Public Document Pack

Agenda for Development Management Committee Monday, 18th May, 2020, 10.00 am

Members of Development Management Committee East District Council Councillors M Howe (Chairman), K McLauchlan (Vice- Knowle Chairman), P Arnott, K Bloxham, C Brown, Devon O Davey, S Gazzard, P Hayward, EX10 8HL N Hookway, D Key, T McCollum, H Parr, DX 48705 Sidmouth G Pratt, J Rowland, E Wragg and T Wright Tel: 01395 516551 Fax: 01395 517507 Venue: Online via the Zoom app. All Councillors and registered speakers will have been sent an www.eastdevon.gov.uk appointment with the meeting link.

Contact: Wendy Harris 01395 517542; email: [email protected] (or group number 01395 517546) Issued: Wednesday, 6 May 2020

Important - this meeting will be conducted online and recorded by Zoom only. Please do not attend Blackdown House. Members are asked to follow the Protocol for Remote Meetings

This meeting is being recorded by EDDC for subsequent publication on the Council’s website and will be streamed live to the Council’s Youtube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmNHQruge3LVI4hcgRnbwBw

Speaking on planning applications In order to speak on an application being considered by the Development Management Committee you must have submitted written comments during the consultation stage of the application. Those that have commented on an application being considered by the Committee will receive a letter or email detailing the date and time of the meeting and instructions on how to register to speak. The letter/email will have a reference number, which you will need to provide in order to register. Speakers will have 3 minutes to make their representation.

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

The day before the meeting a revised running order for the applications being considered by the Committee and the speakers’ list will be posted on the council’s website (agenda item 1 – speakers’ list). Applications with registered speakers will be taken first.

Mark Williams, Chief Executive page 1

Parish and town council representatives wishing to speak on an application are also required to pre-register in advance of the meeting. One representative can be registered to speak on behalf of the Council from 10am on Monday 11 May 2020 up until 12 noon on Thursday 14 May 2020 by leaving a message on 01395 517525 or emailing [email protected].

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

1 Speakers' list and revised running order for the applications (Pages 4 - 5) Names of speakers removed.

2 Minutes of the previous meeting (Pages 6 - 9) Minutes of the Development Management Committee meeting held on 3 March 2020

3 Apologies 4 Declarations of interest Guidance is available online to Councillors and co-opted members on making declarations of interest

5 Matters of urgency Information on matters of urgency is available online

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

7 Planning appeal statistics (Pages 10 - 25) Update from the Development Manager

Applications for Determination

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

page 2 8 19/0995/MFUL (Major) (Pages 26 - 95) BROADCLYST Land South Of Mosshayne Link Road, Redhayes, (Phase 8), Exeter

9 19/1849/MFUL (Major) (Pages 96 - 144) CLYST VALLEY Dart Business Park, Clyst St George.

10 20/0280/VAR (Other) (Pages 145 - 154) House, Church Road, Alfington, Ottery St Mary, EX11 1PE.

11 18/1222/MFUL (Major) (Pages 155 - 243) AND Land South Of Lily Cottage, Exeter Road, Whimple.

12 19/2700/FUL (Minor) (Pages 244 - 263) YARTY Land Adjacent Sunnyside, Birchall.

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

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

page 3 Agenda Item 1 Development Management Committee, Monday, 18 May 2020, 10am Running order and speaker list

Please note the deadline for registering to speak has now passed. If when registering the speaker has not stated that they give permission for their contact details to be published on our website, their contact details will not appear in the tables below.

Applications to be considered will be taken in the following order:

Public speakers’ details have been removed.

