of Clevelands Park and south of Goats Hill Road. The three sites total 1.88 hectares and are formed by open fields and substantial residential grounds. The site adjoins existing built development at Northam and is contained by the abutting highway network.
1368 The majority of the site has been subject to appraisal through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment under reference SHA/NOR/40/44, which considered the sites to be developable. The balance of the site adjoining Goats Hill Road has yet to be subject to full appraisal, but an initial officer view suggests the site is developable.
1369 The site is considered to provide a suitable addition to the housing supply, through a logical extension that relates well to the existing built form of Northam without environmental impact and to which adequate highway access is achievable. The site would contribute to affordable needs and provide local construction opportunities. As such it is considered that the site should be included within an amended Northam Development Boundary. An allocation is also recommended to ensure the site is appropriately delivered, most significantly in respect of it is relationship to the built form of the adjoining residential area, which is characterised by low density development. Having regard to the density characteristics of the area a site yield of about 40 is assumed.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 353 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1370 Affordable Housing Sites at Appledore. Sites at Ford’s Boat Yard (dlp 3185) and: the edge of car park at West Appledore and the edge of housing at Tomouth Crescent (dlp3446) have been proposed by third parties for affordable housing. The sites in respect of extent have not been defined or the means by which delivery could be achieved confirmed.
1371 The Strategic and Development Management Policies of the Local Plan provides detailed guidance in respect of affordable housing delivery, through which appropriate schemes will be supported, including on an exceptional basis adjoining defined development boundaries, which could relate to the identified areas. However, in the absence of clarity regarding the location and scale of the referenced sites and an indication of availability for development and deliverable there is no basis to determine that there is a realistic prospect of delivery during the lifetime of the Local Plan.
1372 No change is recommended to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan in response to the affordable housing proposals at Ford's Boat Yard, the edge of car park at West Appledore and the edge of housing at Tomouth Crescent.
1373 Strategic Footpath: Bideford to Bidna Lane and Windmill Lane to the Estuary Path. A representation (dlp 602) seeks the designation of a strategic footpath, the detail of the route or delivery mechanism is not defined. Devon County Council has not presented plans to achieve links within the proposed area. There is no basis to assume that delivery of the proposed route could be achieved during the lifetime of the Local Plan. No change is recommended to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan in relation to this proposal.
1374 28 Atlantic View. A small site on Atlantic Way has been presented (dlp 3548) on the basis of an intension to pursue a planning application. The basis on which to purse a planning application is separate to that related to the development plan. The site, the curtilage and property at 28 Atlantic View, is too small to support a housing allocation and it already falls within the Northam Development Boundary. No change is recommended to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan in relation to this proposal.
1375 Land adjacent to Landsdowne Park. A site adjacent to Landsdowne Park is proposed for residential development (dlp 3549). The site, of about 1 hectare, is predominantly greenfield in use for grazing and includes a stable/barn complex. The site is located on the corner between Golf Links Road and Sandymere Road, on the edge of the built up area of Northam. To the north of the site is the Sandymere Sports Centre, with the eastern boundary adjoining residential development and beyond the western boundary 12 holiday lodges are consented (1/0822/2010/EXTM) for the Royal North Devon Golf Club.
1376 The site was subject to appraisal through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment under reference SHA/NOR/38 and was determined to be developable. A yield of about 30 dwellings is assumed from the site. The site is not subject to constraints in respect of environmental or highway considerations is well related to the existing built form of the settlements that will be furthered if the adjoining consented development is achieved. The site is considered to offer a logical extension to Northam in the context of related development that it would be of a scale to contribute to affordable needs and provide local construction opportunities. As such it is considered that the site should be allocated for housing and included within an amended development boundary.
1377 Steart Farm. A representation received (dlp 3236) has proposed an amendment to the Local Plan to affect the development strategy by replacing the planned growth at Northam to a new village, possibly at Steart Farm. The basis for the comment is that the proposed level of growth is “too great for the area” and that the highway network could not accommodate increased traffic generation.
354 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1378 The level of growth planned for Northam is reflective of identified needs and demands, as evidence by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment update and Torridge Urban Affordable Housing Needs Assessment. The scale of planned growth is appropriate and with regard to evidence provided through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment is considered developable. The strategy provided through the Local Plan is to accommodate needs at the point of generation and in sustainable locations. Providing for the housing needs of Northam at Steart Farm has not been assessed and determined to present a sustainable alternative means of delivering the areas housing needs. Additionally the proposal is put forward by a third party with no indication that the proposal could be delivered within the lifetime of the Local Plan.
1379 Chircombe Lane. A representation (dlp 333) has proposed the allocation of a site of about 2 hectares at Chircombe Lane. The site consists of a number of agricultural fields currently laid to grazing. The site lies to the rear of residential properties on Limers Lane, is bound by the A39 to the south which sits on an elevated embankment and is flanked by a number of detached residential properties to the east and west.
1380 The site was subject to appraisal through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment under reference SHA/NOR/27. While the site was judged able to support residential development and was presented as available for development it was considered not to be currently developable. The basis of the conclusion related to the adequacy of the immediate highway network. Devon County Council (highways) considered that appropriate access to the site could not be secured by virtue of the roads leading to the site being substandard in terms of width, alignment, forward and junction visibility. No change is recommended to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan in relation to this proposal.
1381 Staddon Hill. A representation (dlp 1249) proposes the allocation of a site at Staddon Hill for affordable housing, suggesting that it could be linked to the draft Local Plan Policy NOR08. The site referred to as being within the development boundary of the Torridge District Local Plan and subject to Policy BID28 has not been excluded from the Appledore Development Boundary in the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. The balance of the site, which extends across Staddon Hill, is excluded from the development boundary and not subject to any policy designation.
1382 The extended site of 2.7 hectares comprises an open area of land wrapped on three sides by the developed area of Appledore between The Mount and Mariner Way. The site holds an exposed hillside location with an easterly aspect with long views across the Torridge estuary towards Instow. The westerly element of the site holds the hilltop whilst the northern part of the site is more steeply sloping. The site subject to appraisal through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment under reference SHA/NOR/41 was considered to be developable. The potential capacity was however significantly discounted (75% of the net area) having regard to the sites use for informal recreational and landscape sensitivity.
1383 The site is not proposed for residential use, the area within the development boundary could come forward subject to the application of the policies of the Local Plan, but it is not clear how access could be achieved. Development within the wider while judged to be developable is not proposed having regard to the landscape sensitivity of the site. The suggestion that a promotion of the site, including the area within the development boundary could come forward through a revised Policy NOR08 is noted. Policy NOR08 is however recommended to be deleted on the basis of non-delivery. No change is recommended to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan in relation to this proposal.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 355 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Agreed Actions
1. Amend Policy NOR (a) to require new housing to make an increasing contribution to the housing needs of an expanding elderly population and delete the reference to an annualised development rate.
2. Amend Policy NOR (d) to make a more explicit reference to the importance of tourism to local economy and to emphasis the economic importance of marine based industries, which will be safeguarded and supported in respect of future development.
3. Amend Policy NOR (i) to refer to required network improvements to the A39/B3236 junction and B3236 and to reflect the potential for sea defence improvements at Westward Ho! as an infrastructure requirement.
4. Update Table 10.10 and any other references to housing provision / requirements to reflect up-to-date housing completions and commitment information.
5. Amend paragraph 10.318 to state that eastern vehicular movements from the NOR01 site along Daddon Hill will be prevented.
6. Correct the reference to B3236 at Policy NOR01 (2) (b).
7. Amend Policy NOR01; add a requirement for an enhanced Sustainable Drainage System and contributions as required for improvement of the Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme.
8. Add an explicit reference for the need for an Extra Care facility within the provisions of Policy NOR01.
9. Extend the NOR01 site area to include the SHLAA site NOR/127.
10. Identify NOR01 site as being strategic in nature.
11. Within the new Policy NOR02 define the development as strategic.
12. Within the new Policy NOR02 require the site to be comprehensively developed.
13. Combine and extend policy areas NOR02 and NOR03 through the addition of connecting and adjacent sites (SHA/NOR/105 (extension), SHA/NOR/122, SHA/NOR/123 and SHA/NOR/124); replace Policies NOR02 and NOR03 with a single new policy bringing together development requirements and considerations, including a dual entry access to Buckleigh Road, amend the site yield and the related development boundary.
14. Amend Policy NOR02/NOR03; add a requirement for an enhanced Sustainable Drainage System and contributions as required for improvement of the Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme.
15. Amend the site area of Policy NOR04, to separately provide the required football pitch provision which will remain as subject to Policy NOR04.
16. No amendment to Policy NOR05 in response to comments received to draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
17. No amendment to Policy NOR06 in response to comments received to draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
356 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
18. No amendment to Policy NOR07 in response to comments received to draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
19. Delete Policy NOR08 in the absence of any certainty that the project could be delivered.
20. Expand upon Policy NOR09 (2) (f) within the supporting text to reflect the importance of safeguarding the integrity of the contained listed building and its setting.
21. Amend Policy NOR09 and reference in the supporting text; add a requirement for an enhanced Sustainable Drainage System, contributions as required for improvement of the Kenwith Flood Defence Scheme and a green infrastructure buffer along the water course within the site of NOR09.
22. Include the site at Staddon Road, Appledore within a revised development boundary without a related allocation.
23. Add housing allocation and development boundary extension for land at Clevelands Park.
24. Add housing allocation and development boundary extension for land adjacent to Landsdowne Park.
25. Add new green wedge policy for the undeveloped gap between Northam and Bideford.
Town Strategies: South Molton
SOUTH MOLTON – Chapter 10
Total number of responses 203
Total number of responses in support 58
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 35
Total number of responses in objection 69
Including total number of additional promoted sites 7
Total number of responses providing a general comment 41
Table 5.121
Policy SMO: South Molton Spatial Strategy
Summary of Key Issues
1384 Comments made in response to Policy SMO: South Molton Spatial Strategy, including supporting text regarding The Place, Evidence, The Future, The Development Strategy and Development Proposals:
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 357 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Number of responses 96
Number of responses in support 41
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 12
Number of responses in objection 25
Number of responses providing a general comment 18
Table 5.122
Support for the definition of the Place but would wish to see recognition of the town’s ‘rural’ nature Support the recognition that South Molton is the centre for a large rural area (x2) General support for the summary of comments regarding the future of South Molton (x3) General support for the spatial strategy and vision of South Molton Support improved connections to Tiverton Parkway and Umberleigh Station but service would need to be faster and more frequent Support for the proposed level of housing development to the west of the town (x2) but the new houses must offer greater space Table 10.11 shows a shortfall of 30 dwellings from the overall South Molton housing target as opposed to the total supply The housing numbers proposed for the town should be amended so that the provision is to deliver ‘at least’ in response to the requirements of the NPPF Any new affordable housing should be allocated to local people and not to those out of the County. Additional housing would only be supported if it meets a social housing and affordable need that should be distributed across North Devon, including villages. A substantial number of the new houses proposed should be for retired people in order to meet future needs The strategy constrains a developer’s ability to support growth by providing a build rate figure of 55 dwellings per year. This element should be deleted The strategy should support non-strategic sites coming forward The proposed growth for South Molton is not sustainable and should be scaled back as it threatens the rural character of the town. The proposed level of new housing is too high (x7) Sustainable development needs to be defined Recognise that expansion in South Molton is necessary but the growth should be commensurate with infrastructure and services Support for the recognition in the strategy for a new sports hub Support for the green network around South Molton but it needs long- term maintenance (x2) The population growth has resulted due to a large increase of new development in the town A ring road to the west of the town will not alleviate traffic congestion is not required; better traffic management is required in the area (x3) The western distributor road is supported but it should incorporate a high quality walking and cycling route (DCC) Support must be given to preserve the existing Pannier Market and local retail outlets Enhance the town centre by creating an informal open space The town does not need a further supermarket as it would have a negative impact on local shops and will not reduce expenditure leakage (x4) Support expansion of the town centre as it will assist in the claw back of lost expenditure outside of the town thereby enhancing vitality and viability of the town centre
358 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
The Norrington’s site in the town centre should be developed for a new health centre (x2) The town needs a new ambulance station and garage, bus shuttle (x2) Pedestrianise the Square and East Street (x2) Support for the expansion of employment at Pathfields Business Park to meet the town’s future economic growth The level of anticipated employment growth should be supported by greater housing growth. Concern that additional housing will provide an imbalance in the social composition of the population by encouraging more retired people to the town Would question whether there is related employment growth to meet the proposed housing growth Concerns that this level of development may have an adverse impact on water quality in the area (EA) The town strategy should recognise the need to expand the existing infants school and re-locate / expand the existing junior school so the town has two 420 place primary schools (DCC) Recognition needs to be given to the contribution the mobile home park provides to meeting the housing need, so the site should be allocated to allow for it’s expansion Additional housing site proposed at Quince Honey Farm, North Road by allocating the site within the existing development boundary (see attached plan) Additional housing site proposed off Poltimore Road by amending the existing development boundary (see attached plan) (x2) Additional housing site proposed off Alswear New Road by amending the existing development boundary (see attached plan) Additional housing site proposed at Furzebray by amending the existing development boundary (see attached plan) (x2)
Other Key Issues identified
Add to the spatial strategy the need for the existing infants school to expand as well as the need for a new primary school Table 10.11 can be updated to a 31 March 2013 base date to show commitments over the last year Pinch point funding of £1.3M was granted to the Highways Agency (April 2013) to increase capacity at Junction 27 of the M5 to reduce delay to users of the trunk road network (as the national gateway to Mid Devon, North Devon and Torridge) and improve safety by removing queuing from the motorway mainline facilitating improved access to South Molton, in particular Pathfields Business Park (Policy SM03)
Officer Comments
1385 There is broad support for the South Molton spatial strategy and spatial vision of the town which accurately reflects the comments from the local community. It is accepted that more explicit reference could be made to recognise that South Molton is generally a ‘historic rural market town’ in character. The overall strategy is in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which underpins the NPPF.
1386 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 capacity of site allocations is based on a realistic assessment of each site through the SHLAA. The strategy does not identify minimum or maximum housing numbers to be achieved but is flexible in that it will not prevent higher housing numbers being delivered if a well designed scheme is presented that meets the spatial vision for
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 359 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
South Molton to 2031 and delivers the specific development requirements as set out in Policy SM01. As such, the spatial strategy for South Molton delivering approximately 1,100 dwellings including about 725 through specific site allocations is not contrary to the requirements of the NPPF.
1387 The overall level of growth and its distribution across the two districts is addressed through Policy ST07, informed by up-to-date evidence such as the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2012). The large majority of this housing growth will be delivered in the main towns including South Molton in accordance with local community aspirations recognising its function as an important service centre. Growth will maintain the town’s status as a vibrant and sustainable economic centre. Also, the town has relatively few landscape and environmental constraints that could constrain development and the town is well connected to the strategic road network, A361 (North Devon Link Road). Whilst South Molton will accommodate a relatively high level of growth, the recognised villages in the surrounding rural areas, as set out in Policy ST06 will also be encouraged to have a level of development in order to address locally generated and quantified needs.
1388 The delivery of affordable housing in both North Devon and Torridge is a priority for the Plan and the type and size of affordable housing built will meet that local need, although it must be noted that affordable housing in South Molton will help meet the District’s need and not just the needs of South Molton. However, the Plan cannot control how the allocation of affordable housing is structured, which is a function of the local housing authority, Devon Home Choice and central Government policy. The delivery of new housing must meet the needs of the local community although it is recognised that a proportion of the new housing will meet the needs of the economically inactive. Policy DM05: Design Principles requires new development to be adaptable in order to respond to changing demographic conditions and be flexible to meet changing lifestyles and circumstances such as occupants getting older and decreasing health.
1389 The importance of creating new and sustaining existing jobs in the town, especially at Pathfields Business Park is a key component of the South Molton Spatial Strategy, where a further 30 hectares of employment land is proposed to meet the proposed level of housing growth in South Molton and wider District. However, it is not accepted that this level of employment growth in South Molton would warrant additional housing over and above the 1,100 homes already proposed as the new employment at Pathfields Business Park, which will serve not only South Molton but the strategic needs of the District where there is provision over the plan period for 8,400 dwellings.
1390 Paragraph 4.19 of the Plan seeks to ensure that ‘there will be a gradual delivery of new dwellings over the plan period’ and strategic urban extensions, such as that on the western side of South Molton ‘will be managed through master planning, which will govern the rate of housing delivery and the timing of associated facilities and infrastructure’. It is accepted that the delivery of housing across northern Devon needs to be flexible in order to support economic growth and the assumption that about 55 dwellings per year between 2011 and 2031 could be developed could be considered as potentially stifling growth if the market and local community dictates a higher build rate. Other main towns within the Plan do not suggest an annual build rate, therefore it is suggested that this wording is deleted from the South Molton Spatial Strategy.
1391 It is accepted that Table 10.11 does show a shortfall of approximately 30 dwellings from the total supply (1,069) and the required South Molton target (1,100). This table will be reviewed in order to update it to a position of housing completions since April 2012, existing commitments and also the updated SHLAA will provide a more accurate figure for non strategic site contributions. The Plan would not preclude non-strategic sites coming forward that are currently within the defined development boundary. Also, the Plan at paragraph 7.57 recognises that where there is a ‘significant’ deficit in
360 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
housing delivery that cannot be resolved through the delivery of allocations and planning consents, the Councils may, on an exceptional basis, consider supporting proposals for housing on sites that would not normally be enabled for development through the Local Plan.
1392 Sustainable development is already defined in the local plan’s Glossary as well as through the NPPF, and the principles of sustainable development are set out in Policy ST02. A further definition is unnecessary. The Plan already recognises that further housing development in South Molton must be delivered alongside the necessary physical, social and green infrastructure.
1393 The support for the proposed new sports hub, Policy SMO2(2) is noted as well as support for additional footpaths, cyclepaths and bridleway routes around the town toward creating an orbital route within an enhanced green infrastructure network. Concerns over the long term maintenance of such a route is noted but it is not the remit of the Plan to ensure maintenance; this will be for whoever takes on the responsibility for this route (e.g. Devon County Council, South Molton Town Council or a local community group).
1394 The proposed distributor road, which forms part of the western development, has been incorporated in to the plan in accordance with local community aspirations in order to potentially remove lorries and reduce traffic congestion in the town centre. However, in conjunction with the new distributor road and in consultation with the local highway authority, other traffic management measures could be incorporated within the town centre to alleviate perceived traffic problems in the area as set out in the South Molton transport master plan but this level of detail is not appropriate for the local plan. Policy SMO1: South Molton Western Extension requires a permeable network of streets, footpaths and cycleways through the development to improve connectivity to the town centre and existing rights of way.
1395 The support for improved connections to Tiverton Parkway and Umberleigh are noted but it is not within the remit of the Local Plan to insist that any future public transport service be faster and more frequent; that can only be determined by the service provider. Improved connectivity is addressed by Policy ST10: Transport Strategy, where DCC’s aspiration for a strategic walking/cycling link routes between Barnstaple and Tiverton via South Molton is noted. This route should be supported and would facilitate opportunities for sustainable modes of transport to access the town and link to stations at Barnstaple and South Molton.
1396 The potential impacts from development on the River Mole, Upper Mole, Nadrid Water and Burcombe Stream on water quality are noted. Appropriate measures to mitigate against any adverse harm to water quality in the local rivers and streams should be recognised in the South Molton chapter, cross referring to Policy DM02 (Environmental Protection) and paragraph 4.54 which refers to the Taw River Improvement Project (TRIP) along the rivers Mole and Bray to improve water quality across the whole catchment.
1397 All issues concerning South Molton Town Centre are considered under Policy SMO4.
1398 It is accepted that the strategy could be more explicit in terms of recognising the need within the town for a ‘new primary school’ and provision to ‘expand the existing infants school’ in order to facilitate the town having two, 420 place primary schools. Amend the text within Policy SM to reflect the need for a second primary school in the town although it should be noted that Policy SM01 already identified a site west of Exeter Gate and recognises the need for sufficient land to be safeguarded to facilitate expansion of the current community infants school to a new primary school.
1399 A number of alternative and additional sites were promoted as part of the spatial strategy, which are listed towards the end of this report. The location of these sites is shown on the plan attached to this report. Officer commentary on the issues for each promoted site is set out below.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 361 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1400 It is accepted that Mill on the Mole Residential Home Park provides an important source of affordable accommodation for the local community. A site to the south of the existing mobile home park was promoted as part of the SHLAA process (SHA/BNY/038) but the SHLAA Panel rejected the site as the land is within flood zone 3. In terms of the site promoted through the local plan, there is a distinct gap between the main body of the town to the west and the mobile home park and the nearby enclave of development on the north side of the B3227. Furthermore, a large part of this gap is taken up by fields and the sewage disposal works. As a result, the mobile home park appears as a separate entity within the countryside, physically unrelated to, and distinct from, the main built-up area of the town and its built confines. Previous planning applications 50721 (6 units) and 47361 (12 units) have been refused by the Council and upheld on appeal. Also, a large majority of the existing site is within an indicative flood zone where the NPPF recognises that caravans, mobile homes and park homes intended for permanent residential use are considered to be ‘highly vulnerable’ and sequentially should be located to sites that are not vulnerable to flooding. Therefore, it is considered that a specific allocation to expand the existing mobile home park is inappropriate.
1401 The site promoted at Quince Honey Farm, North Road has been submitted as part of the SHLAA process (SHA/SMO/332). Its location within the town lends itself to residential reuse and is allocated within the adopted North Devon Local Plan (adopted July 2006) under Proposal SMO1a, but is constrained by the restrictions resulting from the listing of the main complex (Beech House). All the major house builders who have shown an interest in developing the site share this view. However, the site may provide opportunities for other community uses where it could provide some substantial public benefit. The SHLAA stakeholder panel concluded that the site was not currently developable due to the requirement to retain the Grade II listed building on site that made redevelopment to housing unviable. If a viable solution can be found to developing a housing scheme on this site, whilst retaining the grade II listed building, then the principle of housing would be acceptable as it is already within the development boundary, but it should not be allocated as deliverability is uncertain.
1402 A site promoted off Poltimore Road has been formally withdrawn by the agent. The client (Hannick Homes & Developments Ltd) no longer has an interest in this site and is not therefore promoting it. However, the landowner has also promoted the site, which was submitted as part of the SHLAA process (SHA/SMO/032). When the site was assessed it was considered that the land was an important, steeply sloping green space within the setting of the town where further development would harm the appearance and amenity of the area. However, the SHLAA stakeholder panel concluded that frontage development along Poltimore Road for about 20 units was developable. It is considered that additional housing east of South Molton is not required during the Plan period unless it can be fully justified that this land will better meet the spatial strategy and vision for South Molton compared to Policies SM01 and SM02.
1403 The site promoted south of Alswear New Road (no specific boundary identified) was previously submitted as part of the SHLAA process (SHA/SMO/046), albeit a larger site than that currently being promoted. The SHLAA stakeholder panel concluded that the site is developable. However, in consultation with the site promoter, the officer recommendation for this smaller site is that the land is potentially suitable for infill development between Molesdown and Sunridge (already within the development boundary), although evidence gathered as part of the ‘Issues and Options’ stage of the Core Strategy identified a spring on this land where it was evident the area was boggy underfoot. Opportunities exist through development of this site to facilitate delivery of the new sports hub to the west. This frontage could be identified for housing development or just within the existing development boundary subject to drainage issues being resolved.