Application number: 18/1222/MFUL (Major) Page 155 - 243 Ward: Whimple and Rockbeare Address: Land South Of Lily Cottage, Exeter Road, Whimple Ward Members: Cllr Kathy McLauchlan

Application number: 19/2700/FUL (Minor) Page 244 - 263 Ward: Yarty Address: Land Adjacent Sunnyside, Birchall Ward Members: Cllr Paul Hayward

Application number: 20/0280/VAR (Other) Page 145 - 154 Ward: Ottery St Mary Address: Alfington House, Church Road, Alfington Ward Members: Cllr Peter Faithfull, Cllr Vicky Johns, Cllr Geoff Pratt

page 4

Application number: 19/1849/MFUL (Major) Page 96 - 144 Ward: Clyst Valley Address: Dart Business Park, Clyst St George Ward Members: Cllr Mike Howe

Application number: 19/0995/MFUL (Major) Page 26 - 95 Ward: Broadclyst Address: Land South Of Mosshayne Link Road, Redhayes, (Phase 8), Exeter Ward Members: Cllr Sarah Chamberlain, Cllr Chris Pepper, Cllr Eleanor Rylance

page 5 Agenda Item 2 DISTRICT COUNCIL

Minutes of the meeting of Development Management Committee held at Council Chamber Blackdown House on 3 March 2020

Attendance list at end of document The meeting started at 10.00 am and ended at 12.30 pm

In the absence of the Chairman, Councillor McLauchlan declared she would act as Chairperson for the meeting and the Committee agreed to Councillor Bloxham acting as Vice Chairperson.

97 Minutes of the previous meeting

The minutes of the Development Management Committee held on 4 February 2020 were confirmed as a true record.

98 Declarations of interest

Minute 100. District Heating Local Development Order. Councillor Kim Bloxham, Personal, as Lead Member for Cranbrook Town Council had liaised with the current providers of heating for Cranbrook and also a resident of Cranbrook and a recipient of District Heating.

Minute 101. 19/0995/MFUL (Major). Councillor Kathy McLauchlan, Personal, previously worked for the RD&E Trust and spouse does work for the RD&E Trust.

Minute 101. 19/0995/MFUL (Major). Councillor Olly Davey, Personal, known to the speaker for this planning application.

Minute 101. 19/0995/MFUL (Major). Councillor Paul Hayward, Personal, spouse works for the RD&E Trust.

Minute 102. 19/2246/FUL (Minor). In the interests of openness and transparency the Strategic Lead (Governance and Licensing) declared that the applicant had been his agent in a planning application submitted several years previously.

99 Planning appeal statistics

The Committee noted the Development Manager’s report setting out 12 appeal decisions notified and was pleased to note that 10 had been dismissed with only 2 allowed.

Members attention was drawn to the two appeal allowed. The Development Manager advised of the decision for planning application 19/1839/FUL – Sunbeams, Rhode Lane, , Lyme Regis. The Inspector determined the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area nor would it have a harmful impact to the AONB and had allowed the appeal. The second appeal allowed related to planning application 19/0203/FUL – St Saviours, 12 Morton Road, . Members refused planning permission on the grounds of harm to the local area and amenity of nearby residents but the Inspector determined that the change of use was acceptable.

page 6 Development Management Committee 3 March 2020

The Development Manager was pleased to report that for planning application 18/2376/MFUL – Land North Of Kingsholme And West Of Coly Road, the Inspector had agreed with concerns which related to the impact on the Green Wedge, the impact on ecology, poor design and layout and as a result had dismissed the appeal.

100 District Heating Local Development Order

The report presented to the Committee sought Members agreement for the draft District Heating Local Development Order (LDO) to go out for public consultation with a view to the Council adopting a LDO for District Heating Networks in East Devon’s West End.

The Development Manager advised that a further report would be brought back to Committee summarising the responses received from the consultation and to provide a recommendation about how to move forward.

Members noted that the report sought to allow heating and hot water infrastructure to the Skypark and Monkton Energy Centres to allow the removal of planning permission for district heating providers to allow the completion of necessary works, subject to conditions detailed in the report.

RESOLVED: That the draft District Heating Local Development Order for public consultation be agreed.

101 19/0995/MFUL (Major)

BROADCLYST

Applicant: Eagle One MMIII.

Location: Land South Of Mosshayne Link Road, Redhayes (Phase 8).

Proposal: Erection of 33 dwellings and associated works.