362 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1404 The site promoted at Furzebray, George Nympton Road has been submitted as part of the SHLAA process (SHA/SMO/427), which supersedes the previous site promotions (SHA/SMO/047 and SHA/SMO/347). The revised site has yet to be considered by the SHLAA stakeholder panel but the officer recommendation is that the site or the residual parts of the site (beyond the proposed school) would be suitable and developable for housing alongside any new primary school (Policy SMO1). The development of part of this site for housing may help release land to deliver the new primary school and provide the opportunity to extend the distributor road to the George Nympton Road. This site could be identified for housing development but it is unlikely to be delivered within the first 5 years.
1405 The site promoted on land adjacent to Nadder Cottage, Nadder Lane has not been promoted through the SHLAA process. However, the site is not well related to South Molton and physically divorced from the strategic western extension (Policy SM01c). Whilst the site adjacent to Belgrave, north of Nadder Lane (SHA/SMO/483) would help deliver an improved route for the new distributor road, the promoted site will not help to deliver the spatial strategy and vision for South Molton apart from isolated housing in the countryside.
1406 If there is need to identify additional housing land for South Molton within the local plan then several of these promoted sites are considered to be more realistic in terms of deliverability, accessibility and minimising environmental impacts:
Furzebray, George Nympton Road (excluding land proposed for a primary school)
Land between Molesdown and Sunridge, Alswear New Road
Policy SM01: South Molton Strategic Western Extension
Summary of Key Issues
1407 Comments made in response to Policy SM01 including supporting text:
Number of responses 53
Number of responses in support 8
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 16
Number of responses in objection 19
Number of responses providing a general comment 10
Table 5.123
Development to the west is logical but it must meet the needs of the local community by developing more than just housing The policy should refer to the delivery of ‘at least’ 665 dwellings, generally delivered from north to south but in order to facilitate the early delivery of essential infrastructure, the phasing will be subject to detailed discussions with the Council in order to maximise the community benefits Phasing from north to south is supported, enabling traffic impacts on the town centre to be minimised (DCC)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 363 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
The first phase of development has been granted planning permission in principle so the need for a comprehensive master plan is not required and should be removed The policy should recognise the delivery of appropriate and justified infrastructure, including affordable housing will be subject to development viability (x2) Clarification required on the provision of affordable housing (x2) Development should provide adequate car parking (minimum 2 spaces) Development should not be focussed to the west of South Molton as land to the east of the town is of poorer quality and no conservation constraints, new open space could be delivered in relation to footpath. The site does not require significant highway improvements It is questioned why development is solely to the west and south The vision for the western extension will introduce low carbon emissions, this would suggest sustainability requirements but not supported by evidence or the NPPF This level of development is overbearing on the basis of increased noise and disturbance. Density is too high and will not allow for appropriate landscaping and retention of existing features
Access concerns to the new primary school and it is questioned as to when it will be built New primary school is too far out, disconnected from existing infants school and will create more traffic congestion in South Street without the new road (x5) Delete reference to providing a new primary school as part of policy SM01 The policy needs to make it clear that the western extension will provide an expanded school to replace existing junior school with a 420 place primary school and contributions toward the provision from new development (DCC) The requirement to expand the existing infants school will not form part of the first phase that has been granted planning consent in principle as the potential land is outside the scope of the planning application New primary school should be provided off Gunswell Lane
The new distributor road should link to the roundabout at Pathfields Business Park. (SMTC) (x3) The distributor road should not go through a residential development, the route should be outside the residential area (x2) Support for the transport and connectivity strategy as set out in Policy SM01 (DCC) Too many houses without the supporting infrastructure being delivered first Policy should recognise the need for early delivery of the distributor road, health centre, sewerage works and primary school (x3) Beech House should be de-listed. (SMTC) (x3) The new health centre should be located on the Norrington’s site The new medical centre is not located in the right area as it is too far away from the town centre. It should be deleted from Policy SM01 Development should provide on-site sport and recreation or off site contribution (SE) Development would have a negative impact on wildlife and biodiversity. The development should be well integrated with the existing network of PROW
Support the new sewage works is delivered at Ford Farm There is no current intention to provide a new sewage treatment works at Ford Farm during the Plan period (SWW) The new sewage works at Ford Farm is inappropriate and the prevailing winds will deliver foul smells over large parts of the town. It is questioned where the sewerage infrastructure will be located
364 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Other Key Issues identified
A full planning application (54384) has been approved in principle subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement for land between North Road and Gunswell Lane (Policy SMO1a) for a mixed use application comprising of 115 dwellings, allotments, public open space, highway access and other incidental development (Phase I – Full Details); together with up to 135 dwellings, a medical centre (use class D1, upto 750 sqm), public open space and other incidental development (Phase II – outline, with means of access only to be approved at this stage) Land at Belgrave, north of Nadder Lane, has been submitted as a SHLAA site (SHA/SMO/483) confirming its potential availability but it has not been formally promoted through the local plan process.
Officer Comments
1408 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 to the west of the town should ensure the scheme remains viable and will deliver the necessary physical and community infrastructure required in the town. It is not considered that development on the eastern side of the town 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 applications. It is implicit in Policy ST22 that developments will be expected to provide or contribute toward the timely provision of physical and social infrastructure although it is considered unreasonable for a development to make significant upfront payments before houses are sold since this could undermine viability. Policy DM20 requires that any development over 7 dwellings, including the western extension, must provide at least 25% of the new housing to be affordable to meet the local need. However, further viability work is expected that will establish an appropriate level of affordable housing viable across northern Devon as a whole.
1409 It is accepted that new development should provide an adequate level of on-site car parking in order to reduce the impact on residential estate roads. Policy DM06: Parking Standards expects new development to provide an appropriate scale and range of parking provision to meet the anticipated needs of the local community. Whilst the route of the distributor road within SMO1a has been established through the recent planning permission, the extended route to the south is only identified as an indicative route and could follow the route that would best deliver the vision and spatial strategy. Inclusion of land at Belgrave could help deliver an improved route for a new distributor road.
1410 Any extension to the north of SM01 to connect to the roundabout at Pathfields Business Park is not considered achievable without some major alterations to the existing planning permission (54384) and additional land being incorporated north of Deerhill Lane where the land is visually very prominent in the wider landscape.
1411 There needs to be a balance between delivering new homes to the town, viability of the development in general and realising a scheme that will incorporate sustainable construction standards and techniques in order to help tackle the challenges of climate change. The balance between achieving sustainable development and viability is a key consideration of NPPF (paragraph 173). Any development must meet the requirements of Building Regulations (which will change over time) and therefore cross-reference should be made to the requirements set out within Policy ST05: Sustainable Construction and Buildings. It is accepted that achieving ‘exemplar’ thresholds within the
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 365 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
vision for the western extension may be ambitious, but it is a vision rather than policy. It would be appropriate to amend the vision by replacing exemplar of high quality sustainable design with wording to ‘incorporate measures that will reduce carbon emissions’.
1412 Policy SM01 already recognises the need to deliver additional formal and informal recreation facilities as part of the development. However, the spatial strategy proposes the additional sporting facilities for the town to be provided through the development of a new sports hub on land to the east of Alswear Old Road (Policy SM02(2)). A large part of the funding for the new sports hub will be delivered through the redevelopment of the existing football club to housing (Policy SM02(1)) although it is expected that financial contributions towards open space from the strategic western extension will also contribute toward its provision.
1413 Support for the orbital footpath and bridleway around the town is noted. New housing, through detailed master planning will need to integrate with the existing network of footpaths. Policy SM01 makes it clear that new development should enhance and make connections to the existing network of local and strategic green infrastructure through and around the site including the provision of new footpaths, cycleways, public open spaces, wildlife corridors, formal and informal recreation facilities. Therefore, it is considered that development will have a positive impact on wildlife and biodiversity through enhancement of the existing network rather than a negative one.
1414 It is accepted that any new buildings within this area will generate an element of noise from construction through to the end user. Whilst the concerns are valid it is considered more appropriate to assess longer term impacts within Policy DM01: Amenity Considerations and through licensing.
1415 It is not accepted that the density of development is too high. The total site area of the western extension is approximately 32 hectares (gross) with a net developable area of about 23 hectares. With an overall requirement to deliver approximately 665 dwellings, this equates to an approximate density of 29 dph. This is not considered to be an over intensive form of development that will compromise an appropriate landscaping scheme being delivered and existing site features being retained.
1416 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 South Molton through site allocations is based on a realistic assessment of each site based on the SHLAA and detailed master planning work. It is accepted the land to the north-west of the town has the benefit of planning permission and that further master planning work will not be required for this part of the strategic extension. However, it is still considered important that the housing and community infrastructure to the south is developed comprehensively through detailed master planning work. 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 meet the spatial vision for South Molton to 2031 and deliver the specific development requirements as set out in Policy SM01. As such, the spatial strategy for South Molton delivering approximately 1,100 dwellings including about 725 through specific site allocations is not contrary to the requirements of the NPPF.
1417 In order to ensure the early delivery of key infrastructure in the town that will help to meet the South Molton vision and spatial strategy, it is accepted that the Plan could be more flexible in terms of phasing. In view of multiple land ownership, phasing need not be strictly north to south provided that each phase of development has a safe access and egress on to the main highway network and the overall delivery of the new distributor road and key infrastructure is not compromised. Amend paragraph SM01(2) to remove specific phasing.
366 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1418 Through previous consultation exercises with the local community, including partners of the existing East Street medical centre, it was made clear that a new medical facility was required in the town to not only meet current demand but also from the expected housing growth to 2031. Re-location to a new site was supported in principle but no alternatives were provided at that time. It is expected to retain one of the existing practices within the town centre with the other practice re-locating to the new site to the north-west of the town as part of the strategic western extension. It should be noted that the principle of a new medical centre has already been determined by the recent planning permission (54384) so there is no intention to delete reference to a new medical centre within Policy SM01 (Phase 1 – north of Gunswell Lane). Should the other practice wish to move from East Street then alternatives sites could be considered.
1419 Devon County Council, the local education authority, require a new site to replace the existing junior school in the town centre with a new expanded primary school, comprising of a 420 place facility. It is accepted that the policy should make it clear the new school is a replacement of the existing junior school rather than a new additional primary school but there is no intention to delete the requirement for a new primary school within Policy SM01 as the level of housing growth proposed over the plan period will require additional capacity which cannot be accommodated on the existing community infants or junior school. Due to the existing schools being at or close to capacity the Plan makes it clear that a new 315 place primary school will be delivered during the early phases of construction to accommodate the existing junior school with further land safeguarded to facilitate the 420 place school. The preferred site to the south of the town is considered the best option strategically as this will facilitate a primary school to the north and south of the town, providing choice to the local community. This approach is supported in principle by the local highway authority in terms of an acceptable level of traffic movements over South Street.
1420 There is provision within Policy SM01a to safeguard sufficient land to facilitate expansion of the current infants school off Gunswell Lane to a new primary school. The recent planning permission (54384) does not deliver this land, leaving inadequate land for any expansion.
1421 The existing sewage treatment works off Poltimore Road is at or very close to capacity. Considering the level of growth to the west of the town and the need for increased sewage capacity the principle of a new sewage works at Ford Down was proposed and supported by the Town Council. The natural landform to the west of the town would support a sewage works in this location without the need to pump effluent from the proposed development. It is accepted that such a proposal is not currently within SWW capital programme but as this will be reviewed over the next couple of years and the local plan period is to 2031 the opportunity to include such a scheme is considered appropriate and necessary with a proportion being funded through developer contributions. It is also accepted the new sewage works is located to the south-west of the town where any emissions could be affected by the prevailing wind and potentially impact on the town. Whilst the concerns are valid it is considered more appropriate to assess these issues within Policy DM01 (Amenity Considerations) and through engagement with SWW to ensure such emissions are minimised. The supporting text could cross-refer to this policy.
1422 It is not accepted that Beech House should be de-listed, which only English Heritage can authorise and is unlikely to be supported. Paragraph 130 of the NPPF recognises that ‘where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of, or damage to, a heritage asset the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision’. The Council’s Strategic Conservation Officer has offered to discuss options for redevelopment and partial demolition. There is clear evidence the present condition of the property arises as a result of long-term neglect and lack of maintenance by the current landowner. Paragraph 132 of the NPPF makes it clear that ‘when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation’. Paragraph 132 continues ‘heritage assets are
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 367 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building should be exceptional’. The NPPF is also very clear in that consent should be refused where a development would result in the ‘substantial harm to or total loss of a designated heritage asset’ unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss.
Policy SMO2: Sports Hub and Football Club
Summary of Key Issues
1423 Comments made in response to Policy SMO2 including supporting text:
Number of responses 13
Number of responses in support 3
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 4
Number of responses in objection 3
Number of responses providing a general comment 3
Table 5.124
Support the policy where it recognises the need for any floodlighting to safeguard against light pollution, particularly where it will affect ENP but to be consistent the policies must refer to ‘dark night skies’. (ENP)
Support for the site being developed but it must come forward early in order to finance the sports hub development A new sports hub is needed in the town The current policy approach to develop the sporting facilities with an equivalent or better quality provision is supported (SE) Support the principle of a sports hub but it must also cater for women’s sporting needs and not just male sports Any vehicular access in to new housing must be off the George Nympton Road only with a need to address safety issues for pedestrians/cyclists on to the Alswear Old Road Additional land is required to the north in order to accommodate a full size rugby pitch Supports the strategy subject to land at Furzebray being allocated for housing Questions regarding the funding streams available for the new sports hub and access arrangements to the school and hub Objection to the development of up to 60 houses; this part of the policy should be deleted
Other Key Issues identified
Negotiations are ongoing with the local community to deliver a new sports hub for the town
368 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Officer Comments
1424 There is general support in the local community for the delivery of a new sports hub in the town. Plans for its delivery are being progressed actively within the local community. In order to ensure the early delivery of key infrastructure in the town that will help to meet the South Molton spatial strategy, such as the new sports hub, it is accepted the Plan could be more flexible in terms of phasing but it is critical the new football pitch and facilities are provided as part of the sports hub prior to the existing site being redeveloped for housing.
1425 It is accepted the new sports hub should cater for all sporting needs, including those enjoyed by women. Whilst the Plan supports the principle of a new sports hub for South Molton, it should not be overly prescriptive to include the type of sports that would be acceptable other than supporting sports pitches and associated buildings. The type and scope of the facilities to be provided is for the local community to determine, not the Local Plan. Paragraph 10.359 could be amended to clarify that the building would serve a wide range of sports, ages and genders.
1426 The policy and supporting text should be amended to safeguard the ‘dark night sky’ over the Exmoor National Park instead of the ‘dark skies’ here and elsewhere in the plan. It is also accepted that reference should be included to ensure a good external lighting design as part of the overall development.
1427 The site allocated for the new sports hub in the draft Local Plan was established by the local community. It is accepted that the project may now have moved forward and additional land is now required to provide a more comprehensive proposal. The additional land promoted does slope and will require substantial earthworks to create a new sports pitch. However, the works are not considered so fundamental that would prevent development from being undertaken subject to there being no adverse impact on the adjoining residential properties. The allocated land for Policy SM02(2) should be amended to reflect the updated proposals required by the local community.
1428 Policy SM02 makes it clear the principal vehicular access in to the proposed new housing and sports hub will be off the George Nympton Road with pedestrian and cycle access being provided through Alswear Old Road and the Sheep Fair Field. It is accepted the policy could be more explicit to ensure the new pedestrian / cycle access on to Alswear Old Road is safe for users. It would not be possible to prevent vehicular access from this road and the Plan can only provide the opportunity for an alternative safer vehicular access from the George Nympton Road in to the sports hub. The policy should be amended accordingly to ensure the implementation of a safe pedestrian / cycle access through to the new sports hub from Alswear Old Road. The access arrangements to the existing secondary school will be unchanged.
1429 Financing the proposed new sports hub will be for the local community and existing sports clubs to resolve with delivery clarified through the Infrastructure delivery plan. However, the development of approximately 60 houses on the existing football ground and the urban extension to the west of the town (Policy SM01) will provide financial contributions toward the delivery of the new sports hub.
1430 The principle of housing on land at Furzebray has been considered as part of the South Molton Spatial Strategy. Please cross-refer to the officer comment under paragraph 20 above.
1431 The land identified for approximately 60 dwellings off George Nympton Road, including the existing football club has been submitted as part of the SHLAA process but has yet to be considered by the SHLAA Panel (SHLAA Reference SHA/SMO/423 and SHA/SMO/517). The site was considered
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 369 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
by the locally community as a preferred site for additional housing in order to meet part of the overall housing growth strategy for the town to 2031 and to help facilitate delivery of the new sports hub. There is no technical reason against this site being developed for housing and the officer recommendation to the SHLAA Panel is one of developable in principle. There is no need or intention to delete Policy SM02(1) from the Plan.
Policy SM03: Pathfields Business Park
Summary of Key Issues
1432 Comments made in response to Policy SM03 including supporting text:
Number of responses 14
Number of responses in support 3
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 4
Number of responses in objection 2
Number of responses providing a general comment 5
Table 5.125
Support the principle of not allocating a new foodstore at Pathfields Support the principle of improvements to the A361 at Borner’s Bridge but this should be recognised in upper case policy and on the Policies Map (DCC) Suitable planning conditions are required to ensure the delivery of necessary infrastructure Support for the re-location of the proposed livestock market but it should be re-located to the 22 hectares west of Hacche Lane (SMTC) An out-of-town cattle market would lower footfall in town centre but benefit facilities at Pathfields. The cattle market in South Molton should be closed There is no mention to include SUDS which will be required, linked in to the green corridors (EA) Provide a main entrance to Pathfields from the link road into the northern boundary of the extension A new foodstore should be proposed as part of the expansion to Pathfields (x5) General support for the allocation of additional employment land at Pathfields in order to provide job opportunities for existing and new residents to the town
Other Key Issues identified
Early indications from the updated ‘Employment Land Review’ highlights that the Plan has an over provision of employment land to meet the anticipated demand. The implications of this will be considered under Policies ST07 and ST14 but ELR recommendations could have implications for this site although it is more likely to affect some of the smaller employment land allocations rather than this strategic employment allocation where occupancy rates are good.
370 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Officer Comments
1433 It is recognised in paragraph 10.361 that the capacity of Borner’s Bridge junction will need to be improved. However, it is accepted that it should be included within upper case policy rather than just in the supporting text due to the scale of works likely to be involved. It is proposed to include a new paragraph to Policy SM03 to identify land at the Borner’s Bridge junction on the A361 for junction improvements, which must not be compromised by the delivery of other developments. Supporting text would state that the Borner’s Bridge junction on the A361 is a key junction on the strategic road network but is dangerous due to traffic attempting to cross the main highway against the main flow of traffic. Additional traffic generation from further growth in the town will require its improvement to deliver increased capacity either through a new roundabout or grade separation for example. Development adjoining this roundabout must not compromise the opportunity of junction improvements to be delivered. Other than improvements to Borner’s Bridge, to the north-east of Pathfields Business Park, there is no intention to provide a new access from the north off the A361 which is unlikely to be supported by the local highway authority.
1434 It is accepted that the delivery of infrastructure, in particular the upgrading of Hacche Lane, is critical in order to provide a comprehensive strategic employment development at Pathfields Business Park. However, issues around land ownership are neither for the Local Plan nor any future planning applications to resolve, although it is important to ensure the development remains viable so delivery is not compromised. The delivery and phasing of infrastructure should be considered against the criteria set out within Policy ST22: Infrastructure.
1435 It is accepted that local community aspirations for the proposed siting of a new livestock market may have changed over time. In order to address these changes in site priority it is accepted that policy wording could reflect this by allocating at least 1.5 hectares of land on the western side of Hacche Lane (Policy SMO3(1)) if this is now considered to be the preferred location. The Local Plan cannot assume that South Molton no longer requires a livestock market when the spatial vision for South Molton, agreed through community consultation, recognises the relocation of the livestock market will help develop the town as an agricultural business centre to serve North Devon. It is understood the existing site within the town centre no longer meets the requirements of current regulations governing its use as a livestock market so there is a need for the existing town centre site to be upgrading or a new site found at Pathfields Business Park.
1436 If there is a need in South Molton for a new foodstore to serve the town then the preferred site will be adjacent to the existing town centre. A foodstore is considered to be a town centre use where the NPPF at paragraph 23 seeks to ‘promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer’. Paragraph 24 requires LPAs to ‘apply a sequential test for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre. Main town centre usesshould be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered.’ Therefore, in accordance with the NPPF a site for a new foodstore at Pathfields Business Park is not considered appropriate as it would fail the sequential test when there is a suitable site available on the edge of the town centre, identified through Policy SMO4.
1437 Policy SM03 could include the requirement to incorporate an appropriate sustainable drainage system that links in with the green infrastructure in and around the site, cross-referring to Policy ST03.
Policy SM04: South Molton Town Centre
Summary of Key Issues
1438 Comments made in response to Policy SM04 including supporting text:
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 371 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Number of responses 34
Number of responses in support 6
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 22
Number of responses providing a general comment 6
Table 5.126
Support the creation of a new supermarket within an expanded town centre (x2) Object to the siting of a further supermarket in the town centre (x20) A foodstore development should not take place until the existing livestock market has been re-located (SMTC) More support must be given to preserve the existing Pannier Market and local retail outlets; the town centre needs larger retail outlets in the town centre Any development on the central car park must complement the existing town centre retailers The central car park site should also deliver needed community facilities as well as quality small business uses Adequate public car parking must remain in the central car park in order to serve the town centre (x3)
Other Key Issues identified
The site is currently allocated within the adopted local plan under Proposal SMO6 (Town Centre Expansion) and supported by a supplementary planning document, which was adopted by the Council in January 2005. The policy proposes a new foodstore of up to 1,000 m2 net sales. An updated Retail and Leisure Study (adopted September 2012) by Peter Brett Associates proposes a number of recommendations for the town. The main report recognises a high percentage of leakage of convenience spend from South Molton to other areas for main food shopping, as opposed to top-up shopping. In February 2013, the Council commissioned a supplementary report for South Molton. This report concludes that with the population growth proposed by the draft spatial strategy and increasing retention rates over the plan period, there is estimated need for a small increase in net convenience floor space requirement by 2031 of between 277 and 642 m2. The report also noted that this quantum of floorspace is unlikely to be enough to support the average store format of the main convenience retailers.
Officer Comments
1439 There is some support within the town for expansion of the town centre and for the erection of a new food store in South Molton, however the majority of respondents were opposed to any new food store as it would have an adverse impact on existing retailers in the town centre. Some suggested a new food store should be located at Pathfields Business Park or within the western extension; the issues on site selection for new retail uses have been addressed above under Policy SM03.
372 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1440 The Plan recognises the need within South Molton to provide increased food store floorspace within the town centre, without being specific on the proposed floorspace requirement. This additional requirement could help deliver new floor space to address retail expenditure leakage to other centres such as Barnstaple and meet retail needs from the increased population in the town over the plan period.
1441 This policy context conforms with the ‘Peter Brett Retail Capacity Assessment’, although the report indicates that over the plan period there is a relatively small requirement of additional net retail floorspace of approximately 250m2 and 650m2 (depending on the level of leakage retained). The expansion of South Molton town centre is also supported by paragraphs 23 and 24 of the NPPF. It is accepted that the policy wording could be amended to delete reference to the need for a ‘new foodstore’ in recognition of the findings of the Peter Brett report but provide amended wording to recognise the need to provide additional retail floorspace within the town centre to meet the future needs of the town.
1442 The Plan recognises that the town centre expansion could also deliver additional leisure, including new open spaces to enhance the town centre. The Plan will also support the principle of new community facilities such as a new ambulance station or health centre if the local health authority or the existing partners of the East Street surgery require additional accommodation to meet their future needs. However, a site for a new surgery has already been approved as part of the SMO1(a) development. The Plan should not identify all individual development opportunities that could be accommodated within a potential comprehensive redevelopment of the central car park. This can be assessed at the time of an application or through a revised design and development brief in consultation with the local community.
1443 The Plan recognises that the key to regenerating and expanding the town centre is to re-locate the existing livestock market to Pathfields, which will then provide the opportunity for a comprehensive redevelopment and environmental enhancement of the whole area. However, it is recommended above that mention of a new food store could be deleted from Policy SM04 as evidence would suggest there is not the need for a new convenience store of a size or offering a range of goods to compete with those in the other main centres. As a town centre location, retail applications would be assessed against Policy DM16: Town Centres anyway.
1444 It is accepted that any redevelopment of the central car park must complement and not have an adverse impact on the existing town centre retailers, which could be recognised more explicitly within the Plan. However, the Plan does already recognise that any development must be designed to enhance the town’s built heritage, including its surrounding listed buildings, such as the Grade II* listed Pannier Market and the special character and appearance of the conservation area. There is also recognition that the existing level of car parking provision should be retained or increased where necessary in order to meet the existing and future needs of the town centre.
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
Summary of Key Issues
1445 Comments made in response to the section and supporting text regarding the town centre and community facilities:
Number of responses 1
Number of responses in support 0
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 373 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Number of responses in objection 0
Number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.127
Can a footpath be considered between Mill on the Mole and Station Road along the River Mole?
Other Key Issues identified
The draft Devon Green Infrastructure strategy (October 2011) identifies the strategic county priorities for future GI (Map 4.2), including an aspirational public access route between Barnstaple and South Molton
LTP3 also identifies aspirational strategic walking/cycling link routes between Barnstaple and Tiverton via South Molton to enhance the network of strategic cycle routes across Devon
Officer Comments
1446 The Plan seeks to deliver a orbital route around the town through the provision of additional footpaths, cyclepaths and bridleways by creating new and enhanced linkages through proposed developments to the west of the town (Policy SM01) and Pathfields Business Park (Policy SM03). There is no objection in principle to developing a footpath link from Mill on the Mole north to Station Road as it will provide further opportunities to create the orbital route. It is accepted that the supporting text could recognise the desire to deliver this route subject to the land being available as well as facilitating the delivery of aspirational strategic cycling route between Barnstaple and Tiverton via South Molton.
MAP CHANGES
Summary of Key Issues
1447 Comments made in response to the Policies Map for South Molton (Figure 15.12) propose amendments to allocated sites and/or the development boundary. Many of the promoted sites have more detailed commentary in the South Molton Spatial Strategy section above.
Site Address Rep No. SHLAA Proposed Change to Officer Response No. Allocation or Development Boundary
Land off Alswear dlp1238 SMO/046 extends development Potentially Accept - site is New Road boundary relatively well related to South Molton and outside areas at flood risk. Could help deliver the sports hub.
374 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Land adjoining dlp1918 ~ extends sports hub Potentially Accept – the project College allocation is further advanced and additional land to the east is required
Quince Honey dlp1880 SMO/332 possible allocation Potentially Accept - site is well Farm, North within development related to South Molton and Road boundary outside areas at flood risk but listed building is a constraint
Land at dlp3360 SMO/427 extend development Potentially Accept - site is Furzebray, & boundary and relatively well related to South George dlp3405 housing allocation Molton and outside areas at flood Nympton Road risk and could help deliver primary school & extended distributor road
Table 5.128
Land off dlp964 & SMO/032 extend development Reject – additional land to the Poltimore Road dlp2795 boundary and east of the town will not help housing allocation deliver the spatial strategy and vision for the town
Mill on the Mole dlp904 ~ extends Reject – existingsite is within Residential development flood zone 3, the site is not well Home Park boundary related to the existing town and will not help deliver the spatial strategy and vision for the town
Land south of dlp3383 & ~ extend development Reject – the site is isolated from Nadder Lane dlp3500 boundary and the town and the strategic western housing allocation extension SM01(c)
Table 5.129
Officer Comments
1448 A number of proposed changes to the Policies Map for South Molton were promoted, as set out in the table above. The location of these proposed map changes are shown on the Map attached to this report, with Officer commentary on the issues for each promoted site set out below. Additional comments are set out towards the start of this report as a response to representations on the South Molton Spatial Strategy.
1449 The Mill on the Mole residential home park does provide affordable accommodation but the site is not well related to existing housing development and would not provide a logical extension to South Molton. The large majority of the existing park is liable to flooding. There are fundamental constraints to this site being allocated and included within a revised development boundary if additional housing is required for South Molton. It would not meet the vision and spatial strategy agreed by the local community.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 375 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1450 The previously developed site at Quince Honey Farm, off North Road is well related to existing housing development and provides a logical infill site. The site is not liable to flooding but the principal building on the site (Beech House) is grade II listed which has potentially rendered the site un-developable due to viability concerns due in part to the need for retention and repair of the grade II listed building. There are no fundamental concerns regarding the principle of redeveloping the site for housing as the site is currently allocated in the adopted local plan (SMO1a) and included within the development boundary. If additional housing is required for South Molton and issues with the grade II listed building are overcome then this site would be acceptable in principle, which could occur whether or not the site is allocated.
1451 Land at Furzebray, off the George Nympton Road is well related to existing housing development and provides a logical extension to South Molton whilst also helping to deliver the new primary school and an extended distributor road to George Nympton Road. The site is not liable to flooding and there are no fundamental constraints to this site being allocated and included within a revised development boundary and Policy SM01, if additional housing is required for South Molton that would meet the vision and spatial strategy agreed.
1452 Land off Alswear New Road, between Molesdown and Sunridge is relatively well related to existing housing development. The site is not liable to flooding, although the area in the north-west corner is wet. There are no fundamental constraints to this site being allocated or included within a revised development boundary if additional housing is required for South Molton that would meet the vision and spatial strategy.
1453 Land south of Nadder Lane, around Nadder Cottage is not well related to existing housing development and would not provide a logical extension to South Molton and Policy SM01. The site is physically separated from the strategic western extension (SM01c) that would constitute a fundamental constraint to this site being allocated and included within a revised development boundary and housing proposal SM01. Whereas the land around Belgrave would help to deliver an improved route for the proposed distributor road. If additional housing is required for South Molton that would meet the vision and spatial strategy agreed by the local community it is considered that this site (Nadder Cottage) would not help deliver that and should therefore not be included within a revised development boundary.
1454 Land off Poltimore Road is relatively well related to existing housing development and would potentially provide a logical eastern extension to South Molton. The site is not liable to flooding but is very steep. However, if additional housing is required for South Molton that would meet the vision and spatial strategy then it is considered that this site would not be the best site to help deliver that and should therefore not be allocated within a revised development boundary.
Officer Recommendations
1. Recognise more explicitly in the text under ‘The Place’ that South Molton is ‘historic rural market town’ in character.
2. Delete reference to an annual build rate of about 55 dwellings per year and the phasing strategy in order to achieve a degree of flexibility so as to ensure early delivery of the required infrastructure.
3. Review Table 10.11 in order to ensure delivery of the full housing target for South Molton.
4. Update Table 10.11 to include completions and commitments from April 2012 to March 2013.
376 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
5. Amend paragraph 10.351 to recognise the potential adverse harm on water quality in local rivers and streams and cross refer to the Taw River Improvement Project (TRIP), with a cross-reference to Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy.
6. Amend the text within Policy SM to reflect the need for a second primary school in the town.
7. Amend policy text in terms of sustainable construction to cross-refer to Policy ST05. Also, amend the vision by replacing an ‘exemplar of high quality sustainable design’ with wording to ‘incorporate measures that will reduce carbon emissions’.
8. Amend the supporting text of Policy SM01 to cross-refer to Policy DM01 (Amenity Considerations).
9. Extend SMO1(b) to include land at Belgrave within this policy and amend the site’s capacity accordingly.
10. Amend Policy SM01(2) to remove the required phasing from North to South.
11. Amend Policy SM02 to safeguard the ‘dark night skies’ instead of the ‘dark skies’ and add references to ensure a good external lighting design as part of the overall development.
12. Amend paragraph 10.359 to clarify that the sports hub building will be designed to meet a wide range of sports, ages and genders.
13. Extend site allocation of SM02(2) to allow additional land to the east to facilitate a more comprehensive sports hub development.
14. Amend Policy SM02 by adding a more explicit reference to ensure the new pedestrian / cycle access on to Alswear Old Road and the new sports hub should be safe for all users.
15. Works to upgrade Borner’s Bridge, and safeguarding adequate land to achieve this, should be recognised through a new paragraph (3) within Policy SM03 as well as through the supporting text. It would also be appropriate to identify the works on the Policies Map: figure 15.12.
16. Amend Policy SM03 to allocate 1.5 hectares of land for a new livestock market at Pathfields Business Park but do not specify a preferred location.
17. Amend Policy SM03 to include the requirement to incorporate an appropriate sustainable drainage system within the development, with cross-reference to Policy ST03.
18. Reference within Policy SM04 to the requirement for a new food store in South Molton should be retained as an option as part of the need to provide sufficient additional retail floorspace within the town centre to meet identified needs of the growing town.
19. Make more explicit reference in Policy SM04 to ensure that any redevelopment of the central car park must complement existing uses within the town centre.
20. Amend paragraph10.370 to support potential opportunities to deliver an extension of the proposed orbital route by developing a footpath link from Mill on the Mole north to Station Road if the land were to be made available. Also, recognise the aspiration to deliver a strategic footpath and cycle route from Barnstaple to Tiverton via South Molton.
21. Amend the development boundary between Molesdown and Sunridge to include the full site promoted through dlp1238.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 377 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
22. Prioritise thesite off Furzebray as the preferred housing site to help deliver the new primary school and extended distributor road. Allocate site for housing with a new policy and RJ. (Policy SMO1d)
23. Consider the expansion of South Molton Infants School within the reasoned justification (para 10.355) making reference to Quince Honey Farm as providing the opportunity for such expansion as part of the redevelopment potential.
Chapter 11: Monitoring Framework
Total number of responses 3
Total number of responses in support 0
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Total number of responses in objection 0
Total number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.130
Summary of Key Issues
1455 Comments made in response to section 11:
How will annual monitoring be communicated? What opportunities will there be for public input? Ensure monitoring occurs to indicate the delivery of infrastructure associated with housing development Clarify methodology for assessing and progress towards sustainable development and how sustainability features translate into benchmark assessments (ND+) Where are we in terms of being a sustainable community? (ND+)
Officer Comments
1456 There is a requirement for each local planning authority to publish an annual monitoring report (AMR), which was first introduced through the 2004 Planning Act. This is the official means for annual monitoring information to be communicated to the public. There are some specific types of information that need to be monitored and reported, such as the number of dwellings built and availability of a 5-year land supply, but there is flexibility on providing additional information. This is a technical report and does not require public input.
1457 The provision of infrastructure through s106 requirements will continue to be monitored and could also be reported through the AMR. Once CIL is adopted, there is also a requirement for annual reports on funds collected and on what it has helped to deliver. This could be delivered as part of or alongside the AMR, which the plan could clarify.
378 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1458 Delivery of sustainable development is an objective of the local plan and of the planning system as a whole. No new methodology or set of indicators is required, since the spatial planning vision and strategic aims and objectives (in Section 2) already provide this as identified in paragraph 11.4. Progress towards the delivery of these objectives will contribute towards achieving sustainable development, which would be reported through the AMR.
Officer Recommendations
1. Amend paragraph 11.6 to clarify that progress towards delivery of infrastructure through the CIL will also be monitored. Chapter 12: Development Management Policies
Sustainable Development - Environmental Protection
Total number of responses 127
Total number of responses in support 37
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 28
Total number of responses in objection 44
Total number of responses providing a general comment 18
Table 5.131
Policy DM01: Amenity Considerations
Summary of Key Issues
1459 Comments made in response to Policy DM01, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 10
Total number of responses in support 5
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Total number of responses in objection 2
Total number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.132
Support the policy stance that developments should not harm the amenities of neighbouring dwellings or uses. (230 (ENP)) (1600 (WPC)) (2447) Support the policy stance that developments should not harm the character of surrounding areas, for example the case of Westaway Plain (BAR05). (1372) Support item (b), industrial-sized wind turbines increase the risk of ill health for people living within 2km of them. (1502)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 379 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Unoccupied developments, turbines and solar arrays, also need to be addressed. Separation distances in relation to size should be added. (1334 (RCPC)) Support for the statement in para 12.3 (c) on noise and vibration. To address wind turbines issue, the Plan should state that in the future any industrial-sized turbine to be situated within 1.4 km of more than 10 homes will not be allowed. (1513) Introduce minimum separation distances between dwellings and wind turbines and solar farms, in line with expert advice. Suggested separation distances are: Wind farms (2 or more turbines each of capacity 500kW and above):1.5km, Wind turbines of capacity 500kW and above: 1.0km with further distances suggested depending upon capacity. (3976) The policy should state that significant detrimental impacts on amenity may make development unacceptable but also recognize that amenity will need to be considered as part of the planning balance alongside other factors. (1741) In relation to the Westacott Strategic Extension (BAR01) an alternative access arrangement should be found which will help to retain the Park green space amenity for residents. (ie via the new junction at Landkey turn off) (425) It is unclear why this limited set of policies (in para 12.6) has been singled out as affecting the siting of development. The reference should be to all relevant policies. (1014)
Officer Comments
1460 There is a reasonable level of support for protecting the amenities of residents, as contained in item (a) of the policy.
1461 A main focus for attention by respondents is proximity of dwellings to industrial-sized wind turbines and the possible need for separation distances. This general concern is acknowledged and there is a significant degree of cross-over on the matter with Policy DM02: Environmental Protection. However, the need to detail separation distances in the Local Plan is not accepted given existing regulations administered by the Council’s own Environmental Health Services and Health and Safety Executive. A set of recommended distances for dwellings and other uses is also contained in TDC’s Wind Energy Policy (2010) guidance document.
1462 The point about retention of the Park green space amenity is addressed elsewhere, under summary of key issues for Policy BAR01-Westacott Strategic Extension of the Barnstaple town strategy section of the plan.
1463 The reference to Design and Environmental Protection policies in para 12.6 is justified as leading aspects to peruse in terms of siting of development without excluding others where appropriate. Alternatively, making reference to ‘all relevant policies’ as suggested would be too open-ended.
1464 It would be helpful to revise item (a) of the policy to improve clarity and linkage with other Plan policies by using the word ‘significantly’ before ‘harm the amenities of any neighbouring dwellings’ and taking out the wording ‘or the character of the surrounding areas’. Also, the replacement of ‘dwellings’ with ‘occupiers’.
Agreed Actions
1. Addition of the word ‘significantly’ before ‘harm the amenities of any neighbouring dwellings’ in condition (a) of DM01.
2. Deletion of ‘or the character of the surrounding areas’ in condition (a) of DM01 and replacement of ‘dwellings’ with ‘occupiers’.
380 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Policy DM02: Environmental Protection
Summary of Key Issues
1465 Comments made in response to Policy DM02, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 12
Total number of responses in support 5
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Total number of responses in objection 4
Total number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.133
Support the policy, it is essential that the potential harmful effects of/on developments are given due consideration. (2291) (2453) (1381) Welcome the reference to minimizing light pollution, including reference to Exmoor National Park’s Dark Sky Reserve status. (232 (ENP)) (1015) Item (1)(b) would preclude development on significant proportions of brownfield land. It should be adjusted to allow for agreed decontamination to take place prior to development. (3052) Allow for decontamination to take place as part of a pre commencement condition. (2246) Pollution (2)(a)-(d) is vague and imprecise. There is no adopted Local Air Quality Action Plan. Where is the air quality management area? (3419) The risk of future contamination of land from toxic waste must be reduced by imaginative and green planning around waste (para 12.7) Waste should be treated more as a resource and planning for it should be on this basis. (728) Change the 6th line of para 12.10 as follows: ‘Where land is suspected or known to be contaminated or unstable, new development will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that the site is safe for the intended use or that any problems can be adequately dealt with.’ (replacing ‘have been’) (2249) The second sentence of para 12.10 would require decontamination issues to be addressed prior to considering planning permission. Alternatively, the requirement should be confirmation that the land can be cleaned up, which would then become a condition of planning. (3057) Where developments could result in a risk to the health or safety of residents or other people, a risk assessment should be performed and the risk must be shown to be acceptable or tolerable. (3928) In relation to item (2)(d), has the impact of lighting requirements on adopted highways been considered? (2247)
Officer Comments
1466 Policy DM02 covers a wide area of environmental policy; the main part of which has received reasonable backing, particularly the importance of minimizing light pollution.
1467 Condition 1(b) would still allow for development of brownfield land which remains a priority under Policy ST02-Principles of Sustainable Development and not hinder a large quantity of supply as suggested. As stated in para 12.10 land that may be contaminated could still be developable, if demonstrated that the site is safe for the intended use or that any problems have been dealt with.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 381 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1468 Condition 1(b) allows for decontamination to take place as part of a pre-commencement condition in certain less severe circumstances contrary to the view expressed by the respondent.
1469 Part 2 of the policy include a series of markers in relation to Pollution, explained in the supporting paragraphs (12.17 & 12.18) and also link with other appropriate environmental regimes. The content of part 2 is considered straightforward rather than vague and imprecise as contended.
1470 There are opportunities for reducing the risk of future contamination of land from waste by comprehensive green planning advocated through Policy ST03-Adapting to Climate Change.
1471 The list of key consultees in para 12.9 should be added to for the purpose of accuracy by Public Health England and Coal Authority.
1472 The meaning of para 12.10 would be improved by an amendment of the third sentence which is slightly different from that suggested as follows: ‘Where land is suspected or known to be contaminated or unstable, new development will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that the site can be made safe’. The inclusion of contamination conditions is perfectly acceptable when granting planning permission.
1473 A reference to the requirement for air quality statements in para 12.11 would be helpful.
1474 A risk assessment approach put forward by the respondent is addressed to a significant extent by information contained in para 12.19 including requirement for Health Impact Assessment in relevant circumstances.
1475 Lighting of adopted highways is guided by outstanding regulations outside the planning regime, although major new schemes would be subject to the provisions of 2(d) in liaison with Devon County Council.
Agreed Actions
1. Addition of Public Health England and Coal Authority to the list of key consultees in the second sentence of para 12.9.
2. A cross reference to paras 12.18 and 12.19 to be added after the third sentence in para 12.10 which details mitigation measures associated with environmental hazards and pollution.
3. Addition of the following sentence to the end of para 12.11: ‘Air quality statements will be required to be submitted with planning applications in such circumstances’
Policy DM03: Construction and Environmental Management
Summary of Key Issues
1476 Comments made in response to Policy DM03, including supporting text and figure 12.1.
Total number of responses 10
Total number of responses in support 3
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 5
Total number of responses in objection 1
382 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Total number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.134
Support the aims of this policy to effectively manage waste from development in accordance with the waste hierarchy, it is an essential part of good practice. (233 (ENP)) (1380) (1016) The word ‘significant’ requires defining for the policy to be operated and to provide clarity to the LPA and applicant alike. (1700) DM03 could be enhanced so that it sequentially refers to the different levels of the waste hierarchy in order. The structure of the policy could also usefully be improved to clarify that it covers the construction and occupation phases of development. Consider the addition of: ‘(4) Development that will generate a significant volume of operational waste will be required to demonstrate that its impact on the highway network is not severe and must provide adequate site access for the type and volume of vehicles that will be using the development.’' (2889 (DCC)) Para 12.26 & 12.33 should be amended so that it is clear that current waste planning policy for Devon is included in the Devon County Waste Local Plan, with the emerging policy being included in the Devon Waste Plan. (2891 (DCC)) In para 12.28 specifying a defined technology is too prescriptive. The acceptability of facilities would be more appropriately considered in terms of impact rather than technology type. (2892 (DCC)) Para 12.33 should be amended to refer to undertaking discussions with the Waste Planning Authority for information about the location of existing waste management facilities, rather than the website. (2893 (DCC)) The policy is imprecise, with respect to ‘significant volume’ it should be clarified by providing a threshold volume for construction waste. (ie 10,000 tonnes) (3421) Quote more directly from Government Review of Waste Policy in England (2011) in Figure 12.1. (2890 (DCC))
Officer Comments
1477 General support expressed for the policy to effectively manage waste from development in accordance with the waste hierarchy summarized in Figure 12.1.
1478 In order to avoid undue duplication with Devon County Council’s role in waste management it would be prudent to remove item (1) of the policy.
1479 The suggestion to clarify the meaning of ‘significant volume of construction waste’ contained in DM03 is reasonable. An appropriate sentence can be added to para 12.29 following liaison with Devon County Council (DCC) concerning appropriate threshold amounts.
1480 In terms of DCC’s suggested amendments, recognition of impact on the highway network (by inclusion of an extra condition) and clarification about covering the construction and occupation phases is justified. However, a reference to the different levels of the waste hierarchy in order is rather superfluous given the prominence of existing supporting text in paras 12.22-26.
1481 Points of accuracy concerning suggested amendments to 12.26 and 12.33 in relation to current waste planning policy and the County Waste Local Plan/Waste Plan by DCC are helpful.
1482 As proposed by DCC, references to defined technology, including ‘anaerobic digestion’ can be taken out of para 12.28; exchanging for relationship to impact is accepted.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 383 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1483 Adding a reference to undertaking discussion with the Waste Planning Authority for information about the location of existing waste management facilities, rather than website in para 12.33 is accepted. (DCC)
1484 A cross-reference to the Government Review of Waste Policy in England (2011) should be added to para12.22 in relation to Figure 12.1 – Waste Hierarchy. (DCC)
Agreed Actions
1. Deletion of item (1) of DM03.
2. Addition of a final item in DM03 to cover transport implications as follows: '(3) Development that will generate a significant volume of operational waste will be required to demonstrate that its impact on the highway network is not severe and must provide adequate site access for the type and volume of vehicles that will be using the development.'
3. Add text to para 12.29 to clarify the meaning of ‘significant volume of waste'.
4. Make points of accuracy to paras 12.26 and 12.33 in relation to County Waste Local Plan/Waste Plan.
5. Delete references to defined technology in para 12.28.
6. Add the following text to para 12.32: ‘It will be necessary for the developer to provide a report addressing any potential conflicts between the development and existing waste facilities’.
7. Make reference to undertaking discussion with the Waste Planning Authority for information about the location of existing waste management facilities, rather than website in para 12.33.