RESOLVED: Deferred to negotiate with the applicant on the following issues:  Pepper potting of the affordable housing to split the flats from the houses;  To provide more amenity space around the block of affordable flats;  To provide 50% of the new dwellings with the integral bat and bird bricks;  That the boundary treatments to the plots provide a ‘hedgehog highway’ through the development.

102 19/2246/FUL (Minor)

HONITON ST MICHAELS

Applicant: Mr M Cooper.

Location: page 7 Development Management Committee 3 March 2020

Land To The Rear Of 102 High Street, , EX14 1JW.

Proposal: Construction of 3 dwellings.

RESOLVED: Deferred for a Site Inspection to assess the impact of the development on the Conservation Area and the Listed Building and its wider context and upon the boundary walls and tree on the site.

103 19/2311/FUL (Minor)

TALE VALE

Applicant: Mr & Mrs R Persey

Location: Upcott Farm, .

Proposal: Construction of detached dwelling, associated works and landscaping following demolition and removal of agricultural building (alternative to residential change of use of agricultural building to dwelling under Class Q – approval reference 19/0239/PDQ).

RESOLVED: Refused as per officer recommendation.

104 19/2312/FUL (Minor)

TALE VALE

Applicant: Mr & Mrs R Persey.

Location: Upcott Farm, Broadhembury, Honiton, EX14 3LP.

Proposal: Construction of detached dwelling, associated works and landscaping following demolition and removal of agricultural building (alternative to residential change of use of agricultural building to dwelling under Class Q approval reference: 19/0238/PDQ).

RESOLVED: Refused as per officer recommendation.

105 19/2092/FUL (Minor)

EXMOUTH TOWN

Applicant: Mr Richard Gray.

page 8 Development Management Committee 3 March 2020

Location: 1 Victoria Road, Exmouth.

Proposal: Replacement windows 17 no.)

RESOLVED: Refused contrary to officer recommendation.

Members determined that the use of UPVC in the conservation area was inappropriate and out of character with a resultant harmful visual impact that fails to preserve or enhance the conservation area contrary to Policies D1 and EN10 of the Local Plan.

Attendance List Councillors present (for some or all the meeting): K McLauchlan (Vice-Chairman) P Arnott K Bloxham C Brown O Davey P Hayward N Hookway D Key T McCollum H Parr G Pratt J Rowland E Wragg T Wright

Councillors also present (for some or all the meeting) S Bond P Faithfull G Jung F King A Moulding P Skinner P Twiss

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

Councillor apologies: M Howe S Gazzard

Chairman Date:

page 9 Agenda Item 7 EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL LIST OF PLANNING APPEALS LODGED

Ref: 19/1571/FUL Date Received 21.02.2020 Appellant: Mr Andrew Mann Appeal Site: 62 - 64 New Street Exmouth EX8 1RT Proposal: Conversion of 2nd floor to provide additional living accommodation to include raising of roof, first floor extension and dormer window extension Planning APP/U1105/D/20/3247489 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/1351/FUL Date Received 24.02.2020 Appellant: Mr John Wilding (Liverton Business Park 2011 Limited) Appeal Site: Land At Liverton Business Park Salterton Road Exmouth Proposal: Installation of a synchronous gas-powered standby generation facility, plus ancillary infrastructure and equipment and access Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3247638 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/2671/LBC Date Received 27.02.2020 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Petersen Appeal Site: The Barn Yettington EX9 7BP Proposal: Demolition of existing blockwork timber garage and construction of replacement two storey extension with new windows, doors and 2 no. rooflights; removal of lean-to conservatory and construction of replacement single storey extension; installation of 1 no window at first floor level on east elevation and internal alterations Planning APP/U1105/Y/20/3247867 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/2670/FUL Date Received 27.02.2020 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Petersen Appeal Site: The Barn Yettington Budleigh Salterton EX9 7BP Proposal: Demolition of existing blockwork timber garage and construction of replacement two storey extension; demolition of lean-to conservatory and construction of replacement single storey extension; insertion of first floor window in the east elevation Planning APP/U1105/D/20/3247868 Inspectorate Ref:

page 10 Ref: 19/1999/FUL Date Received 28.02.2020 Appellant: Mrs N Cochrane Appeal Site: Barn To South Of Grange Farm Proposal: Conversion of barn to dwelling including external alterations, change of use of equestrian arena to residential curtilage, formation of access driveway, and installation of package sewage treatment plant. Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3248033 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/1525/FUL Date Received 28.02.2020 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Eade Appeal Site: Pendor Exmouth Road Colaton Raleigh Sidmouth EX10 0HJ Proposal: New dwelling in the rear garden. Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3248042 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/2689/VAR Date Received 05.03.2020 Appellant: G Russell Appeal Site: The Old Post Office Luppitt Honiton EX14 4RT Proposal: Removal of condition 3 of planning permission 19/1406/FUL to allow retention of window within the rear extension facing to the south east. Planning APP/U1105/D/20/3249068 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 15/F0020 Date Received 09.03.2020

Appellant: Ms Charmaine Lee Appeal Site: Hawkwell Park Wareham Road Hawkchurch Proposal: Appeal against the serving of an enforcement notice in respect of the non-compliance of a condition on a planning permission restricting the use of the site to gypsies and travellers. Planning APP/U1105/C/20/3248557 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/0365/FUL Date Received 10.03.2020 Appellant: Ms P Boast Appeal Site: Land Adjacent 4 Cheese Lane Sidmouth Proposal: Proposed new dwelling Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3248708 Inspectorate Ref:

page 11 Ref: 19/2348/FUL Date Received 12.03.2020 Appellant: Mr & Mrs B White Appeal Site: 13-15 High Street Honiton EX14 1PR Proposal: Erection of 2 no. dwellings in rear garden. Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3248907 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/1299/FUL Date Received 16.03.2020 Appellant: Donna Delamain Appeal Site: Hill View Nursery Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4SZ Proposal: Change of use and extension of storage building to form a live-work unit Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3249070 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 16/M0001 Date Received 17.03.2020

Appellant: Donna Gant Appeal Site: Hill View Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4SZ Proposal: Appeal against the serving of an enforcement notice in respect of the siting of a mobile home Planning APP/U1105/C/20/3249072 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/2681/FUL Date Received 20.03.2020 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Creese Appeal Site: Garage At Land West Of 1 Lower Dean Seaton EX12 3BB Proposal: Application to convert an existing garage into a two bedroom dwelling. Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3249380 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/2233/FUL Date Received 24.03.2020 Appellant: Mrs A Broadhurst Appeal Site: Coldharbour Farm East Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1QL Proposal: Change of use of barn to dwelling Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3249590 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/2093/OUT Date Received 30.03.2020 Appellant: Mr & Mrs C Mathews Appeal Site: Tolcarne Cooks Lane EX13 5SQ Proposal: Outline planning application for the erection of a dwelling (all matters reserved) Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3249964 Inspectorate Ref:

page 12 Ref: 20/0321/ADV Date Received 02.04.2020 Appellant: Mr Andrew Kitchener Appeal Site: Newcourt Barton Clyst Road Topsham Exeter EX3 0DB Proposal: Display of 2 no. freestanding advertisement signs. Planning APP/U1105/Z/20/3250237 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 18/F0352 Date Received 06.04.2020

Appellant: Peter James Tracey Appeal Site: Titford Hold Awliscombe Honiton EX14 3PS Proposal: Appeal against an enforcement notice served in respect of the unauthorised removal of a hedgebank and construction of an access. Planning APP/U1105/C/20/3250290 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/F0054 Date Received 06.04.2020