8. Add cross-reference to the Government Review of Waste Policy in England (2011) in para 12.22.
Policy DM04: New Development within Local Centres, Villages and the Countryside
Summary of Key Issues
1485 Comments made in response to Policy DM04, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 39
Total number of responses in support 7
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 6
Total number of responses in objection 21
Total number of responses providing a general comment 5
Table 5.135
The policy positively defines which types of development will be acceptable within and surrounding villages and identifies how the prosperity and viability of those villages will be sustained over the plan period. (2735) (3522) Support reference to exception sites and the reuse of redundant rural buildings. (2996)
384 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Support sites for affordable housing within villages can be either within or reasonably adjacent to the development boundary. (3172 (NDH)) Emphatic agreement with the specific conditions in part (4) and in the context of Westleigh. (3859 (PWPC)) (2041) Small scale housing development in rural areas is supported (para 12.35) where it improves the sustainability of the rural area. (3173 (NDH) Support the aims of the policy however smaller settlements surrounding the National Park will have limited opportunities to sustain their communities and services over the long term. (234 (ENP)) Broadly support policy objectives but clarification and amendments should be considered: (2) define how ‘requirements’ will be identified (3e) meaning is not apparent (3f) ‘reasonably’ requires clearer definition (3g) is unacceptably vague, seems to offer blanket support for a business park anywhere irrespective of village scale (4b) a ‘rural enterprise’ needs definition, ‘necessarily rural’ is suggested. (1017) (2251) (1415 (RCPC)) Sites for travellers are more suited to both sections of the community if there is space for the travellers to express themselves without being affected by the settled community. (1382) A new policy should be introduced which allows for the expansion of park home sites. (909) The Local Plan should acknowledge the existence of Park Home estates in the countryside by adding a specific allocation for such uses on the Proposals Map. (906) The term ‘rural enterprise’ requires better definition, any enterprise can have a rural setting, only some need to be in one. Perhaps described as ‘necessarily rural’. (1017) (1385 (RCPC)) Objection to item (2), the village definition for Milton Damerel is not accepted in ST06. (1349 (MDPC)) Reference to a development boundary shows a fundamental Reference misunderstanding of the concept of sustainable development. (3b) should be reworded to accord with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. (3f) reflect the NPPF in respect of market housing on exception sites. (1641) Item (3f) undermines the wider plan by introducing the idea of a possibly large development ‘reasonably adjacent’ to the development boundary. (1415 (RCPC)) Item (3c) is too restrictive, reword in accordance with Policy DM25. (2248) Item (3g) delete 'business parks' and replace with 'businesses or enterprises' ensuring NPPF compliance. (2250) Enable more rural affordable housing through cross subsidy by market housing and self build on a community and individual basis. (2977 (BPC)) No consideration given for small villages or any planned consultation of villages such as Queen’s Nympton, the community may be left to stagnate. (2996 (QNPC)) Existing Local Plan policy has created dysfunctional settlements which will be exacerbated by ST06. (3422) While the draft plan applies NPPF (para55) in relation to identified villages this is not the case when considering proposed developments in unidentified rural settlements (such as Westleigh) and should be applied. (3683) Traveller sites are better placed in or on the edge of industrial areas given the infrastructure and facilities required. (3849 (MPC)) The current position of rural settlements providing for limited development on a 50/50 basis of 1 open market for 1 affordable unit should be maintained. (3866) Amend wording in para 12.36 to add reference to Small Village category. (3886 (KPC)) Housing development in key local centres and villages is not something to be tolerated and planned for as an afterthought. It is essential that the growth needs of rural areas are properly satisfied. (para12.37) (1702) (2967) Many villages now do not have a local shop or medical facilities. (para12.38) (734)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 385 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
The wording of 12.39 offers a blanket permission for most development in the countryside, all of which will claim expected economic benefits. (1375 (RCPC)) Add reference to Small Village category in para 12.39. (3889 (KPC)) Parish agreement will focus on the new development boundary and the developments thought appropriate within it. (para 12.41) (1377 (RCPC)) Restriction of farm and rural business diversification to ‘small scale rural enterprises’ does not encourage rural enterprise or economic growth. (para 12.42) (2253) Reference to the relative sustainability of Fremington and Yelland by virtue of proximity to, and links with Barnstaple apply equally to Landkey and should be recognized in the plan. (para 12.43) (1704) Renewable energy development should be added to the list of potentially suitable developments that can take place in the countryside. (829) Consider the inclusion of a new point at the end of part (3) of the policy: ‘(h) there is no severe traffic impact or detriment to the safety of highways users’ (2894 (DCC)) The policy may be better included within the Spatial Strategy section as there is a perceived confusion between the two areas in order to evaluate the same proposals. (3608) Infilling may frequently mean loss of spatial amenity for existing dwellings. Care should be taken to use brownfield sites wherever possible and use multi storey dwellings or buildings. (730)
Officer Comments
1486 There is well acknowledged support for the policy approach, particularly towards the framework for villages and positive implications for viability of these settlements. Specific backing is given to the prospect for affordable housing within or reasonably adjacent to the development boundary of villages. (as contained in 3(f))
1487 The future ability of smaller settlements to grow will be very much dependent upon individual circumstances and land/site opportunities which arise. When read in conjunction with Policy ST06-Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon and Policy ST08-Rural Area Strategy it is clear that relatively small villages will still be able to attract small scale housing and employment developments to meet local needs. On the other hand, sustainable location aims, as detailed in para 12.39 will reasonably restrict such types of development in the wider countryside, including dispersed hamlets.
1488 Clarity of ‘the requirements of the immediate village and parish’ (item (2)) will be gained to a significant extent when Part Three of the Local Plan is produced which will set out the scale and type of development that individual rural communities will accommodate. (as part of the submission version of the Local Plan) Points of clarification in relation to (3e), (3f), (3g) and (4b) can be made in response to individual comments.
1489 The specific policy requirements for traveller accommodation development is contained in Policy DM28, the potential allowance for such sites in the countryside (under (1d) and (1e) may provide the space for the travellers to express themselves which the respondent raises. In addition, point (4g) of DM04 also allows for a countryside location.
1490 The case for introduction of a new policy for Park Homes is not justified. Policy DM04, alongside other relevant strategic policies such as ST06 and ST08 offers a satisfactory basis for assessing future proposals that compose of new sites or extensions to existing estates.
1491 The definition of Milton Damerel as a village will be addressed with other representations made to Policy ST06-Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon under item (5).
386 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1492 Reference to a ‘development boundary’ at (3b) does not conflict with the concept of sustainable development as contended which is clarified in para 12.35. Using development boundaries as a policy tool is acknowledged as a means to deliver development on a rational basis across a plan area.
1493 The matter of market housing on exception sites to reflect NPPF is covered in Policy DM21 this does not make the present wording of item 3(f) for affordable housing incorrect. In addition, the locational requirement for potential sites to be ‘reasonably adjacent’ to the development boundary does not introduce the idea of a possibly large development when other policy requirements are taken into consideration including other conservation policies where applicable.
1494 Stressing the importance of cross subsidy by market housing to deliver more rural affordable housing and self build on a community and individual basis is acknowledged. The existing policy context does allow for these types of housing to come through, ultimately improvement in numbers will also depend upon involvement by other agencies such as housing associations and trusts.
1495 Non-designated villages such as Queen’s Nympton and Westleigh, come under part (4) of DM04 which identifies a range of potential development uses for the countryside. It is accepted that overall the present policy framework is unlikely to lead to many residential opportunities. This conservation emphasis is explained in para 12.39. The case for identifying an additional tier of settlements below defined villages is examined in response to representations received against Policy ST06 which may meet some of the respondent’s concerns.
1496 DM04 (4g) allows for the location of sites for traveller accommodation in the countryside. Although not providing for proposals in or on the edge of industrial areas, as suggested, the provisions of Policy DM28 do allow for such a location in part (1) of the policy. There is no need to make an amendment to DM04 on this basis, as DM28 is clearly cross-referenced.
1497 The proportional supply of housing in rural settlements between open market/affordable has been stated as 25% of all dwellings being affordable on sites with a capacity of 7 units or more. (in Policy DM20) Although clarified in para 12.113 the split is provisional and subject to findings from consultants carrying out independent viability research which will inform the next version of the plan. Therefore it is not possible to concur with the 1 open market/1 affordable unit split in rural settlements at this stage of the plan-making process.
1498 It is not accepted that the strategy towards Local Centres (explained in para 12.37) is of a restricted nature, or planned as an afterthought. Item (1) of DM04 is plain about these settlements being ‘the primary focus for development over the plan period’ in the rural areas of northern Devon. The supporting text referenced by the respondent merely reflects the realism of local centres providing ‘a modest level of new housing’ in the context of the settlement hierarchy as a whole, with main centres, strategic centre and sub-regional centre all providing higher levels of housing development growth. Furthermore, the community neighbourhood planning work undertaken by parish councils will be a central component in how individual local centres cater for scale and type of development.
1499 The terms explained in para 12.39 do not amount to blanket permission for development in the countryside; there is emphasis on sustainable location aims which will serve to restrict development in the wider countryside, including dispersed hamlets. This approach links directly to part (5) of Strategic Policy ST08-Rural Area Strategy.
1500 If an additional lower tier of settlements is introduced, (ie Small Villages or similar) then an appropriate reference in para 12.39, as requested, should be made.
1501 Identification of social and economic needs of local communities should be wider than parish plans, make reference to ‘equivalent documents’ in the last sentence of para 12.39.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 387 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1502 In response to parish council comments, the respondent is correct in stressing the importance of the plan identifying a new development boundary for villages, inclusive of any new development sites. It is not the intention to encourage in addition a similar or larger scale amount of housing/employment forms of development beyond the boundary on exception sites. Crucially, Policy DM21 sets out the requirement for any proposals for affordable housing to be justified on the basis of a local community need for affordable housing. A growth rate of 5% has in any case been identified for villages over the plan period.
1503 An emphasis on ‘small scale rural enterprises’ in para 12.42 in the open countryside is justified in the context of wider strategic policies and locational aspects covered above. It is not considered the approach will be unduly restrictive to farm and rural business diversification.
1504 The case for making a reference to Landkey in para 12.43 given the relative sustainability of the settlement, only a short distance from Barnstaple, is noted. However, Fremington and Yelland has been identified as a local centre rather than a village and is well located in terms of both Barnstaple and Bideford, hence the specific reference.
1505 It is not considered necessary to add renewable energy development to the list of potentially suitable developments in the countryside, under part (4) of the policy. The main focus of the policy is settlement based and small scale housing and employment for rural communities. (the latter referenced in para 12.35) Renewable Energy falls outside this policy context.
1506 Inclusion of an additional point at part (3) of DM04 to cover highway safety is not required because this part of the policy is recommended for deletion in order to help clarify the overall plan approach towards development policy in villages which is covered under the Spatial Strategy.
1507 Possible disconnect between the policy dealing with New Development within Local Centres, Villages and the Countryside and the Spatial Strategy policy context in Section 4 is acknowledged. It would therefore improve understanding by deleting part (3) and shortening provisions within (4).
1508 The need to guard against detrimental implications of infilling for residential amenity is acknowledged. Policy safety measures are included in DM01-Amenity Considerations and DM05-Design Principles (items (a) and (i)) It should also be realized that infilling comprises of development of a small gap in an otherwise developed frontage between two existing buildings and not backland or large rear garden areas. (as NPPF, para 53)
Agreed Actions
1. Rationalise Policy DM04 together with ST06 and ST08 and cover in the Spatial Strategy chapter, including for settlements without defined development boundaries.
Policy DM05: Design Principles
Summary of Key Issues
1509 Comments made in response to Policy DM05, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 16
Total number of responses in support 5
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 4
388 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Total number of responses in objection 6
Total number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.136
Support the key principles set out in the policy to ensure development will be of high quality and integrate successfully with its surroundings to reinforce local distinctiveness. (235 (ENP)) (1384) (2694)
Support for the reference to plans and appraisals prepared at the local level to achieve high quality design in para 12.46. (236 (ENP))
Welcome reference to 'Streets for All' in para 12.47. (2469 (EH))
All developments should have access to public transport, parking space should be kept to a minimum and reflect the preference for public or community transport. (737)
The historic environment is a key component in determining the existing character of a place and should be explicitly referenced in the policy. (2419) (2465)
Point (h) should be widened to incorporate safe and appropriate highway access. (2896 (DCC))
Consider issues like standards for Secure by Design, as contained in para 58 of NPPF. (1594)
Do not be so prescriptive on design as this is subjective and stifles innovative approaches. (2252) (1986)
In (1) the last part of the second sentence is unnecessary: ‘…and respond to the challenges of climate change' (3423)
The general phrasing of point (a) and (c) is incorrect. In both cases ‘be’ should be amended to ‘are’. (2895 (DCC))
Consider provision of bird nesting boxes in new or change of use development. (3764)
Research development elsewhere in the country for what has worked/not worked in reducing crime and anti-social behaviour through design and layout. (745)
Officer Comments
1510 A significant strand of opinion is supportive of the key principles contained within DM05 and expectation for high quality design during the plan period.
1511 Broader transport policy is covered by Policy ST10-Transport Strategy and to a certain extent matches the respondent’s concerns. It should however be acknowledged that given the rural context of a large part of northern Devon it is unrealistic to expect all developments to have access to public transport.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 389 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1512 The importance of the ‘historic environment’ as a key component is acknowledged. A specific reference within the policy wording is not justified in that item (b) in identifying the ‘key characteristics and special qualities of the area’ embraces the conservation dimension along with Strategic Policy ST12: Conserving Heritage Assets.
1513 The need to amend point (h) by adding a reference to 'safe and appropriate highway access' is accepted.
1514 Secure by Design standards is an important design consideration raised by the respondent. It is however given proper standing within supporting para12.48 and general policy area is covered in point (g) of DM05, therefore no amendment is required.
1515 The main approach towards design through DM05 is to emphasize a set of principles rather than a tiered criterion based method. It follows closely the aims of para 58 of the NPPF for such a policy. However, in order to make less prescriptive and have a broader focus than residential development, the second part of the policy should be switched to supporting text with relevant revisions and retention of part (1) which covers the general principles.
1516 Supporting text (at 12.46) makes clear that other types of guidance, such as neighbourhood plans, village design statements, and conservation area character appraisals will provide necessary local guidelines/advice within the more general framework of DM05.
1517 A cross-reference to ‘the challenges of climate change’ in item (1) of DM05 is justified in that it provides a strong linkage back to relevant design aspects of Strategic Policy ST03-Adapting to Climate Change. In addition, a further point is required to cover water management aspects in (2).
1518 The phrasing improvement to items (2a) and (2c) in terms of substituting ‘are’ for ‘be’ is accepted.
1519 Provision of bird nesting boxes in new/ change of use developments would offer unnecessary detail to DM05 and therefore conflict with para 59 of the NPPF. However, point (f) of the policy does emphasize the importance of biodiversity to enhance networks.
1520 Drawing on best practice/experience from elsewhere in the country is acknowledged as an important method in assessing various potential policies including design to minimise anti-social and criminal behaviour as suggested.
Agreed Actions
1. Addition to part (1) of DM05 as follows: 'Development proposals need to have regard to the following design principles:'
2. Amend part (2), point (h) by adding a reference to 'safe and appropriate highway access'.
3. Phrasing improvement to part (2), points (a) and (c) in substituting 'are' for 'be'.
4. Addition of point (n) in part (2) as follows: 'provide effective water management including sustainable urban drainage systems, water efficiency measures and the reuse of rainwater.'
5. Add the following text to para 12.45 as follows: 'All new developments should achieve high quality design that is sustainable and inclusive, both in the short term and over the lifetime of a development. Proposals need to have regard to the above design principles: (a)-(n).
390 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Policy DM06: Parking Standards
Summary of Key Issues
1521 Comments made in response to Policy DM06, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 10
Total number of responses in support 3
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 5
Total number of responses in objection 0
Total number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.137
Support the flexible criteria-based approach of the policy which takes account of local circumstances. (237 (ENP)) (1782) Parking is already a major issue in some villages and should not be exacerbated by development. (1018) It is hoped this policy allows for village developments providing parking spaces without being required to have garages which are difficult to fit into local design. (1388 (RCPC)) Parking standards must take into consideration the reality of living in northern Devon where public transport availability is limited. (1387) The term ‘appropriate scale and range of parking provision’ should be defined within the Local Plan. (1706) 'Streets for All' approach should be referenced in the policy. (2470 (EH)) DM06 wording should be strengthened by amending point (2) to read ‘Proposals must’ (2897 (DCC)) All developments should have access to public transport and parking space allowance kept to a minimum. (748) The final line of para 12.55 should be amended to ‘….provision of safe, accessible and integrated cycle ways and footpaths’ (2898 (DCC))
Officer Comments
1522 There is relatively broad support for the flexible criteria-based approach of the policy which takes account of local circumstances.
1523 DM06 or supporting text does not point out village developments necessarily needing to incorporate garages, as suggested. This approach would be far too prescriptive for a local plan policy. In terms of blending in with the individual physical circumstances of village locations, regard will be had to design principles contained in Policy DM05. No wording addition/amendment is required.
1524 The policy pays due regard to the rural context of northern Devon where public transport availability is limited. It is met by the provision of point (1b) and flexibility described in para 12.51. No further amendment is justified.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 391 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1525 It is accepted that the Local Plan does require further information within supporting text to amplify the term: ‘appropriate scale and range of parking provision’ in part (1) of the policy. Such guidance will be informed by Devon County Council as the Transport Authority and ability to provide strategic advice. It is understood such additional information will not represent a set of standards in the traditional sense and which is not specifically required in para 39 of the NPPF. (Promoting Sustainable Transport section) Changing the policy title from ‘Parking Standards’ to ‘Parking Provision’ is therefore justified.
1526 English Heritage’s ‘Streets for All’ is given due reference in supporting text with Policy DM05, at para 12.47 for Design Principles. A further reference within DM06 is unnecessary, as accompanying text in para 12.53 states: ‘Parking provision should be carefully designed and integrated into development proposals having regard to the principles of Policy DM05-Design Principles.’
1527 A degree of strengthening to the policy, by amending point (2) to read: ‘Proposals must ….’ would be helpful.
1528 The proposal for all developments to have access to public transport and parking space allowance kept to a minimum is unrealistic for the plan area as a whole. Certain locations, usually within or adjoining urban areas may well be applicable for the direction sought. The balanced approach towards parking provision is explained in para 12.52 and reflects national policy guidance.
1529 It would be helpful if further guidance on parking levels for set situations could be provided to accompany DM06 in the form of a supplementary planning document. A suitable reference should be made at para 12.53.
1530 A suggested word amendment to the final sentence of para 12.55 provides greater clarity as follows: ‘….provision of safe, accessible and integrated cycle ways and footpaths’.
Agreed Actions
1. Change policy title from 'Parking Standards' to 'Parking Provision'
2. Amend part (2) of DM06 to: ‘Proposals must encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport through careful design, layout and integration to the existing built form'
3. Add a sentence to para 12.53 as follows: ‘Further advice will be provided in a future Supplementary Planning Document for Parking which will set out guidance on levels of provision.'
4. A word amendment to the final sentence of para 12.55 as follows: ‘….provision of safe, accessible and integrated cycle ways and footpaths’
Policy DM07: Safeguarding Open Space and Green Infrastructure
Summary of Key Issues
1531 Comments made in response to Policy DM07, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 14
Total number of responses in support 4
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
392 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Total number of responses in objection 5
Total number of responses providing a general comment 3
Table 5.138
Support for the aims of the policy to safeguard both formal and informal open spaces. (238 (ENP)) Safeguarding open space should mean there is a presumption that previously developed land will be used first and recognise the government commitment to protect Agricultural Land Classification 1, 2 and 3a (1389) Support the policy and assume it includes flood risk areas in green spaces. (2573 (EA)) Support for the expectation of development providing a net gain in biodiversity, para 12.59. (239 (ENP)) DM07 would be enhanced through the inclusion of a further point: ‘there is no net loss in sustainable travel options’ (2899 (DCC)) Advice about future management and maintenance (contained in para 12.64) should be incorporated into the policy as a third condition. (2623) Provide protection for ancient woodland and promote new native woodland creation. (1347) Item (b) will lead to an incremental loss of open space which cannot be replaced. (2449) Biodiversity aspects (as para 12.59) should be included in the policy. (2850) There is a need to somehow assess the amenity value of the existing space and what is being proposed. (3174 (NDH)) Consider inclusion of a policy to protect sport and recreation facilities including playing pitches that reflects the approach of DM07. (2231) There are areas where housing is proposed where no more, or very little open space left. (1457) Concern expressed for situations where alternative open space or green infrastructure is provided in an area less accessible for local residents. (either geographically or physically) (2325) Wooded valleys covered by NOR09 and BID03 provide important amenity space to both local and visiting populations. (753)
Officer Comments
1532 The focus of Policy DM07 is public open space providing important opportunities for sport, recreation and nature conservation, as explained in para 12.57 and defined in the Glossary. The matter of prioritizing previously developed land for building and protection of higher grade agricultural land falls outside the ambit of this policy. Strategic Policies ST02-Principles of Sustainable Development and ST08-Rural Area Strategy address these particular aspects to a certain extent.
1533 Raising the importance of sustainable travel options is valid in the context of helping to realize the plan’s overall Transport Strategy. (ST10, part 2) Adding a further point to DM07 is accepted: ‘(c) there is no net loss in sustainable travel options.'
1534 Providing details/advice about future management and maintenance of open space within the Local Plan is important. The outstanding reference at para 12.64 contains the general approach of the Councils and is sufficient without adding a further reference to DM07 as proposed by the respondent.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 393 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1535 Ancient Woodland may sometimes form part of open space or green infrastructure and therefore will be safeguarded along with the wider open space. Also, condition (a) would allow for new native tree/woodland creation where alternative open space or green infrastructure is provided for example. An additional reference to cover ‘Woodland’ seems unjustified for this particular policy.
1536 The possibility of incremental loss of open space (under condition (b)) where small-scale development is allowed in order to make improvements to the space (ie clubhouse/changing rooms) is a well made point. Relevant development schemes will have to be carefully monitored against the Council’s Recreation and Open Space Needs Assessment and if necessary the policy revised accordingly as part of a Local Plan Review process.
1537 Assessment of the amenity value of existing open space forms part of the aforementioned Open Space Needs Assessment and will help to inform preparation of the revised submission version of the Local Plan. In relation to the strategic site allocations, this assessment survey work will be undertaken as part of the comprehensive master plans identified in individual policies.
1538 The explanation of biodiversity aspects (in para 12.59) is valuable and complementary to DM07. There is however no particular requirement to make direct reference to these within the policy itself, as requested. The plan’s overall approach towards biodiversity enhancement is set out in Policies ST02-Principles of Sustainable Development and ST11-Enhancing Environmental assets.
1539 Inclusion of a separate policy to protect sport and recreation facilities is not justified. The provisions of DM07 will safeguard playing fields and parks on which many outdoor sport and recreation facilities are based. It is however accepted that certain sport and recreation facilities which can be private club-based will not necessarily be covered by the policy.
1540 The general point about seeking to improve the provision of open space in association with larger scale housing allocations is a fundamental component of the Local Plan incorporated into individual major residential allocations and led by Policy DM08-Open Space Provision. Such a position will meet some of the concern expressed by the respondent about lack of open space close to new development areas.
1541 The matter of potential less accessible nature of alternative open space or green infrastructure is well made. Point (a) of the policy does however express the importance of ‘accessibility’ of alternative space and is further explained in 12.58. The recommended additional point (c), protecting sustainable travel options for open space will also be helpful in this regard.
Agreed Actions
1. Addition of condition (c) to DM07 as follows: '(c) there is no net loss in sustainable travel options'.
Policy DM08: Open Space Provision
Summary of Key Issues
1542 Comments made in response to Policy DM08, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 16
Total number of responses in support 5
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 3
394 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Total number of responses in objection 5
Total number of responses providing a general comment 3
Table 5.139
Support for the policy to ensure development delivers public open space and green infrastructure in relation to the open space standard. (240 (ENP)) (1390) Support the policy and assume this includes flood risk areas in green spaces. (2574 (EA)) Support for the recognition that off-site provision, or contributions towards provision elsewhere will be possible where it best delivers identified community needs and aspirations. (1743) (1784) There should be clarification on what 'the open space standard' is. (1709) (3424) Accessible woodland can play an important role in delivery of open space provision. (1348) Enhancement of off-site public open space given reference in the supporting text should also be reflected in the policy wording as follows: ‘Development will provide new accessible public open space and green infrastructure in relation to the open space standard to meet the needs of its intended occupants, unless provision off-site or contributions towards planned provision elsewhere would better serve community needs’ (2359) (1642) Proposed green infrastructure standards should carefully consider the deliverability of the proposed urban extension at Bideford. (1889) The Council has to establish a robust and up to date sport and recreation base for sports facilities. (non playing pitches) A comprehensive assessment and audit of sports facility needs is required which would subsequently be developed into appropriate strategies. (2208) The statement is too vague as a DM policy. (2626) The strategy for open space and green infrastructure is provisional and subject to review, no standards have been provided upon which to comment. (1742) (1858) (1783)
Officer Comments
1543 Open space provision, as framed by DM08 has gained a reasonable level of support including the recognition that off-site provision will be possible where it best delivers identified community needs and aspirations.
1544 The need for clarification on the open space standard is accepted. This will be provided and be subject to consultation as part of the Recreation and Open Space Needs Assessment survey work and also be available for further comment in the pre-submission version of the plan. (as referenced in paras 1.14 & 12.60)
1545 Accessible woodland as suggested can play an important role in delivery of open space provision. Trees and Woodland can also form a valuable element of green infrastructure, for example along river corridors and forming part of nature reserves. A specific reference to it in either the policy or supporting text is not particularly justified given existing presence in the wider terminology mentioned.
1546 A proposed reference to off-site public open space in the policy wording is not required. The present wording of DM08, although focusing primarily on new open space on-site, still allows for the possibility of off-site provision without amendment to the policy. Para 12.63 contains adequate advice which dovetails with the policy.
1547 The suggestion that proposed green infrastructure standards should carefully consider the deliverability of the proposed west urban extension at Bideford is noted. The general position is explained in point 2 above.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 395 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1548 The response by Sport England is acknowledged. Amongst other things, undertaking a comprehensive assessment and audit of sports facility needs provides important evidence base for the plan. A requirement for which is indicated in the NPPF. (para 73) This survey work is currently being undertaken and will help to inform a new/amended policy in relation to Community Services & Facilities. It however does not fit particularly well with the focus of DM08 which concentrates upon public open space and green infrastructure.
1549 The meaning of Policy DM08 will be much clearer when information on open space and green infrastructure standards is available and headline details can be incorporated into this section of the plan. Paras 12.60-12.64 serve to expand upon the direction of the policy.
Agreed Action
1. Incorporate headline details on open space and green infrastructure standards from the Green Infrastructure Strategy for North Devon and Torridge.
Notation
BPC - Bridgerule Parish Council DCC - Devon County Council EH - English Heritage ENP - Exmoor National Park KPC - Knowstone Parish Council MPC - Meshaw Parish Council MDPC - Milton Damerel Parish Council MDH - North Devon Homes PWPC - Pilton West Parish Council QNPC - Queen's Nympton Parish Council RCPC - Rackenford & Creacombe Parish Council WPC - Winkleigh Parish Council
Enabling a Vibrant Economy
Total number of responses 108
Total number of responses in support 34
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 25
Total number of responses in objection 30
Total number of responses providing a general comment 19
Table 5.140
Policy DM09: Employment Development at Towns and Villages
Summary of Key Issues
1550 Comments made in response to Policy DM09, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 17
Total number of responses in support 3
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
396 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Total number of responses in objection 6
Total number of responses providing a general comment 7
Table 5.141
Support the key principles set out in the policy and that employment sites should be of an appropriate scale and well related to the settlement without detriment to landscape character and the environment. (241 (ENP)) (2468) Support the principles, these must be flexible enough to allow innovation that will bring sustainability to towns and villages. (1392) Conditions (c) and (d) are selective. There is no reference to low carbon development or pollution prevention. Condition (b) should be amended to incorporate the importance of contributing to the area’s economic objectives, as contained in 12.69. (2627) The policy allows B1, B2 & B8 uses on any site when in fact impacts are very different. For instance the latter two uses may not be appropriate in a residential area. (2451) In condition (1) delete ‘employment development provided by B1, B2 and B8 uses’ and replace with ‘economic development'. (2259) Add a supporting paragraph allowing new economic development sites in rural areas to support new and existing rural businesses and enterprises. (2260) The scope of the policy should be widened to support non-B Use Class employment development as it is currently overly restrictive and may act as a barrier to development. Condition (1) should include ‘A’ use classes. (3425) (3523) (3061) In para 12.68 delete ‘unacceptable’ and replace with ‘significant’ to comply with NPPF and habitat regulations. (2262) The councils are only committed to ‘well paid quality employment’ what about the rest of their communities. (2257) Recognition that employment extends beyond B class uses (12.66) is not reflected in the rest of the document. (2258) Public highway users should be included in the list in condition (c). The wording of (d) should be amended to: ‘The development has an adequate and safe access and does not give rise to excessive or inappropriate traffic and will contribute to the general aim of reducing the need to travel by private car.’ (2900 (DCC)) What is the definition of ‘high quality’ development in para 12.68. (2263) ‘unacceptable adverse impact’ infers subjectivity. (3064) Where is the economic growth strategy mentioned in para 12.70. (2264)
Officer Comments
1551 There is a good level of support for the key principles set out in DM09 and the need for these to be flexible enough to allow innovation to assist sustainability of towns and villages.
1552 Introducing references to low carbon development or pollution prevention is not warranted in that these aspects are covered in policies ST05 and ST03 and where necessary would be relevant to employment development schemes. An amendment in condition (b) to incorporate the importance of contributing to the area’s economic objectives in para 12.69 is accepted. Condition (b) should be amended as follows: ‘new employment sites of an appropriate scale to the settlement, adjacent or well related to the development boundary to meet an identified business need and contribute to the areas economic objectives, ....'
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 397 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1553 A helpful point is raised about potential compatibility of certain employment development uses (B2 & B8) in a residential area. Condition (c) provides suitable safeguards to meet these concerns without the need for further amendment. Proposals will also be gauged against Amenity Considerations in Policy DM01.
1554 The case for broadening out the B1/B2 and B8 uses focus of the policy in condition (1) is understood in order to better clarify and make consistent with the wider Plan.
1555 It is not necessary to provide an additional supporting paragraph dealing with new economic development sites in rural areas because the focus of DM09 is towards development in towns and villages not the wider countryside.
1556 The need to revise para 12.68 by replacing ‘unacceptable’ with ‘significant’ to comply with NPPF and habitat regulations is not accepted. The matters raised in the sentence such as residential amenity and traffic safety are wider than implied by the representor and the NPPF context misused.
1557 ‘North Devon and Torridge District Councils are committed to enabling well paid quality employment across northern Devon to help raise the overall prosperity of residents’ (para 12.65) represents a stated corporate objective, however, it does not exclude assistance, where appropriate for more traditional employment areas as suggested. The position will be further clarified when the Council’s Economic Growth Strategy is completed and can be further referenced in para 12.70.
1558 A suggested reference to ‘public highway users’ in condition (c) and grammatical improvement of (d) is accepted. Therefore (d) to read: ‘The development has an adequate and safe access and does not give rise to excessive or inappropriate traffic and will contribute to the general aim of reducing the need to travel by private car.'
1559 Clarification of high quality development (in para 12.68) can be addressed by a suitable cross-reference to Policy ST04-Improving the Quality of Development being added to the supporting text.
Agreed Actions
1. Part (1) of the policy should be revised as follows: ‘To support additional job creation in settlements defined by Policy ST06, economic development will be permitted on:’ and additional supporting text at the end of para 12.67 as follows: ‘Not all employment uses fall neatly within the B1, B2 and B8 use classes. Many are ad hoc (sui generis) uses that could fit reasonably well within employment areas, especially those related to wholesaling and the motor and building trades. Such uses may be acceptable in the right circumstances.’
2. An amendment to condition (b) as follows: ‘new employment sites of an appropriate scale to the settlement, adjacent or well related to the development boundary/settlement to meet an identified business need and contribute to the areas economic objectives, where the Council is satisfied that there is an insufficient supply of sites in the area and the development cannot be accommodated within the development boundary/settlement’.
3. Replacement of ‘the highway network’ by ‘public highway users’ in condition (c).
398 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
4. Grammatical improvements to condition (d) as follows: ‘The development has an adequate and safe access and does not give rise to excessive or inappropriate traffic and will contribute to the general aim of reducing the need to travel by private car.’
5. Revised text from the Economic Growth Strategy concerning traditional employment areas will be added to para 12.70.
Policy DM10: Safeguarding Employment Land
Summary of Key issues
1560 Comments made in response to Policy DM10, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 9
Total number of responses in support 3
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Total number of responses in objection 3
Total number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.142
Support the aims of the policy to protect existing employment land within northern Devon. (242 (ENP)) (2474)
Exceptions within the policy should not be abused by developers, to undermine the basic principles of providing employment within the rural areas. (1394)
DM10 should state that where existing historical employment uses are having a detrimental impact on surrounding sensitive land uses then their redevelopment for alternative, acceptable uses will be permitted. (2495)
Concern expressed at the need for appropriate marketing (condition (b)) which can harm the commercial viability of a company and cause delays in responding to market demand. (3427)
Restrictive marketing requirement (in para 12.74) will damage market value and viability and potentially breach human rights legislation. (2265) The last sentence of 12.73 requires amendment to improve punctuation: ‘Re-development of the site for non-employment development will only be allowed if it can be demonstrated that, firstly, employment based redevelopment and, secondly, mixed-use development generating some employment, is not viable.’ (787)
Reference to ‘The retention of allocated sites will be considered through Local Plan Review.’ (final sentence of 12.75) requires clarification of which land allocations in the current Local Plan are to be ‘saved’ and carried forward (ie Winkleigh Airfield) and which to be allocated. (2457)
The policy should reflect the NPPF approach to employment land release where there is no prospect of existing sites being reused. A pragmatic view is needed for both housing and employment objectives regarding site reuse. (3566)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 399 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Officer Comments
1561 A number of respondents gave support to the policy and that care should be taken with allowing exceptions which may undermine future employment prospects within the rural areas.
1562 The point raised about existing historical employment uses is partially covered by condition (d) but could be revised to clarify the position using some of the proposed wording as follows: ‘(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.
1563 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.
1564 The explanation of ‘comprehensive and appropriate marketing’ in para 12.74 is a reasonable 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. This approach will not necessarily impinge upon market value and viability or breach Human Rights legislation. Further explanation should be added for unused sites.
1565 An improvement of punctuation of 12.73 (last sentence) is accepted, apart from the final comma proposed: ‘Redevelopment of the site for non-employment development will only be allowed if it can be demonstrated that, firstly, employment based redevelopment and, secondly, mixed-use development generating some employment is not viable’.
1566 The meaning behind: ‘The retention of allocated sites will be considered through Local Plan review’ is that following adoption of the Plan, the list of outstanding/non-developed allocations will be re-assessed through the review process in line with NPPF (para 22) during the following 5 years or so. It is not specifically directed at outstanding allocations in the present Torridge District Local Plan (Sept 2004) such as Winkleigh Airfield. These will be re-evaluated as part of outstanding technical work – Employment Land Review and inform the pre-submission version of the plan.
1567 DM10 has been structured in order to comply with amongst other things the guidance set out in the NPPF, in Section 1 – Building a strong, competitive economy and in particular para 22. Conditions (a) – (d) set out the terms under which existing employment land/buildings can potentially change to other uses. To improve clarity and avoid unnecessary detail the wording: ‘to the satisfaction of the Council’ should be removed.
Agreed Actions
1. Amend condition (c) by deleting ‘to the satisfaction of the Council’ 2. Amend condition (d) as follows ‘ 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.’
3. An improvement of punctuation to para 12.73 (last sentence) as follows ‘Redevelopment of the site for non-employment development will only be allowed if it can be demonstrated that, firstly, employment based redevelopment and, secondly, mixed-use development generating some employment is not viable’
4. Add the following sentence to para 12.74 as follows ‘In cases where the building or site is unused, supporting information of the steps taken to explore regeneration opportunities for employment uses will usually be required’
400 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Policy DM11: Rural Economy
Summary of Key Issues
1568 Comments made in response to Policy DM11, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 16
Total number of responses in support 4
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 5
Total number of responses in objection 6
Total number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.143
Support the policy emphasis of enabling employment and growth in the rural economy. (2968) (2477) (2970)
Employment should be encouraged if it relates to the local community and rural setting. Sympathetic diversification should be encouraged. (1396)
The supporting text and/or Policy DM25-Re-use of Rural Buildings, could explain that the reuse of rural buildings is acceptable where they are well related to existing building groups to avoid the conversion of isolated rural buildings such as field barns that could detrimentally impact on landscape character. (243 (ENP))
Condition (c) severely limits the scope for farms to diversify at the expense of the rural economy. In relation to condition (d) ‘…no adverse impact …’ should read ‘…no unreasonable adverse impact’ otherwise the meaning of the policy does not work. (1564)
Condition (f) should make explicit reference to historic assets and their settings. (2481 (EH)) Amendments sought for clarity, in (c) replace ‘rural activity’ with ‘necessarily rural’ and in (f) delete ‘protected’. (2629)
There is a need to provide additional economic development in the rural areas where established sites are already in use and can serve a wider area. (2963 (BPC))
Recognise that existing rural businesses are not always small scale. Support all types of business and understand most are not located where their scale is related to the capacity of the existing highway network. (2266)
The policy would restrict development of existing countryside brownfield sites such as the Torrington Creamery site. Condition (d) is too absolute. Suggest ‘no undue significant impact on the living conditions of local residents’ (3065)
Many local businesses started in rural workshops of a modest scale. The policy should allow for new buildings where appropriate. (3428)
Condition (b) is too rigidly worded and might unduly restrain development. Suggest ‘sites or buildings adjoining or well related to a defined settlement’. (3525)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 401 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
In its current state DM11 will actually ensure that new types of business activity are resisted. Over recent years the principle of live work units in the countryside has become more acceptable as a means of promoting the sustainable re-use of existing buildings. (3684)
Size of buildings, especially barns, should be carefully considered, some of those recently constructed are unnecessarily high, leading to an adverse visual impact on the surrounding rural area. (789)
Officer Comments
1569 The positive nature of the policy in enabling employment and growth in the rural economy including sympathetic diversification is given a fair amount of support.
1570 The case for acceptability of reuse of rural buildings for employment purposes being dependent upon relationship to existing building groups rather than isolated locations is well made. Para 12.79 provides a link to the spatial strategy of the local plan for which any potential proposals need to be consistent with Policy ST08-Rural Area Strategy and makes clear that most new development will integrate with existing villages, in accordance with any relevant policies, design statements, parish plans and neighbourhood plans. It is not possible to provide a firmer steer in supporting text with DM11 without conflicting with latest national policy requirements.
1571 Condition (c) does not as contended severely limit the scope for farms to diversify at the expense of the rural economy in that the main policy format is served by DM12-Farm Diversification which does not contain such a requirement. For condition (d), the word addition of: ‘there is no unreasonable adverse impact on the living conditions of local residents’ does not particularly improve the meaning of the policy as suggested.
1572 An additional reference in condition (f) about historic assets and their settings is justified; as the current draft wording is mainly landscape-orientated.
1573 Suggested amendments to condition (c) in terms of ‘necessarily rural’ for ‘rural activity’ and in (f) deletion of ‘protected’ do not represent points of clarification and detract somewhat from the overall approach of DM11.
1574 The focus upon ‘small scale’ employment development in the policy is justified on the basis that in the majority of cases this will be the most appropriate scale of development in countryside locations. In the context of the plan’s strategic policies, larger scale employment development will usually need to be within or well related to designated settlements, particularly higher order ones identified in Policy ST07. (sub-regional, strategic and main centres)
1575 Existing countryside brownfield sites will be potentially developable where they adjoin a defined settlement in the Plan. Other more isolated locations may not be appropriate in the context of the spatial strategy and rural area strategy, which seeks to link development to rural communities and networks of villages. The former creamery site at Great Torrington is not restricted by DM11 as advanced, in that a separate policy (GTT01) in Section 10 promotes mixed use development. Other relevant employment sites outside development boundaries have been similarly identified in the plan. For condition (d), the wording amendment of: ‘there is no undue significant impact on the living conditions of local residents’ does not particularly improve the meaning of the policy as suggested.
1576 The policy does allow for new build on sites adjoining a defined settlement in condition (b). The importance of rural workshops for local businesses is acknowledged in the Council’s draft Economic Growth Strategy.
402 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1577 A suggested amendment to condition (b) is accepted in order to comply more fully with other similar policies in the Plan, such as DM09: 'sites or buildings adjoining or well related to a defined settlement'.
1578 The provisions of DM11 will not necessarily restrict new types of business activity as suggested, where proposals are consistent with the spatial strategy in terms of location. 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.
1579 Satisfactory incorporation of new built form in the countryside, in terms of size of structures is a valid point which is partially met by condition (f) in conjunction with relevant design principles contained in Policy DM05 and Policy ST11-Enhancing Environmental Assets.
Agreed Actions
1. Amend condition (b) of the policy by the following: ‘sites or buildings adjoining or well related to a defined settlement’ 2. Amend condition (f) of the policy by adding ‘or historic assets and their settings’ after ‘or protected landscape’
Policy DM12: Farm Diversification
Summary of Key Issues
1580 Comments made in response to Policy DM12, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 12
Total number of responses in support 1
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 6
Total number of responses in objection 4
Total number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.144
Support for the tests set out in the policy and the aim to ensure that existing vacant or underused buildings are utilised prior to any proposals for new buildings. (244 (ENP)) Include specific consideration of renewable energy issues. Delete ‘non agricultural’ from (d) there is no reason why the farmer next door should have to put up with loss of amenity just because he is a farmer. (1400 (RCPC)) The basic principle should be no loss of land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification. That land should be kept for farming and food production. (1397) Support for (d) but farmers have jumped on the bandwagon of diversification by applying for industrial-sized wind turbines on their land. This generally detracts from the visual amenities of the local population and puts immediate neighbours at increased risk of ill health. (1524) Support for the policy and its aims. It should however explicitly reference the role of historic farm buildings and the sensitivity needed in considering the conversion of such buildings. (2483 (EH)) Support for the positive emphasis for farm diversification. The introductory sentence and (b) do not make sense completely and should be reviewed. (2971)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 403 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Policy DM12 is too restrictive, (a) requires diversification schemes to be justified by the operational needs of the enterprise and they reinforce the viability of the existing farm business. This requirement should be removed and instead the policy simply encourage the introduction of new business activities which have a positive impact, not only for the farming enterprise but also for the wider economy. (3686) Replace ‘agriculture’ with ‘farm diversification’ in para 12.81. (2267) Recognise small scale permaculture as a viable business and a low-cost alternative lifestyle. (2261) Replace ‘unacceptable’ in (e) with ‘severe’ as this is the test in the NPPF. (2269) Point (e) of the policy should be amended to incorporate the following: ‘there is no resultant unacceptable increase in traffic on approach roads or detriment to the safety of users of the public highway’ (2901 (DCC)) Suggest rewording (e) to replace ‘unacceptable’ with ‘undue significant’ or similar. (3066) The policy is too lax with limited protection of the countryside and wider environment. Diversification proposals involving development should be subject to the same policy constraints as other development. (2630)
Officer Comments
1581 There is no particular need to specify renewable energy issues in the policy as suggested. This matter is comprehensively covered under Policy ST13. Suggested amendment of condition (d) is justified in deleting the wording ‘non agricultural’ to read: ‘the development will not detract unreasonably from the amenities of the occupiers of accommodation in the vicinity’
1582 The principle of protecting higher grade agricultural land is recognised in Policy ST11-Enhancing Environmental Assets and para 5.7. A suitable cross reference could be made to the approach in supporting text at 12.85.
1583 The role of historic farm buildings can be an important consideration in conversion proposals. However, there is no particular need to introduce new text within the policy as the matter of original character is taken up in DM25-Re-use of Rural Buildings and clearly flagged in para 12.84 where a suitable guide should be given. In addition, Policy ST12-Conserving Heritage Assets provides a context for recognising the importance of historic farm buildings.
1584 It is not accepted that the policy is too restrictive with particular regard to condition (a) ‘the scale of development is justified by the operation needs of the enterprise and will reinforce the viability of the existing farm business’. This represents a standard policy requirement, the general emphasis of which is in accordance with the NPPF (para 28).
1585 A suggested wording amendment in the first sentence of para 12.81 would improve the meaning as follows: ‘The principal aims for farm diversification are to promote development that meets the changing requirements of the agriculture economy …..’
1586 Small scale permaculture may form a suitable development scheme under DM12 if relevant conditions are met. There is however no specific advantage in identifying the use within the policy or supporting text which would be too prescriptive within the context of NPPF guidelines.
1587 For transport implications, a revised wording in condition (e) to align with the NPPF (para 32) is not justified for the particular circumstances of farm diversification schemes. Therefore ‘unacceptable increase’ should remain and not be substituted for ‘severe increase’.
404 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1588 Providing reference to safety of road users in condition (e) is helpful in improving the meaning of the policy as follows: ‘there is no resultant unacceptable increase in traffic on approach roads or detriment to the safety of users of the public highway’.
1589 It is not accepted that DM12 offers limited protection of the countryside and wider environment. Supporting text in 12.83 makes clear that the Local Planning Authorities will take into account the need to safeguard environmental quality and control impact in (d). Strategic Policy ST11 emphasizes the importance of conserving and enhancing local landscape character and other environmental assets.
Agreed Actions
1. Amend condition (d) of the policy by deletion of ‘non agricultural’ to read: ‘the development will not detract unreasonably from the amenities of the occupiers of accommodation in the vicinity’ 2. Amend condition (e) of the policy as follows: ‘there is no resultant unacceptable increase in traffic on approach roads or detriment to the safety of users of the public highway’
3. Revise the first sentence of para 12.81 to improve meaning as follows: ‘The principal aims for farm diversification are to promote development that meets the changing requirements of the agriculture economy ….’
4. Add the following text after the first sentence to para 12.84: ‘Schemes that secure the repair and sensitive re-use of historic farm buildings and retention of traditional farmsteads are particularly important’
5. Add the following sentence to the end of para 12.85: ‘Regard must also be given to the provisions of Policy ST11-Enhancing Environmental Assets including the need to conserve the best and most versatile agricultural land’.
Policy DM13: Equine Development
Summary of Key Issues
1590 Comments made in response to Policy DM13, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 5
Total number of responses in support 4
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Total number of responses in objection 0
Total number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.145
Support for the policy. The tests will ensure that landscape character is protected and the development is convenient for suitable riding areas. Criterion (b) is particularly welcome. (245 (ENP)) (2489 (EH))
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 405 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Facilities for horses can bring employment to a rural area. Control is necessary due to the potential to cause nuisance however, they should be encouraged in suitable locations. (1399) Criterion (d) should relate to highway safety rather than capacity. (2902 (DCC)) Para 12.89 which highlights the adequacy of the bridleway network to serve proposed equine development is supported. (246 (ENP))
Officer Comments
1591 The policy has received mostly supporting comments which have raised the importance of equestrian facilities providing employment in rural areas and the need for them to be convenient for existing riding areas.
1592 It is necessary to remove ‘where’ (as a word error) from condition (b) of the policy.
1593 A slight change in emphasis for (d) in identifying highway safety rather than capacity is justified. Amended text should read ‘the development is convenient for suitable existing riding areas where necessary access is acceptable without detriment to the safety of users of the public highway’
1594 A reference to ‘eventing’ in para 12.87 is misplaced in representing a sport rather than type of equine related development which the list seeks to convey.
Agreed Actions
1. Delete word 'where' in condition (b) for consistency purposes with wider policy requirements. 2. Amendment of condition (d) of policy as follows: ‘the development is convenient for suitable existing riding areas where necessary access is acceptable without detriment to the safety of users of the public highway’
3. For purposes of accuracy and clarity delete ‘eventing’ from para 12.87. (first sentence)
Policy DM14: Tourism and Leisure Attractions
Summary of Key Issues
1595 Comments made in response to Policy DM14, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 11
Total number of responses in support 6
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Total number of responses in objection 2
Total number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.146
Support for the tourism and leisure attractions policy including (2)(e) relating to new development in the countryside or expansion of facilities/accommodation and conservation aspects. (247 (ENP)) (2490 (EH)) (2335) (2972) In northern Devon, tourism and leisure, and agriculture are the main employers. Anything that helps tourism to develop should be given a sympathetic review. DM14 demonstrates a clear
406 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
intention to facilitate high quality tourism development and improve upon the existing draw. (1402) (3687) Broad policy support but not clear why nationally important designated landscapes are singled out in (2)(e). Condition (3) does not facilitate decision-making. (2633) Tourism and leisure proposals considered too large to be located adjacent to a settlement would need appropriate landscape and visual impact assessments including that for landscape capacity and sensitivity. (248 (ENP)) Parts (1) and (2) of the policy should be modified to ensure that adverse impacts on residential amenity are considered. (2498) Suggest ‘wherever possible’ in DM14 to tie in with para 12.92. Delete ‘all aspects of’ which is too absolute. (3072) Point (2)(c) of the policy needs to be amended to also relate to maintaining the safety of public highway users. (2903 (DCC))
Officer Comments
1596 There is a good level of support for DM14 which demonstrates a clear intention to facilitate high quality tourism development and improve upon the existing draw. Particular backing for opportunity for expansion of facilities/accommodation in the countryside is given.
1597 Environmental protective elements identified in condition (e) are reasonable for this type of wide ranging development area. Recognition of nationally important designated landscapes is standard in this context and should not be deleted. The query concerning part (3) not facilitating decision-making is well made, an alternative would be to remove the wording: ‘Tourism and leisure attractions will provide enhanced opportunities to all sections of the community for education and appreciation of all aspects of northern Devon’s environment’ and rely upon the existing explanation in the first sentence of para 12.92.
1598 The importance of landscape implications for development proposals in the countryside is acknowledged along with related impact assessments. Appropriate supporting material will be required from applicants in line with condition (2)(d) which contains landscape character leading point. It is therefore not necessary to provide additional supporting text in para 12.91.
1599 It is superfluous to incorporate residential amenity points into parts (1) and (2) of the policy as these are already covered in Design Principles (DM05) for all development schemes and Amenity Considerations (DM01).
1600 Adding wording: ‘wherever possible’ to part (3) to link properly with para 12.92 is acknowledged but would not be required if the recommended change of removing part (3) is carried out, as set out above.
1601 An amendment to condition (2)(c) to allow for public highway safety is justified. Therefore revised wording of: ‘(c) the local road network can accommodate the type and scale of traffic to be generated and maintain the safety of public highway users'.
Agreed Actions
1. Addition of the following wording to condition (c) of the policy: ‘the local road network can accommodate the type and scale of traffic to be generated and maintain the safety of public highway users’.
2. Delete part (3) of the policy.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 407 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Policy DM15: Tourism Accommodation
Summary of Key Issues
1602 Comments made in response to Policy DM15, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 10
Total number of responses in support 6
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Total number of responses in objection 1
Total number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.147
Support for the aims of this policy particularly in relation to the rural area where there are opportunities to support the rural economy through improving and extending existing tourism accommodation and reuse existing buildings. (249 (ENP)) (2336) Tourist accommodation should be encouraged providing it complies with the principles of this policy. (1403) (2491 (EH)) (2973) These policies demonstrate a clear intention to facilitate high quality tourism development, improve upon the existing draw and to maximise the benefits gained from the industry. (3689) Condition (2)(f) should apply to all tourism accommodation. (1639) Amend condition (3) to: ‘For all new and extended tourism accommodation identified environmental and heritage assets will be protected and enhanced, including the undeveloped coast. Within Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, or its setting, such development will protect and enhance the special qualities of the AONB and provide an overall enhancement when assessed throughout the year' (1639) Tourism proposals should be subject to the same policy constraints as other development. (including LCA) In terms of condition (2) there is insufficient protection to the countryside and wider environment. Condition (3) does not facilitate decision-making. (2634) Condition (2)(e) needs to be amended to also relate to maintaining the safety of public highway users. (2904 (DCC)) In condition (3) it is not realistic to ask accommodation owners to monitor environmental impact for 12 months after development. (3073)
Officer Comments
1603 The majority of responses are supportive of the draft policy policy including the aims, particularly in relation to the rural area where there are opportunities to support the rural economy and intention to facilitate high quality tourism development.
1604 The need to apply environmental considerations listed in condition (f) to urban locations is not accepted as these are primarily aimed at rural areas. Appropriate conservation requirements for urban locations are embraced in Design Principles (DM05) and relevant strategic policies. There is also no particular value in amending part (3) of the policy as suggested.
408 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1605 Part (2) of the policy would be improved by adding some further protection to the countryside to blend more fully with other development management policies and fill an acknowledged gap. Condition (2)(f) should be amended as follows: ‘is designed to respect and enhance the key characteristics of the relevant landscape character types and identified environmental and heritage assets are protected and enhanced, including the undeveloped coast.’
1606 An amendment to condition (2)(e) to allow for public highway safety is justified. Therefore revised wording of: ‘(e) the local road network can accommodate the type and scale of traffic to be generated and the safety of public highway users is maintained’
1607 The requirement set out in part (3) to provide an overall environmental enhancement when assessed throughout a year is reasonable given the sensitivity of many sites in the AONB and the standard need to monitor enhancement including landscaping over all seasons of the year.
1608 Policy DM15 requires accompanying supporting text that did not appear in the Consultation Draft.
Agreed Actions
1. Addition of the following text to condition (2)(e) of the policy as follows: ‘the local road network can accommodate the type and scale of traffic to be generated and the safety of public highway users is maintained;’
2. Addition of the following text to condition (2)(f) as follows: ‘is designed to respect and enhance the key characteristics of the relevant landscape character types and identified environmental and heritage assets are protected and enhanced, including the undeveloped coast.’
3. Addition of new supporting text for DM15 as follows:
1609 Policy DM15 provides a focus on improvement of tourism accommodation whether by new facilities or extension of existing accommodation which satisfactorily aligns with strategic policy principles. Although there has been a decline of bed space capacity in some resort areas, a continuing long term trend for growth in short breaks and special interest activity holidays has helped to stabilise the sector and place a strong emphasis on improving overall quality of accommodation. There are opportunities for high quality built accommodation, eco friendly accommodation, study centres, barn conversions and accommodation for disabled visitors.
1610 In the countryside, outside defined settlements, new proposals for tourism accommodation will often be directly related to an existing visitor or leisure attraction. Smaller forms of serviced accommodation such as guest houses and bed and breakfast establishments may be acceptable in rural areas where they involve the adaptation or conversion of a building or help to improve existing facilities. Restricting occupancy to tourist accommodation will prevent permanent residential occupation in the countryside, which would conflict with the principles of sustainable development and ensure that the accommodation contributes to the local economy. Any proposals affecting the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Exmoor National Park will need to accord with Policy ST14-Enhancing Environmental Assets and other relevant strategic environment policies.’
Policy DM16: Town Centres
Summary of Key Issues
1611 Comments made in response to Policy DM16, including the supporting text.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 409 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Total number of responses 8
Total number of responses in support 2
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Total number of responses in objection 3
Total number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.148
Support the policy to ensure that the retail function of town centres is safeguarded and enhanced, as towns such as South Molton and Barnstaple are centres that National Park residents use to access some of their wider retail needs that cannot be accessed locally. (250 (ENP)) The policy is welcomed particularly condition (1)(a). (2493 (EH)) There is a place for town centre shopping and leisure experience but it will never be of the importance that it once was. The local plan needs to recognise this trend and be flexible enough to embrace the town centre of tomorrow. (1407) Encouraging a greater mix of uses, including residential, could revitalise town centres and should be given serious consideration. A policy or stated aim on bringing some empty retail back into use for housing could be included here. Most town, regional and sub-regional centres in the area have sufficient shop floor space. (3175 (NDH)) (803) Support a criteria based approach to control uses in the primary retail frontage but the % figures and ‘one non-A1 unit in every consecutive five units’ criteria in parts (b) and (c) are not supported by any justification. (3151) DM16 has overly restrictive application of A1 use. Bideford town centre needs to develop its tourism potential. Certain areas should be encouraged to allow more A3 uses and develop the town’s night time economy. (3430) It is unclear what the vision for town centres actually is. There is conflict with reinstating functional flood plains. (para 3.15) (2270)
Officer Comments
1612 There is support for the policy in order to ensure the retail function of town centres is safeguarded and enhanced with particular consideration given to historic character.
1613 A general point about providing a flexible approach to town centres, not just the traditional shopping hub to match emerging longer term trends is acknowledged and consistent with NPPF guidance. (Section 2) It is considered the first part of DM16 offers a wide range of potential development uses in this spirit and should be read in conjunction with individual spatial visions/spatial strategies which provide comprehensive longer term objectives for town centres which the respondent seeks.
1614 The importance of facilitating more residential development in revitalising town centres is acknowledged. Such use is identified in part (1) of the policy and support for relevant opportunities in the upper floors of premises (para 12.98) and opportunities for comprehensive development within and on the edge of town centres have also been identified in the plan. A new policy to support residential development on former retail sites is therefore not felt to be necessary in this context.
410 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1615 The numerical thresholds identified in condition (2)(b) relate directly to a recommendation contained in the North Devon and Torridge Retail and Leisure Study. (para 7.4.7) In order to simplify and lessen the prescriptive tone of the policy it would be reasonable to delete the final part of the condition that reads: ‘…or result in more than one non-A1 unit in every consecutive five units;’
1616 The aim of needing to develop the tourism potential of Bideford town centre is recognised in the plan. The range of uses supported to increase vitality includes leisure, tourism and cultural in part (1) of DM16 with similar emphasis given in Policy ST15: Town, District and Village Centres. A number of sites have been identified in the town strategy for Bideford under Policy BID08 to assist revitalisation of the centre, some of which are likely to have a tourism component. Development of cafes and restaurants (A3 uses) in certain areas of the centre would be possible under the terms of the policy, as requested, without the need for additional text or policy guidance.
1617 Some minor revisions are required to DM16 in order to improve the clarity and meaning of the policy.
1618 There is no significant conflict with re-establishing functional flood plains and Policy DM16. Paras 3.15 and 3.16 explain the existing position including the Taw –Torridge estuary and need for appropriate mitigation measures in areas at risk of flooding. If necessary, the matter has been incorporated into individual policies, such as condition (f) of Policy BAR-Barnstaple Spatial Strategy and led by strategic Policy ST03-Adapting to Climate Change. The vision for town centres is contained in individual town strategies which provide a spatial vision and spatial strategy policy with salient information about longer term priorities for these areas.
Agreed Actions
1. Amend condition (2)(b) of the policy by the deletion of ‘or result in more than one non-A1 unit in every consecutive five units;’ 2. Make the following minor revisions to improve the clarity and meaning of the policy:
- Addition of the following text in (1) : ‘….will be supported within defined town centre boundaries subject to satisfactory regard to (2) and:’
- Deletion of ‘minimising non-operational parking demand’ in condition (1)(b)
- Amend the second sentence of (2) as follows: ‘Development and change of use of ground floor premises to alternative uses will be permitted unless:’
- For conditions (2)(b) and (c) add words to the effect of 'or are currently below' the 60% & 50% figures for retail occupancy.
Policy DM17: Development Outside Town Centres
Summary of Key Issues
1619 Comments made in response to Policy DM17, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 4
Total number of responses in support 1
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 411 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Total number of responses in objection 1
Total number of responses providing a general comment 0
Table 5.149
The local plan must recognise that town centres are changing in the services they provide and give due consideration to the demand for any out of town centre proposals. (1408) DM17 would be enhanced by reference to the requirement for good design in context. The plan should aim to create a place that is well integrated particularly for large edge of town development. (2494 (EH)) It should be clarified that proposals for town centre uses within new centres identified in the Plan (including that forming part of the Ilfracombe southern extension) will not be the subject to the sequential test. (2719) The trigger for the impact of DM17 should be an increase in either gross floor area or net sales area. The use of the phrase ‘250 square metres (gross) sales floor area’ in part (3) is confusing and needs amending. (3152)
Officer Comments
1620 The fundamental changes taking place to services provided by town centres are acknowledged and the need for local plan policies to reflect these circumstances. On the specific point raised, DM17 does allow for development uses in out of town centre locations. Proposals will be assessed on a sequential basis however with town centre and edge of town centre holding preferential status generally which is consistent with national planning policy. (NPPF, para 23)
1621 A specific reference to the requirement for good design in context is not warranted given that any proposals will be subject to Design Principles set out in DM05 and Policy ST04-Improving the Quality of Development.
1622 Some minor revisions are required to DM17 in order to improve the clarity and meaning of the policy.
1623 Where new centres are envisaged in the plan such as for Ilfracombe Southern Extension, a separate policy details what is expected in terms of development type. In the case of the latter, Policy ILF01 condition (2)(d) specifies for the new neighbourhood hub and therefore the general provisions of DM17 will not be relevant. It therefore follows that suggested additional text to accompany DM17 is unnecessary.
1624 Some clarification is required on the figures quoted in part (3) of the policy as requested. To fully reflect the findings of the North Devon and Torridge Retail and Leisure Study (Sept 2012) the first sentence of (3) should read: ‘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 more than 250 square metres (gross) retail floor area must be accompanied by an impact assessment ……’
Agreed Actions
1. Amend part (3) of Policy DM17 as follows: ‘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 more than 250 square metres (gross) retail floor area must be accompanied by an impact assessment ……’ 2. Make the following minor revisions to improve the clarity and meaning of the policy:
412 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
- Delete the wording ‘the centres of’ from part (1)
- Amend the beginning of part (3) as follows: ‘Outside town centres, proposals for new shops of more than 250 square metres (gross) ….’
- Delete (3)(a) and (3)(b) to avoid duplication with national policy guidance. (NPPF para 26)
Policy DM18: Local and Rural Shops
Summary of Key Issues
1625 Comments made in response to Policy DM18, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 9
Total number of responses in support 2
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Total number of responses in objection 3
Total number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.150
It is hoped that the lack of local infrastructure will not be used to stifle growth and stop local villages and neighbourhoods from aspiring to be sustainable. Shopping facilities in local centres should not be compromised by new development. (1410) The ability for rural enterprise to appropriately diversify is an essential part of a fully functioning rural economy. (2974) It is suggested that condition (2) includes additional detail to include reference to provision where it is on an ancillary basis to support existing enterprises and that the scale will be limited to ensure the ancillary nature of the shop is retained. (explained in paras 12.105-106) (251 (ENP)) The policy would be enhanced by making explicit reference to the requirement for good design in context. Condition (2)(c) should refer to the historic environment. (2497 (EH)) Requirement (1)(a) would preclude food and drink establishments, rural crafts, furniture makers, galleries etc, all of which support the rural economy, but through necessity, would need a wider catchment than just the local community. This is overly restrictive. (3074) No justification to restrict rural shops to 250 sqm in (1) Allow for rural shops in any village if there is the demand, not just those identified in ST06. (3431) How is a natural catchment area defined? (para 12.104) Some retail types, such as clothing, hardware and home decorating may be appropriate to a village but would need to attract custom from a wider catchment area than the natural one. (823) Point (1)(c) needs to be amended to also relate to maintaining the safety of public highway users. (2905 (DCC)) ‘Potential impact on nearby shops’ (para 12.106) Supermarket developments are very harmful in this respect and should be very limited. (824)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 413 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Officer Comments
1626 Positive points are raised about the need for shopping facilities in local centres not to be compromised by new development which is recognised in condition (1)(a) of the policy and secondly, providing for rural enterprise to diversify, so benefiting the rural economy.
1627 It is not considered necessary to make a further reference in the policy at (2) to state the scale of new small scale retail development will be limited to ensure the ancillary nature of the shop is retained. This point is effectively made in para 12.106 which is sufficient and will be taken into account with the policy itself when assessing planning applications.
1628 A specific reference to the requirement for good design in context is not warranted given that any proposals will be subject to Design Principles set out in DM05 and Policy ST04-Improving the Quality of Development. An additional reference in condition (2)(c) to the ‘historic environment’ is justified, as the current draft wording is mainly landscape character orientated.
1629 The direction of condition (1)(a) seeking local shops to be of a scale and location to serve the shopping needs of the local community is reasonable in terms of the overall strategic approach of supporting the function of town centres and guarding against further sporadic development. The approach is consistent with recommendations in the North Devon and Torridge Retail and Leisure Study for smaller centres (paras 7.5.12-13) It is not accepted that most retail uses would be precluded by the condition, (although not all of the ones proposed are regarded as shops in Use Class terms and therefore would fall outside the ambit of DM18) where it would be possible to identify feasible locations to meet the terms of the policy.
1630 The justification for the up to 250 square metres threshold for local shops is found in the Retail and Leisure Study. In straightforward terms it forms the lower tier linkage with Policy DM17 for development outside town centres that contains a more than 250 square metres threshold for proposals to comply with the sequential approach for town centre-edge of centre-out of centre. It is incorrect to suggest that DM18 only allows for rural shops in defined settlements in Policy ST06; part (2) in fact is applicable to the wider countryside and provides guidance for small scale development which is ancillary to the main function of an existing enterprise.
1631 The ‘natural catchment area’ referenced in para 12.104 for individual villages will differ depending upon physical circumstances of the settlement and distance to other centres, particularly higher order ones.
1632 An amendment to condition (1)(c) to allow for public highway safety is justified. Therefore revised wording of: ‘(c) the local road network can accommodate additionally generated traffic and the safety of public highway users is maintained’
1633 A note of caution about the potential harm caused by supermarket developments to village and local centres is acknowledged. It should be emphasized that part (2) of the policy for which para 12.106 relates is only concerned with small scale retail development rather than the type of larger scale shopping scheme raised by the respondent.
Agreed Actions
1. Amend (1) to include settlements without development boundaries.
2. Amend condition (1) (c) of Policy DM18 as follows: ‘the local highway network can accommodate additionally generated traffic and the safety of public highway users is maintained’
414 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
3. Amend condition (2) (c) as follows: ‘there would not be an unacceptable adverse impact to the character and appearance of the countryside or historic environment’
4. Make the following minor revision to improve the clarity of the policy: in part (1) refer to ‘retail floor area’ rather than ‘sales floor area’.
Policy DM19: Shop Front Design and Signage
Summary of Key Issues
1634 Comments made in response to Policy DM19, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 7
Total number of responses in support 2
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 3
Total number of responses in objection 1
Total number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.151
The policy is supported. It must not be too inflexible however so that innovation is prohibited. (1411) A cross reference should be made to DM02-Environmental Protection in para 12.109 that specifically has regard to light pollution. (252 (ENP)) It is possible that in some cases traditional shop fronts may be energy-inefficient. A common sense approach needs to be taken on this issue. Traders must be made aware of necessary energy conservation measures. Legislation for the installation of self-closing doors in particular would be a welcome measure. (826) (830) The policy is welcomed. Historic centres may benefit from specific reference for the protection of historic shop fronts and to introduce a design framework for advertisements. (2499 (EH)) DM19 is restrictive, the policy does not allow for contemporary design where appropriate. (3432)
Officer Comments
1635 There is some support for DM19 and view that an amount of flexibility should be allowed so that innovation can occur.
1636 A reference to ‘mesh shutters’ in condition (d) is unnecessary and if removed would leave a wording of ‘any security shutters are internally mounted’
1637 A cross reference correction in the final sentence of para 12.109 should be made to replace (Policy DM05: Design Principles) with (Policy DM02: Environmental Protection) which has more relevance to light pollution as suggested.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 415 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1638 The tension between traditional shop fronts and energy conservation measures including lighting systems in some cases is acknowledged as a challenging matter. A key aspect will be how the policy is actually implemented, rather than necessarily a wording revision. Specific advice on policy implications of installation of self-closing doors is not considered to be appropriate.
1639 A particular reference to historic centres in DM19 is not considered necessary as the first sentence of supporting text (12.107) makes clear that northern Devon’s historic town and village centres are an important focus of the policy.
1640 The understanding that the policy does not allow for contemporary design is correct in the sense that where such design impinges upon the local character and features of traditional shop fronts, then condition (a) will not be met. However, depending upon individual locational circumstances and building concerned, some forms of contemporary design may still be suitable, but in the majority of cases these will be outside historic town and village centres.
Agreed Actions
1. Make the following minor revision to improve the clarity and meaning of the policy: in condition (1) (d) delete ‘mesh shutters’. 2. Substitute cross reference ‘(Policy DM02: Environmental Protection)’ for ‘(Policy DMO5: Design Principles)’ in the final sentence of para 12.109.
3. The whole area of shop front design and signage would benefit from inclusion in future supplementary design guidance to accompany the plan.
Notation
BPC - Bridgerule Parish Council ENP - Exmoor National Park DCC - Devon County Council NDH - North Devon Homes EH - English Heritage RCPC - Rackenford & Creacombe Parish Council
Delivering a Balanced Local Housing Market
1641 Summary of comments made in response to policies and supporting text of the Delivering a Balanced Local Housing Market sub-section of Part Two of the draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
Total number of responses 122
Total number of responses in support 30
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 24
Total number of responses in objection 45
Total number of responses providing a general comment 23
Table 5.152
416 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Policy DM20: Affordable Housing on Development Sites
Summary of Key Issues
1642 Comments made in response to Policy DM20, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 49
Total number of responses in support 14
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 7
Total number of responses in objection 14
Total number of responses providing a general comment 14
Table 5.153
Support for the recognition of the overwhelming need for additional housing and the approach of requiring an element of affordable housing as part of proposals that seek to deliver open market housing. (para 12.112) (3742) (2637) (253 (ENP))
Support for the recognition in para 12.113 that ‘viability is one of the key drivers in setting the scale of affordable housing provision that the Local Plan can expect development proposals to support'. (1744) (1786)
The scale of affordable housing required is provisional and subject to change once further evidence is available. (para 12.113) (1745)
Support for the flexible and realistic approach to affordable housing delivery by the policy. Including recognition that variations to the scale and nature of affordable housing provision will be considered where robust development viability appraisals are submitted. In accordance with NPPF para 173. (1480) (1811) (1813) (1794) (1855) (2720)
Support for the recognition that in some instances it would be appropriate to provide alternative off-site provision, or financial contributions of broadly equivalent value. (item (2)) (1812) (1747)
Support for item (5) that ‘affordable housing provided will be indistinguishable from market housing and will be fully integrated into the development’ (3177 (NDH))
The 25% requirement for affordable housing ratio (item (1)) is a good move from the previous higher requirement and will certainly create opportunities. (3180) (3748)
It is important that affordable housing is encouraged in the villages to assist the viability and sustainability of villages. (1412)
DM20 could actually prevent affordable housing. It fails to allow for situations where infrastructure costs may make such provision unworkable. (1566)
Amend the policy to recognise that the proportion of social rented and intermediate housing should be considered on the basis of an up to date housing evidence and the development viability of individual sites. (1815)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 417 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Add text to the end of item (2) as follows: ‘or where that need can be better met off site’ Item (4) 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. (1712)
Item (4) should be deleted. (2360)
The policy does not recognise that affordable housing can take a number of forms. It is important that there is a good mix of tenures within new developments which will improve the overall mix of the housing stock to reflect the needs of communities. It will also help to make housing developments more viable. (3691)
It is crucial that developers do not get away with a lower percentage of affordable housing than is realistically necessary. Less than 1% of current housing needs should be so called 'market' housing. (832)
The proposed requirement of 25% affordable housing in development schemes is inadequate and will result in a major shortfall in terms of existing evidence for over half affordable over the plan period. Propose amending requirement to at least 40%. (2503)
The requirement for affordable housing from all sites including financial contributions from sites under 7 units has not been tested to ensure that it complies with the NPPF. (3223) (3433) (1952) (3116)
Item (1)(b) should be amended to enable on site provision of affordable housing on sites of under 7 dwellings rather than only allowing for cash in lieu payment. (3526)
Concern that affordable housing requirements, coupled with requirements to deliver infrastructure and contribute through Community Infrastructure Levy may have an adverse impact on deliverability of development. 25% requirement should instead be set as a target/maximum on strategic urban extensions. (1891) (1746) (1748) (2682)
Not appropriate on schemes of 14 dwellings or less as it would make them unviable. (1988) (2275)
Item (4) is subjective and difficult to apply. Led by government guidance we are moving into an era of lower density family housing, rather than higher density schemes. (1643)
The conclusion that affordable housing requirements are considered robust and achievable (in para 12.117) cannot be stated with any certainty whilst on going work on viability may change policy. (1715) (1787) (2784)
A sliding scale for the provision of affordable homes on sites of 7 or lower should be introduced in order to ensure the viability of the smaller sites are not compromised. (374) (2274)
It is important that the scale and mix of affordable housing to be sought is optimised and prioritised to respond to identified housing need whilst having regard to the viability of development. (1859)
A commitment to review further the detailed evidence prepared by the Councils as part of informing the evolution of the policy should be indicated. (1749)
25% contribution may have potential adverse effect on delivery, particularly on windfall sites, on which the housing supply relies. (2273) (3343)
418 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Is the requirement for affordable housing in line with other neighbouring local authorities? (3075)
When seeking financial contributions towards affordable housing on smaller sites (less than 7 units) back up of readily developable sites is required where the money can be spent. (3176 (NDH))
Requiring affordable housing contributions on developments of less than 7 units will place an unnecessary strain on Council resources. Officers’ time would be better spent negotiating larger contributions. (3047)
The Councils need to review this policy area in order to ensure sufficient flexibility is incorporated to recognise the current challenging development context. (2908(DCC))
Officer Comments
1643 Several elements of DM20 have received strong support from respondents, in particular, the approach of requiring an element of affordable housing as part of proposals that seek to deliver open market housing; a flexible and realistic approach to affordable housing delivery that accords with NPPF (para 173) and for making affordable housing indistinguishable from market housing and fully integrated into the development. (as contained in item (5) of the policy)
1644 The case put that the policy does not allow for situations where infrastructure costs may have a bearing on provision is incorrect, item (3) makes reference to ‘the balance of other infrastructure and planning requirements’ in determining a variation to the scale and nature of affordable housing provision.
1645 Amendment to DM20 is necessary following completion of the recent independent Viability Assessment research to inform and test the strategies and policies of the Local Plan; as noted by the respondent. Para 12.113 outlines the procedure for the supporting work undertaken and implications for affordable housing policies.
1646 A suggested amendment to item (2) of the policy to add ‘or where that need can be better met off site’ is not justified. The outstanding wording which states off-site provision will be ‘considered where it can be demonstrated that on site provision is not possible or appropriate’ already by implication covers the point in a more efficient manner without the need for further revision.
1647 Item (4) of the policy does not as contended impose a standard density where site capacity is being re-calculated and should be read in conjunction with para 12.118 which states: ‘In determining the potential dwelling capacity of the site, the local planning authority may have regard to a range of matters including the potential layout, forms and/or mix of development that could be accommodated on the site and the housing density that is appropriate, reflecting on the site’s context …’ Significant revision or deletion of the condition is therefore not required and it remains a fundamental part of the policy which is consistent with NPPF principles contained in section 6.
1648 Affordable housing’ embraces a number of forms which are defined in the Glossary as social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, that are further explained under Strategic Policy ST18 – Delivering Affordable Housing in paras 7.29-31; including the importance of securing a relevant mix of housing types, sizes and tenures in line with ST18 and backed by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment for North Devon and Torridge. The case put by the respondent of drawing a wider spectrum of forms of affordable housing in DM20 is therefore not sustained.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 419 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1649 The importance of the policy being precise about the level of provision of affordable housing on new sites so that developers understand the potential scale of requirement is acknowledged. The general level of market housing to be provided by the plan, over the period from 2011-31 will be about 50% of the 16,000 units identified in Policy ST07. The suggestion for about 1% of current housing needs being market housing is therefore unrealistic.
1650 The case for increasing the affordable housing provision level of 25% is supported by the findings of the Viability Assessment, in which a target of 30% is considered to be appropriate, with the scope to potentially seek 40% on larger greenfield developments, in line with the suggestion from a respondent. The appropriate percentage to be sought from development is considered in more detail in response to Policy ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing.
1651 The validity of DM20 requiring a contribution towards provision of affordable housing on the majority of sites, including those with a capacity of less than 7 units is justified by findings from supporting evidence such as the Strategic Housing Market Assessment for North Devon & Torridge (2012) and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (2011). Collectively, these support the overwhelming need for additional affordable housing across northern Devon. It is also informed by the recent conclusions of the independent viability research, as referenced above. NPPF (section 6) guidelines also allow for the possibility of affordable contribution on smaller sites.
1652 The Viability Assessment has now tested the opportunities for seeking affordable housing from development schemes. It has concluded that there is scope for seeking contributions towards affordable housing from all market housing development. Whilst recognising that there may be justification for seeking financial contributions on smaller schemes (1 – 11 dwellings) it recognises that the preference should be for on site provision. As advocated through the responses to Policy ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing, it is recommended that the threshold be removed and priority be established for on site provision. It should also be recognised that the plan (through Policy DM21) allows for affordable provision on smaller sites in rural areas on exception sites at defined settlements.
1653 Deliverability of development, as suggested, is important to ensure full implementation of housing policies in the plan, as emphasized in the NPPF (para 173) and need to balance with other infrastructure requirements. These considerations have been taken up in the recent Viability Assessment research. Subject to the implementation of the recommendations detailed in association to Policy ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing, it is considered that the affordable housing policies, and the wider requirements placed on residential development through the Local Plan will be considered to be viable and deliverable.
1654 In addition, item (3) of the policy provides some degree of flexibility in determining a variation to the scale and nature of affordable housing provision. A view that a 25% affordable housing requirement should be focused exclusively on strategic urban extensions is unrealistic, given the proven overwhelming need for additional affordable housing across northern Devon, also referenced in point 8 above. Following such a strategy would be unhelpful in meeting the overwhelming affordable housing need as identified through the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and lead to a more limited distribution of new affordable houses outside the main urban areas.
1655 Changing the affordable housing threshold to exclude schemes of fourteen dwellings or less, due to unviability, is not supported by outcomes from Viability Assessment research undertaken by the Council’s consultants. The technical evidence confirms that it is viable for all residential development to contribute towards the provision of affordable housing. This approach is consistent with the NPPF. (paras 47 & 50)
420 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1656 It is not accepted that item (4) concerning site capacity is subjective and difficult to apply. The measure represents a standard back stop, not a provision that will be necessarily used for the majority of smaller residential applications. Housing density estimates by the local planning authority will be appropriate to the individual site concerned and reflects context and mix of development, as well as the need to make efficient use of land. (as detailed in para 12.118)
1657 The importance attached to the independent viability research in confirming affordable housing requirements in DM20 is fairly made by respondents, which is adequately addressed in supporting text contained in para 12.113. However, the summary of 12.117 is not accurate, the first sentence actually states: ‘The affordable housing requirements set out in Policy DM20 are considered to be robust and capable of being achieved in the majority of circumstances.’ and allows for some degree of flexibility that is not recognised by the responses.
1658 Introduction of a sliding scale for provision on smaller sites of less than 7 dwellings to ensure viability, is not supported by the findings of the recently completed independent Viability Assessment, which confirms that all market housing development should be able to viably support the provision of affordable housing and that the preference, even on small sites, should be for provision to be on-site. The mechanism by which alternative financial contributions towards affordable housing provision should be calculated will be established in future supplementary documentation that will accompany the Local Plan, as stated in para 12.116. (final sentence)
1659 Helpful comments are made about the value of securing the optimum scale and mix of affordable housing, through the policy that properly links with identified housing need. The stance reflects both the overall approach of DM20, including supporting text explanation in 12.112 and Strategic Policy ST18. (item (5))
1660 The plan, in para 12.113, accompanying the policy does provide a commitment to review the scale of affordable housing provision through independent viability research which has led to some revision of DM20, which is principally details in response to Policy ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing. It will also be necessary to review and up-date supporting evidence such as the Strategic Housing Market Assessment when required, to meet NPPF guidelines. (para 158)
1661 The proposition that a 25% affordable housing level in the policy will hinder delivery, particularly on windfall sites is not proven by both outstanding supporting evidence, referenced above, (under point 8) and findings from the Viability Assessment research that concludes that a headline figure of 30% affordable housing is broadly deliverable. It will also be necessary for the local planning authorities to monitor delivery from development over the first phase of the plan period to check on progress against the policy requirements.(in accord with the NPPF, para 153)
1662 The requirement of 25% provision of affordable housing in DM20 is slightly below the existing levels in neighbouring local authorities. The average level among adjoining authority areas (comprising Cornwall, Mid-Devon, West Devon and West Somerset Councils which also covers the Northern Peninsula Housing Market Area) from outstanding plans/core strategies is 30-35%.
1663 An available supply of readily developable sites is important for financial contributions (from smaller housing sites) to be used on, as put by the respondent. Alternatively it is possible for contributions to be directed towards other identified housing sites in the locality so as to enhance the affordable housing provision provided upon them (i.e. deliver more affordable dwellings or enhance the tenure mix). It is recommended in response to Policy ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing that the threshold for requiring on-site provision is removed and that the preference is for all sites to provide on-site provision unless it is not mathematically possible, or appropriate to do so.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 421 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1664 The management aspect of creating a potential strain on council resources through implementation of the policy, in terms of requiring contributions from smaller scale developments (in item (1)(b)) is noted. An emphasis on such provision, however, remains a fundamental part of the policy in response to the general pattern and scale of development across northern Devon that relies upon a significant proportion of smaller scale housing sites.
1665 Incorporation of sufficient flexibility into DM20, to recognise the current challenging development context is well made. Item (3) does allow for some latitude in the level of affordable housing provision from individual sites, which emphasizes the comparable balancing importance of other infrastructure requirements that represents a specific concern of the respondent.
1666 It is recognised that there is repetition between Policy ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing and Policies DM20:Affordable Housing on Development Sites and DM21: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites and that there is an opportunity for rationalisation. In doing so, it would be possible to reduce the risk of contradictory material being presented in the Local Plan, whilst making the Plan simpler and more succinct for the reader.
Agreed Actions
1. Policy DM20 to be reclassified as a strategic policy with amendments and moved to sit within Chapter 7: Delivering A Balanced Local Housing Market.
Policy DM21: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites
Summary of Key Issues
1667 Comments made in response to Policy DM21, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 15
Total number of responses in support 3
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 8
Total number of responses in objection 4
Total number of responses providing a general comment 0
Table 5.154
Support for the criteria within clauses (a)-(e) to ensure that exception sites are well related and of a scale proportionate to the settlement and meets an identified need for affordable housing. (254 (ENP)) (3178 (NDH)) It is important that affordable housing is encouraged in the villages as a means towards the viability and sustainability of these. The requirements for securing the properties as affordable in perpetuity must be implemented. (1414) (2638) Housing need will not be able to be satisfied without the exceptional release of land, given the identified need for affordable housing which in Barnstaple was found to be 1/3 of the overall need in 2010. It will be necessary to release land adjacent to the settlement boundary. (3744) Delete ‘or well related’ in clause (a) of the policy. (2640)
422 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
It is unnecessary for the number of market dwellings to be less than the number of affordable units as a matter of principle. (clause (f)) If a 50/50 scheme enables an affordable need to be met by making land available, the Local Plan should be supportive. (2976) (3049) (1716) In (f) the sub-criterion is overly prescriptive. The policy requirements should be as flexible as possible. Alternative wording is suggested: ‘the level of open market housing must be subsidiary to the amount of affordable housing and must be justified through a financial appraisal’ (2361) (1646) It is not necessarily the case that one site could meet the affordable housing need for each village and DM21 should recognize this. By breaking development down into tenures across multiple sites it would result in greater value being realized from the market sites. Clause (f) should be amended as follows: ‘where it can be robustly demonstrated that an element of market housing is required to enable delivery of significant additional affordable housing, on one site or across a number of sites around a settlement, it will be supported ..’ (2736) The need to continually update data, rather than relying on existing, has stopped developments coming forward and local communities have become frustrated with the process. (3435) The policy fails to recognise that the need for future housing and economic growth is also important in smaller settlements to create viable rural communities, especially where there are high levels of affordable housing need. (3694) Raising the possibility of introducing an element of market housing into a rural exception site (para 12.126) is regarded as the thin end of the wedge no matter what safeguards are perceived. (2641)
Officer Comments
1668 There is a level of support for DM21 in terms of assisting with the viability and sustainability of defined villages and importance for securing the properties as affordable in perpetuity.
1669 A high level of identified need for affordable housing in Barnstaple is acknowledged. One of the purposes for providing strategic extensions to the south and south-east is to make a significant contribution to affordable housing provision. Generally, the suggestion that further land should be released adjacent to the settlement boundary of Barnstaple is not accepted in the immediate future given the aforementioned and allowance for possible windfall sites that exist in the urban area, including conversion/redevelopment opportunities. (as emphasized in the last sentence of para 12.123)
1670 The wording in condition (a) of the policy that states ‘or is well related’ is justified in serving to clarify a suitable location for new affordable housing sites which blend with the existing outer form of the settlement. The purpose of the well related provision is to enable some flexibility in settlements whereby their character or form does not allow provision adjoining the boundary. Recommendation is made in response to Policy ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing to provide additional supporting text to clarify the appropriate circumstances whereby enabling development on sites that are well related rather than adjoining.
1671 Setting out a requirement for the number of open market dwellings proposed on exception sites to be less than for proposed affordable housing (in condition (f)(ii)) is reasonable in the context of a limited range of opportunities for such sites in the rural areas which adjoin settlements and the considerable level of local community need which often exists for affordable housing. The actual number of open market units will be dependent upon individual site circumstances and condition (f) does allow for a significant degree of flexibility in how many will be allowed without a set quota or percentage. The approach is consistent with the NPPF (para 54) which only states ‘allowing some market housing’ to ‘facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local needs’ in rural areas. Alternative wording for the sub-criteria of (f) is therefore not accepted as these in total provide clear guidance with allowances without being overly prescriptive as suggested.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 423 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1672 A proposal to spread affordable housing across a number of sites at villages is not particularly realistic in the context of an Exception Sites policy where a major priority is to offer some flexibility for future development schemes beyond those allocated in Part Three of the Plan. The respondent perhaps did not realize that a range of such sites were to be identified through community planning exercises by individual Parish Councils during Summer 2013; as explained in Chapter 13 of the Plan.
1673 It is acknowledged that successful implementation of the policy does rely upon availability of evidence of local community need which is explained in para 12.124. This represents a fundamental requirement that rests upon provision of relevant survey data, although it will not always be onerous as contended and the Plan states: ‘Proposals may seek to make use of a variety of evidence to demonstrate local housing need. The scale and nature of evidence should be commensurate to the scale of the proposed development’.
1674 The case made for applying DM21 to smaller village settlements beyond those defined in Policy ST06 is fair. A strong respondent case has been made elsewhere for extending the settlement hierarchy to small villages which may be incorporated in the pre-submission version of the Local Plan. Therefore the concern expressed may to a significant extent be met by allowing the prospect for additional affordable housing in the defined small rural settlements. A recommendation put forward in response to Policy ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing does however favour the approach of enabling development at smaller villages through specific policy provisions relating to those settlements rather than through the broader provisions of Policy DM21. This recognises that smaller settlements are not generally sustainable locations to meet the wider affordable housing needs of a Parish or surrounding parish but should instead be seeking to meet the development needs only of the specific settlement.
1675 Allowance for an element of market housing on rural exception sites is a realistic proposition ‘where it can be robustly demonstrated that an element of market housing is required to enable delivery of significant additional affordable housing.’ (under condition (f) of DM21) It is in accord with NPPF guidance (para 54). However, the policy allows for affordable housing to come forward without any element of market housing in the scheme which conditions (a) to (e) provide for.
1676 In relation to para 12.124, the reference to needs evidence should be made comparable to para 7.29 of the ‘Delivering Affordable Housing’ sub-section. This is recognised in response to Policy ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing that seeks a rationalisation of policy wording and supporting text across Policies ST18: Delivering Affordable Housing, DM20: Affordable Housing on Development Sites and DM21: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites.
Agreed Actions
1. Policy DM21 to be reclassified as a strategic policy with amendments and moved to sit within Chapter 7: Delivering A Balanced Local Housing Market.
Policy DM22: Residential Floorspace Standards
Summary of Key Issues
1677 Comments made in response to Policy DM22, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 12
Total number of responses in support 1
424 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 1
Total number of responses in objection 9
Total number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.155
Support for the use of minimum floor space standards to avoid the delivery of undersize dwellings. (255 (ENP)) This policy should be recast as a guide rather than a requirement in accord with para 59 of the NPPF. (1861) Developers will treat ‘minimum’ requirement as a ‘maximum’. Living space is a vital factor in health and wellbeing; lack of sufficient living space is proven to have had a very bad effect on children. (851) The policy is unnecessary and overly prescriptive. 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. (1717) (1647) (3436) There is a need for additional local evidence to justify the approach and highlight the need to consider the impact on development viability. (1750) DM22 is overly complicated. Environmental Health and Building Regulations legislation are in place to ensure that an adequate standard of living conditions and sanitation are achieved. (2362) It is not appropriate for the Councils to be setting voluntary guidelines as mandatory policy obligations. The associated additional costs must be included in viability assessments. (2699) The proposals should include space allocation as well as zero-carbon technology in order to meet the highest environmental standards for new homes. (915) The policy is restrictive, takes no account of market conditions or affordability and may not be possible in conversions particularly listed buildings. (2276) The councils must ensure that affordable housing as well as open market housing has comfortable living space. (para 12.128) There must be sufficient storage space too. (835)
Officer Comments
1678 Policy DM22 received some limited support on the basis of providing minimum space standards to avoid the delivery of undersize dwellings.
1679 A suggestion that the policy should be recast as a guide, in accordance with para 59 of the NPPF is helpful. It would also provide an opportunity to cover closely associated design considerations such as guidelines on amenity/garden/garage space in a common digestible format. Relevant details can be brought forward in a supplementary planning document or will be subject to future national standards for house building which may be prepared by DCLG following the Housing Standards Review consultation in October 2013. Hence, DM22 and supporting text (paras 12.128-130) should be removed from the Plan. The following supporting text should be added to the Design Principles sub-section after para 12.50: ‘New dwellings must be of a size that is proportionate and sufficient to meet the needs of the potential number of inhabitants. Delivering dwellings that are appropriately sized will ensure that current and future living requirements can be met. Further advice will be provided in a supplementary planning document or future national standards for house building* for residential and amenity/garden space which will set out guidance on thresholds to be met.'
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 425 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
1680 The point raised about living space contributing towards health and well being is acknowledged. To a large extent the plan approach is therefore supported and necessity for minimum floor space standards not to be taken as maximums can only be realised in partnership with the development industry.
1681 Offering a revised format for guidance on residential floorspace in point 2 above should help to allow more flexibility for house builders as requested. This does not however represent a position of only leaving the market to determine floorspace thresholds as advocated.
1682 The revised format of switching guidance to a supplementary planning document would be informed by local survey information as evidence and consider impact on development viability as suggested.
1683 Closely linked guidance supplied by Environmental Health and Building Regulations legislation is accurate for this policy area; the proposed change above, will hopefully lessen the potential for over complication which has been observed.
1684 Ensuring new homes development meet high environmental standards, including zero-carbon technology is covered elsewhere in the plan under Policy ST05-Sustainable Construction and Buildings. Although the respondent is correct in suggesting the approach towards space allocation needs to be fully aligned to strategic environmental standards.
1685 It is acknowledged that in some cases a different approach may have to be adopted for conversions, particularly listed buildings in terms of floorspace allowances. Relevant details can be contained in a future supplementary planning document.
1686 The policy context for residential floorspace standards in seeking to provide suitable and comfortable accommodation for modern living, including affordable housing is confirmed in para 12.128. A separate point concerning sufficient storage space is well made and warrants some further consideration in future guidance.
Agreed Actions
1. Remove Policy DM22 and supporting text. (paras 12.128 – 130)
2. Addition of the following supporting text to the Design Principles sub-section after para 12.50: ‘New dwellings must be of a size that is proportionate and sufficient to meet the needs of the potential number of inhabitants. Delivering dwellings that are appropriately sized will ensure that current and future living requirements can be met. Further advice will be provided in a supplementary planning document or future national standards for house building for residential and amenity/garden space which will set out guidance on thresholds to be met.’
Policy DM23: Residential Extensions and Ancillary Development
Summary of Key Issues
1687 Comments made in response to Policy DM23, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 6
Total number of responses in support 2
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
426 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
Total number of responses in objection 2
Total number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.156
Support for the aims of this policy to provide a practical way to adapt to household change. In particular, item (3) is supported in terms of having the principal access through the main dwelling. (256 (ENP)) It is important that an extension that will have any impact on neighbouring property is discussed with the neighbours before a decision is taken. (1416) The requirement for annexe accommodation in item (3) to have principal access provided through the main dwelling is unnecessarily restrictive. A dependant should be able to enjoy an element of freedom with their own front door. (3179 (NDH)) Item (3) is unnecessarily restrictive; annexe accommodation needs to be well related to the principle dwelling and there should be appropriate justification for the type, form and location of annexe accommodation based on the needs of occupants. (3437) Further clarification and consistency is required with regard to dependant relatives annexes and ancillary accommodation in general and with regard to them being attached to the main dwelling house or separate to the main house. (376) There should be full backing for dependant relative annexes with no opposition regarding a kitchen in the annexe which at present is not supported by planning officers. (2087)
Officer Comments
1688 There was support for the policy in order to provide a practical way to adapt to household change and requirement for a principal access through the main dwelling for annexe accommodation.
1689 Potential impact of residential extension schemes on neighbouring property is often a valid issue for consideration that is emphasized in condition (1)(c). Where planning permission is required, neighbours will have the opportunity to provide representations which will be taken into account by the planning authority before a decision is taken. It is also open to applicants to discuss individual schemes, including any possible points of issue with neighbours before submission.
1690 The requirement for annexe accommodation in item (3) to have principal access through the main dwelling is a standard policy condition for this type of use. It is not accepted that the item is necessarily restrictive, and as framed the policy allows for appropriate justification for the type, form and location of annexe accommodation based on the needs of occupants.
1691 In order to improve clarity and restrict potential duplication with other parts of the policy it would be beneficial to have item (2) of the policy deleted and supporting paragraph 12.134 (first sentence) amended as follows: ‘Support will be provided for annexe accommodation where the scale of development is commensurate with the needs of the intended occupant(s) ….’
Agreed Actions
1. Deletion of item (2) of DM23.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 427 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
2. Amend item (3) as follows: 'Annexe accommodation will be commensurate in scale to the needs of the intended occupants and have its principal access provided through the main dwelling or its immediate curtilage.'
3. Amend para 12.134 (first sentence) as follows: ‘Support will be provided for annexe accommodation where there is demonstrable need for a dependant and the scale of development is commensurate with the needs of the intended occupant(s), which must be achieved without harm prejudice to amenity and local character considerations’
Policy DM24: Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside
Summary of Key Issues
1692 Comments made in response to Policy DM24, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 7
Total number of responses in support 0
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Total number of responses in objection 4
Total number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.157
Support for the aims of the policy to enable a replacement dwelling that provides enhancement to the quality of design and/or level of sustainability. (257 (ENP))
Condition (a) should be less prescriptive. It should be revised as follows: ‘the size of the replacement dwelling is in keeping with its surroundings and there is no increased visual impact on the locality/countryside’. (1009)
The policy allows for complete demolition of an existing building and replacement with another of similar floor space. There appears to be a clash with DM25 which is designed to limit the reuse of an existing building. (1418)
Policy DM24 is too prescriptive. (1989) (2277)
The policy is unnecessarily restrictive. Dwellings in the countryside that need replacing are often of sub-standard construction and do not benefit from new technology. DM24 will not enable the replacement of poor quality houses. A more flexible approach which allows an increase in dwelling size as long as character and appearance of surrounding area is not materially harmed is put forward. (3438) (3527)
Officer Comments
1693 The requirements of condition (a) are to some extent overly prescriptive in the context of the NPPF, regarding the future size of replacement dwelling, as suggested. In addition, inclusion of unspent permitted development rights towards the floorspace of the replacement dwelling is likely to be ambiguous and difficult to properly assess through the Development Management process. Therefore, it would be appropriate to amend the condition but in a slightly different manner than
428 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
suggested by the respondent. And amend the first sentence of para 12.137 as follows: ‘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.'
1694 A claimed conflict between the policy and DM25 is not accepted. Replacement dwellings under DM24 will by definition require demolition of an existing building and given the purpose of the policy there is no need to identify acceptable new uses in the same way as DM25.
1695 It is intended that DM24 should allow for the replacement of poor quality houses, but as para 12.135 states the scope does not extend to ‘derelict buildings where residential use has been abandoned.’ The very restrictive nature of condition (a) is acknowledged and the proposed revision outlined above should meet most of the respondent’s concerns; including some flexibility over the actual size of replacement dwellings compared with original dwellings.
Agreed Actions
1. Amend condition (a) of the policy as follows: ‘the floorspace of the replacement dwelling respects the character of the surroundings and is no more visually intrusive being no greater than that of the existing dwelling, and when considered in combination with any extant planning permissions for extension and/or unspent permitted development rights attaching to it;
2. Add condition (c) as follows: '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.'
3. Amend para 12.137 (first sentence) as follows: 'The size of a replacement dwelling will generally be commensurate limited to a scale no greater than that provided by the building subject to replacement combined with any available permitted development rights and/or extant planning permissions for residential extension.'
Policy DM25: Re-use of Rural Buildings
Summary of Key Issues
1696 Comments made in response to Policy DM25, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 15
Total number of responses in support 5
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 4
Total number of responses in objection 5
Total number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.158
Re-use of existing rural buildings for permanent open market dwellings is welcomed. The policy reflection of updated NPPF guidance is also supported. (375 (ENP)) (2978) (2280) Support for the proposed approach which allows for conversion to residential, tourism, and employment uses. The five policy criteria ((a) – (e)) are considered to be entirely appropriate. (3697)
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 429 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
In relation to para 12.139 allowing redundant, rural buildings to be developed is an imaginative and timely solution. Residential re-use is sustainable, it will preserve these buildings and provide a stock of desirable homes, bringing people to the area with high skills and entrepreneurial drive to start new businesses. (416) Further consideration should be given to the residential implications of the policy, particularly within the high value housing sub-market areas. (258) The policy should refer to the role of historic buildings and the sensitivity needed in considering the conversion of such buildings. (2506 (EH)) Amendment sought to condition (b) to remove need for proposals to have a positive impact as follows: ‘the proposal will not have a harmful impact on the immediate setting of the building and the wider rural character is protected’ (3528) Most conversions would involve disused farm buildings. It may be possible to tie the ownership of residential conversions to the farm they are located on. This would have the effect of keeping rents lower than normal and help fulfil an affordable or local housing need. (3863) The relevance of condition (c) is queried. There should not be a problem if the existing building requires substantive rebuilding to make it safe and achieve a good quality provision. Conditions (a), (b), (d) and (e) should be sufficient. (1421) The policy fails to address the concept of enhancement contained in NERC Act (2006) and NPPF (para 17) Condition (e) should be revised: ‘any nature conservation interest within the building or wider site is retained and enhanced’ or add (f) ‘buildings without nature conservation should be enhanced by building in beneficial features during the renovation process, for example, bat, barn owl and bird boxes within the building.' (1592) Holiday let occupancy restrictions could be waived providing the use changed to local needs occupancy. (1907 (SHPC)) Replace ‘employment uses’ with ‘economic uses’ in the first part of the policy. (2279) It is better to achieve some beneficial use of an existing rural building than allowing a derelict mess to arise. The existing structure being substantially reused (condition (c)) gives rise to properties which are not likely to meet decent housing standards. (3854 (MPC)) It is not clear why the policy is needed when it appears to duplicate in part with DM09, DM11, DM12 and DM14. (2642)
Officer Comments
1697 There is a strong level of support for the residential re-use option for rural buildings embraced by the policy and opportunity to provide a stock of desirable homes, bringing people to the area with high skills.
1698 The point raised about many existing rural buildings representing an important resource to meet the housing needs of local rural communities on the edge of Exmoor National Park is acknowledged. DM25 should however be read in conjunction with other relevant policies in the plan (as stated in para 12.139) which do offer an emphasis towards affordable housing in specific local circumstances such as Policy ST17-A Balanced Local Housing Market and ST06-Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon. Given the NPPF policy context and latest proposals on re-use of existing redundant agricultural buildings, (DCLG, Greater flexibilities for change of use – Consultation, Aug 2013) it will be extremely difficult to specify residential tenure type in the policy as requested.
1699 It is not accepted that DM25 should refer explicitly to historic buildings and sensitivity required in considering conversion proposals. Conditions (a) and (b) together with para 12.140 provide sufficient safeguards in terms of ‘original character’ and ‘immediate setting of the building’ to address the expressed concerns. Strategic Policy ST12-Conserving Heritage Assets covers comprehensively the plan approach towards development that may affect historic buildings. An amendment could be
430 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
made to condition (a) as follows: ‘the original character of the building is maintained such conversion would not harm any intrinsic qualities and historic interest of the building;’ which would satisfy the concern.
1700 The sought amendment to remove need for proposals to have a positive impact on the immediate setting of the building (in condition (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.
1701 The possibility of ownership of residential conversions being tied to the individual farm they are located on, in order to retain affordable local housing, may be realised with DM25 in combination with a separate legal agreement made by the property owner. However, it would go beyond the reasonable bounds of the policy to include an agricultural (or rural) tie in conditions. Such a condition runs contrary to national policy. (sub-section 6 of the NPPF)
1702 As suggested, if a building requires substantive rebuilding to make safe and achieve a good quality provision then condition (c) could be waived, is not accepted. The focus of the policy is conversion and re-use in countryside locations, not re-build. This approach is consistent with the plan’s strategic policies ST02 and ST08 for Principles of Sustainable Development and Rural Area Strategy respectively.
1703 Incorporation of ‘enhancement’ into the nature conservation interest condition of the policy is considered to be unnecessary in terms of national policy guidance. NPPF (para 17) only provides a general point about ‘conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ which is not relevant to the specific circumstances of re-use of rural buildings. Existing condition (e), together with para 12.142 provides an appropriate policy context for conserving habitats for a range of wildlife that may be contained within rural buildings or wider site.
1704 Some kind of switch between holiday occupancy restrictions and residential local needs occupancy falls outside the scope of the policy which concentrates upon broader conversion uses of residential, tourism or employment.
1705 The proposal to change ‘employment uses’ to ‘economic uses’ in the first part of the policy is noted in the context of revised national planning policy (para 28 of NPPF) and implications from new permitted development rights for change of use that commenced in May 2013. It would however be more appropriate to not specify uses and the opening extract from DM25 should be revised as follows: ‘The conversion of redundant or disused rural buildings Permission will be granted permitted for residential, tourism or employment uses to convert rural buildings where: ’
1706 The importance of achieving beneficial re-use of an existing rural building, wherever possible, rather than allowing dereliction to occur is acknowledged. However, the terms of condition (c) which do not allow significant alteration, extension or substantive rebuilding, forms a reasonable requirement that does facilitate some degree of flexibility for size increase for re-use schemes where appropriate. Therefore, some form of limited extension to a disused rural building may be applicable.
1707 There is understandably some common ground between the policy and DM11-Rural Economy and DM12-Farm Diversification, given the rural economic dimension of these policies. The singular importance of conversion and re-use of rural buildings to the plan area does wholly justify a separate policy consideration in the Development Management Policies section. It is not accurate to suggest a significant amount of duplication between the policies quoted.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 431 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
Agreed Actions
1. Amend the opening extract of the policy as follows: ‘The conversion of redundant or disused rural buildings Permission will be granted permitted for residential, tourism or employment uses to convert rural buildings where: ’ 2. Amend condition (a) of the policy as follows: the original character of the building is maintained ‘such conversion would not harm any intrinsic qualities and historic interest of the building;’
3. Amend para 12.141 (third sentence) as follows: ‘The Local Planning Authority will expect the outcomes of a structural survey by a suitably qualified person, demonstrating that the building is structurally sound, to be submitted in support of any proposal.’
4. Amend para 12.142 as follows: ‘Redundant or disused rural buildings can often serve as habitats for a range of wildlife including bats and barn owls owns. Some of these are protected species so called are subject to legal protection through a range of national and European legislation. Consequently, proposals for rural building conversion should be accompanied and informed by a habitat survey by a suitably qualified person and provide appropriate mitigation measures as necessitated by development.’
Policy DM26: Rural Worker Accommodation
Summary of Key Issues
1708 Comments made in response to Policy DM26, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 10
Total number of responses in support 1
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 2
Total number of responses in objection 5
Total number of responses providing a general comment 2
Table 5.159
Support the policy aims and the robust tests in place where accommodation cannot be met by any other means and a new dwelling is justified on an exceptional basis in the countryside. (259 (ENP)) It is not clear whether the policy applies to any rural worker, including the landowner, or simply to employees. (1404 (RCPC)) Support for the aim of the policy. ‘Rural worker’ as defined in the Glossary is too broad. Additional terms ‘rural enterprise’ and ‘necessarily rural’ should also be defined in the Glossary. (978) Condition (4) of DM26 seeks Sect106 tying dwelling to holding which is contrary to government guidance. It is not a valid policy. (109) (3439) Condition (1) (b) infers that a large farm should have a large house. The size should only depend on the needs of the intended occupants. The wording ‘commensurate to the scale of the operation’ should be deleted from (b). (2507) Condition (4) restriction is unreasonable and could impact adversely on the viability of the whole enterprise. Amend (4) to read: ‘Accommodation provided for rural workers will be subject to a planning condition restricting its occupancy to agricultural/rural workers’ (2278) (1029)
432 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
The policy is reasonable in the circumstances. (2429) DM26 should include consideration of safe highway access. (2909)
Officer Comments
1709 There is some support for the policy in terms of the approach, including robust tests to be applied where rural worker accommodation cannot be met by any other means than new build in the countryside.
1710 The purpose of the policy is to provide for accommodation for rural workers under the terms set out in conditions (1) to (5) on an exceptional basis to support the rural economy. No distinction is made between landowner or employee, the ‘rural worker’ could be either of these categories of person.
1711 The definition of ‘rural worker’ given in the Glossary as ‘a person employed in agriculture, forestry or other rural enterprise’ reflects existing national planning policy and does not require revision as indicated by the respondent. On the other hand it would be helpful to provide a definition of ‘rural enterprise’ in the Glossary as requested. However, the term ‘necessarily rural’ does not warrant an entry due to the plethora of circumstances to which it can relate, that will have slightly different meanings beyond one set definition.
1712 Condition (4) has received a significant amount of attention from respondents, especially the first sentence, requiring occupancy to be subject to a legal agreement tying use to the specific rural holding. A case is made for unreasonableness and of being contrary to government guidance, now backed up by several appeal decisions. Even so, the particular rural circumstances of northern Devon with dispersed nature of agriculture, means dwellings built for one enterprise, under the policy, will usually not meet the functional requirements of another enterprise. The suggested change would therefore lead to a proliferation of dwellings in the open countryside.
1713 A requirement for new rural worker accommodation to be of a size commensurate to the scale of the operation, (in condition (1)(b)) represents a rational approach to guiding the general proportions of a potential development scheme which will serve to ensure that any such accommodation will balance with the scale of the individual rural enterprise concerned and at the same time be affordable to rural workers. It is not accepted that the size of accommodation should only depend upon the needs of the intended occupants, as suggested, although these needs form an important component of condition (b) for assessing proposals.
1714 It is accepted that an additional point should be added to DM26 covering consideration of safe highway access.
1715 A minor revision is required to specify more accurately the requirements for supporting information to demonstrate the rural enterprise is well established and financially capable of supporting a rural worker in explanatory text. Therefore the following amendment should be made to para 12.148 (second sentence): ‘The local planning authority will expect evidence to be submitted in the form of audited accounts in support of proposals that demonstrates that the rural enterprise is financially viable and capable of sustaining a rural worker along with a dwelling of the size proposed’
Agreed Actions
1. Addition of condition (1)(d) to the policy as follows: ‘appropriate highway access can be provided’
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 433 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
2. Amend condition (4) (first sentence) as follows: 'Accommodation provided for rural workers will be subject to planning conditions restricting its occupancy occupancy restrictions and will normally be subject to a legal agreement tying its use to the specific rural holding'
3. Amend para 12.148 (second sentence) as follows: ‘The local planning authority will expect evidence to be submitted in the form of audited accounts in support of proposals that demonstrates that the rural enterprise is financially viable and capable of sustaining a rural worker along with a dwelling of the size proposed’
4. Amend para 12.149 (final sentence) as follows: ‘The local planning authority will also require evidence to demonstrate that the enterprise giving rise to the need has been planned on a sound financial basis with a costed business plan provided.'
5. Amend para 12.150 (first sentence) as follows: ‘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 the rural enterprise. and be reflective of the needs of the occupants’
6. Addition of sentence to para 12.150 (final) as follows: 'Development proposals should also deliver appropriate vehicular access, whilst not detracting from the character of the countryside, including landscape features such as extensive hedgerows'
7. Amend para 12.151 as follows: '....The local planning authority will normally control occupancy by means of a planning condition imposed on the planning permission which ensures the dwelling remains tied to the agricultural or other appropriate occupational use and is not sold or rented to unsuitable occupants. The local planning authority will also normally tie the occupancy of the dwelling to the associated enterprise through the imposition of a legal agreement. Further occupancy restrictions will also normally be imposed on all other existing dwellings on the holding to ensure that these are not capable of being detached from the enterprise.
8. Amend para 12.153 (second sentence) as follows: ‘Applicants will be expected to submit information to show that the dwelling has been marketed, at an appropriate price reflecting the occupancy restriction, for a period of at least 18 12 months and that there was no demand for the property over that period.'
9. Addition of the term 'rural enterprise' to the Glossary.
Policy DM27: Agricultural Dwelling Annexe Accommodation
Summary of Key Issues
1716 Comments made in response to Policy DM27, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 4
Total number of responses in support 2
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Total number of responses in objection 1
Total number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.160
434 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
The aims of the policy are similar to DM23 in terms of annexe provision except that the occupancy is related to an extended farming family rather than a dependant relative and therefore is supported. Condition (b) with a first emphasis on conversion of existing redundant building is also supported. (260 (ENP)) Acknowledgement in the policy of the possible need for additional accommodation for farmers where the father retires and the son takes over is welcomed. (2980) The policy is unnecessarily restrictive, annexe accommodation needs to be well related to the principle dwelling and there should be appropriate justification for the type, form and location of annexe accommodation based on the needs of the occupants. (3440) The policy is reasonable in the circumstances. (2430)
Officer Comments
1717 The policy has received some support by respondents, including potential assistance for farmers where the father retires and the son takes over and condition (b) with a first emphasis on conversion of a suitable existing redundant building before provision of annexe accommodation.
1718 It is not accepted that DM27 is unnecessarily restrictive. The terms of the policy allow some latitude for new annexe accommodation to be provided on working farms, beyond the outstanding policy position in current development plans. It should also be emphasized that condition (b) in pointing out an alternative accommodation provision through conversion of redundant or disused building on site, allows for further flexibility, particularly in terms of changing national policy context which favours greater breadth with changes of use for agricultural buildings.
Agreed Actions
1. The policy should refer to 'attached' rather than 'annexe' accommodation.
2. Amend first part of policy as follows: ‘On a working family farm, Provision of a self-contained residential unit annexe for occupation by family members of the farmer’s family employed on the working farm holding will be supported, subject to: ....'
3. Amend condition (d) and addition of (e) as follows:
(d) the accommodation is attached to the main dwelling; and provision of an interconnecting door between the main dwelling and annexe
(e) a planning condition restricting occupancy to members of the farmer’s family directly employed on the farm holding’ the provision of an interconnecting door between the main dwelling and annexe.
4. Amend para 12.155 (final sentence) as follows: ‘To help with this transition, on working family farms the Local Plan supports the provision of self-contained annexe accommodation to house family members of the principal farmer’s family who are employed on the holding.'
5. Amend para 12.156 as follows: ‘Attached annexe accommodation enabled through the policy shall be provided as an extension to an existing dwelling and an interconnecting door will be provided to connect the annexe accommodation to the main dwelling. In the interests of protecting the open nature of the countryside, the policy only supports the provision of an attached residential unit annexe accommodation if it is not possible to convert an existing redundant rural building under Policy DM25: Re-use of Rural Buildings, to meet the housing needs.’
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 435 5 Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft
6. Amend para 12.157 (final sentence) as follows: ‘The form, scale, setting and design of the residential unit annexe should have regard to the existing dwelling and other built development in the locality and respect the wider context, setting and surroundings of the holding.’
7. Addition of following sentence to para 12.158 as follows: ‘Proposals will need to be supported by evidence to demonstrate that one or more of the intended occupants of the attached annexe accommodation are employed on the holding and that combined their employment on the holding is equivalent to at least one full-time worker. Evidence will also be required to demonstrate that there is an operational agricultural enterprise upon the holding. A planning condition will be applied restricting occupancy of the accommodation to members of the farmer's family directly employed on the farm holding.'
8. Add the word 'farmer' to the Glossary.
Policy DM28: Sites for Traveller Accommodation
Summary of Key issues
1719 Comments made in response to Policy DM28, including the supporting text.
Total number of responses 4
Total number of responses in support 2
Total number of responses in support subject to amendment 0
Total number of responses in objection 1
Total number of responses providing a general comment 1
Table 5.161
Support for the sequential basis for provision of traveller accommodation in northern Devon. (261 (ENP)) The policy must ensure that robust activity is taken to remove any unauthorised sites. There should be recognition that traveller accommodation should not be sited too close to the settled community, because of the historical difficulties for both parties. (1422) Traveller accommodation is not subject to the same restrictions as other accommodation in condition (1)(e) of DM28. (2281) The details of part (2) conditions (a) – (i) are noted. (3851 (MPC))
Officer Comments
1720 The sequential basis for assessing development proposals for traveller accommodation contained in condition (1) has received some support.
1721 Removal of unauthorised traveller sites falls outside the function of DM28 and is largely an enforcement matter which may in due course refer back to the policy, once the Plan is adopted. Potential sensitivity of new sites with the settled community is addressed by condition (2)(b) which stresses the importance of development being ‘commensurate and proportionate to the scale and nature of the nearest settled community’ and visual impact covered by condition (2)(c). These points are considered to be satisfactory without the need for further amendment.
436 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 1: Feedback Report Local Plan Consultation Draft 5
1722 Identifying a greenfield site/open countryside final option in the sequential test contained in condition (1) is reasonable. It is not considered to be less restrictive than all other accommodation policy areas, such as Tourism Accommodation under Policy DM15, (part (2)) which also allows for development in open countryside locations, subject to relevant conditions. Appropriate new traveller accommodation must also conform to the provisions of part (2) of DM28 that contains various locational matters.
Agreed Action
1. Supporting text in para 12.160 will be revised accordingly, following completion of the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment, undertaken jointly with other Devon district councils.
Notation
DCC - Devon County Council NDH - North Devon Homes EH - English Heritage RCPC - Rackenford & Creacombe PC ENP - Exmoor National Park SHPC - Shirwell Parish Council MPC - Meshaw Parish Council
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 437 Appendix 2: Feedback Report Local Plan Part 3 - Rural 6 Strategies
6 Appendix 2: Feedback Report Local Plan Part 3 - Rural Strategies
1723 Parish Council responses to Local Plan Part 3 consultation: Development Boundaries and Settlement Hierarchy
Rural Settlements Position Use of Rural Settlements Position Use of change Develop’t change Develop’t North Devon within the Boundaries Torridge within the Boundaries Settlement Settlement Hierarchy Hierarchy
Local Centres
Bratton Fleming N N Bradworthy Y Y
Chulmleigh N Y Buckland Brewer N Y
Combe Martin N Y Dolton N Y
Fremington and Part 1 of Y Halwill Junction N Y Yelland LP
Instow N Y Hartland N Y
North Molton N Y High Bickington N Y
Witheridge N Y Shebbear N Y
Woolacombe Y Y Winkleigh N Y
Villages
Atherington N Y Abbotsham N Y
Berrynarbor N Y Ashwater N Y
Bishops Nympton N N Beaford N No comment
Bishops Tawton N Y Black Torrington N Y
Burrington N N Bridgerule N No Comment
Chittlehampton N(1) Y Bucks Cross N Y
Croyde N Y Chilsworthy N(1) Y
East Worlington Y N Clawton N Y
Filleigh N N Clovelly/ N Y
Higher Clovelly
438 North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement Appendix 2: Feedback Report Local Plan Part 3 - Rural 6 Strategies
Georgeham N Y Langtree Y Y
Goodleigh N Y Merton N Y
Kentisbury/ N N Mitlon Dameral/ N(2) Y
Kentisbury Ford Venn Green
Kings Nympton N Y Monkleigh Y Y
Knowle N Y Parkham Y Y
Landkey N Y Pyworthy N No Comment
Lower Lovacott/ N Y Sheepwash Y Y
Newton Tracey
Mortehoe Y Y St Giles on the N Y Heath
Rackenford N Y Stibb Cross N Y
Shirwell N N Sutcombe N No comment
Swimbridge N Y Welcombe/ N No Comment(3) Darracott
Umberleigh N(1) Y Woolfardiswothy N Y
West Down N Y
Candidate Villages
Ashford Y(3) N(1) Frithelstock Stone N N
Brayford Y(2) N Little Torrington N N
Chittlehamholt Y(2) Y Bradford and N N Cookbury
East Anstey Y(4) N St Giles in the Wood Y Y
East Down N(5) N High Bullen Y Y
East & West Buckland Y(2) N Tetcott Y Y
George Nympton Y(2) N
Heanton Punchardon Y(2) Y
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan: Consultation Statement 439 Appendix 2: Feedback Report Local Plan Part 3 - Rural 6 Strategies
Knowstone Y(2) N
Mariansleigh Y(2) N
Marwood Y(2) N
West Anstey Y(2) N
Table 6.1
1724 KEY
North Devon
(1) Subject to further consultation (2) Small Village subject to criteria based approach to development (3) Seek reclassification as a Village but subject to further consultation (4) Village which has community facilities, including those shared with West Anstey (5) Wish to retain countryside designation
Torridge
1. Extended range of identified settlements: Staddon Road/Whimble Hill (Development Boundary identified), Chasty, Winterland Lane, at which development should be enabled (small sites identified) and at other unnamed settlements. 2. Extended range of identified settlements: Holsworthy Beacon, Stawberrybank/Crossways, and Fore Street/Whitebear/Shop 3. Criteria based approach to enabling development proposed.
440 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