Appellant: Maximum Fun Devon Limited Appeal Site: Land West Of Crealy Meadows Sidmouth Road Proposal: Appeal against an enforcement notice served in respect of the unauthorised stationing of mobile homes on the land. Planning APP/U1105/C/20/3249830 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/2730/FUL Date Received 07.04.2020 Appellant: Mr Malcolm Lee Appeal Site: 14 Linhay Close Honiton EX14 2BJ Proposal: Construction of raised roof ridge and dormer window to rear to allow loft conversion. Planning APP/U1105/D/20/3250493 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/0358/CPE Date Received 13.04.2020 Appellant: Mr Burroughs Appeal Site: Thorn Park Family Golf Centre Regis Sidmouth EX10 0JH Proposal: Certificate of lawfulness for the use of the land for the siting of a caravan used as an independent dwelling and for the siting of a storage container used to store equipment associated with the running of the golf club and agricultural work carried out on the land Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3250786 Inspectorate Ref:

page 13 Ref: 20/0015/CPE Date Received 18.04.2020 Appellant: Mrs Veronica Strawbridge Appeal Site: Rhode Hill Farm Rhode Hill Uplyme Lyme Regis DT7 3UF Proposal: Certificate of Lawfulness to establish substantial completion of a single dwelling without the benefit of planning consent. Planning APP/U1105/X/20/3251141 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/F0171 Date Received 20.04.2020

Appellant: Richard House Appeal Site: Land Opposite Woodbury Business Park Woodbury Proposal: Appeal against the serving of an enforcement notice in respect of the unauthorised construction of a parking area. Planning APP/U1105/C/20/3250819 Inspectorate Ref:

page 14

East Devon District Council List of Planning Appeals Decided

Ref: 19/0430/FUL Appeal 19/00057/REF Ref: Appellant: Punch Partnerships (PML) Ltd Appeal Site: The Blue Ball Car Park Proposal: Proposed construction of three detached dwellings and private car parking with associated new private vehicular access, landscaping, boundary treatments, drainage and ground works, and reconfiguration of the existing car park. Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 20.02.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, amenity and loss of parking/viability reasons upheld (EDLP Policy D1 and Strategies 6 & 32, SVNP Policy 18). Application for a partial award of costs against the Council refused. BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3235921 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/0674/FUL Appeal 19/00070/REF Ref: Appellant: Mr Tom & Mrs Emma Bambridge-Sutton Appeal Site: Mead Fortescue Road Sidmouth EX10 9QG Proposal: Construction of dwelling in garden including demolition of existing garage and provision of parking spaces and replacement of fence with extension to stone boundary wall. Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 26.02.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, Listed building conservation and setting, tree and amenity reasons upheld (EDLP Policies D1, D3, EN9 & Strategy 6 and SVNP Policies 6 & 7). BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3240291 Inspectorate Ref:

page 15 Page 1 of 3 Ref: 19/0675/LBC Appeal 19/00071/LBCREF Ref: Appellant: Mr Tom & Mrs Emma Bambridge-Sutton Appeal Site: Mead Fortescue Road Sidmouth EX10 9QG Proposal: Construction of dwelling in garden including replacement of fence with extension to stone boundary wall. Decision: Appeal Allowed (with Date: 26.02.2020 conditions) Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal. The Inspector allowed the appeal only in respect of the proposed section of new wall. The reference to the ‘construction of a dwelling’ in the description does not require the benefit of Listed Building Consent. BVPI 204: No Planning APP/U1105/Y/19/3240296 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/1104/OUT Appeal 19/00072/REF Ref: Appellant: Mr & Mrs Ward Appeal Site: Four Acres Exton Lane Exton Exeter EX3 0PN Proposal: Construction of detached dwelling (outline application with all matters reserved) Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 27.02.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, sustainability and countryside protection reasons upheld (EDLP Policy TC2 and Strategies 7 & 27). BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3240709 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/0834/PDR Appeal 19/00073/REF Ref: Appellant: Park Limited Appeal Site: Ware Farm Ottery St Mary EX11 1PJ Proposal: Prior notification under Part 3 Class R for the flexible change of use from agricultural use to 9no. aparthotel units Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 19.03.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, the Inspector agreed with the Council that the proposal was not classed as permitted development. BVPI 204: Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3241417 Inspectorate Ref:

page 16 Page 2 of 3 Ref: 19/0077/FUL Appeal 19/00074/REF Ref: Appellant: Mr And Mrs Jonathan And Clare Hansford Appeal Site: Land At Pit Orchard Bim Bom Lane Kilmington Proposal: Construction of 5 no. dwellings and formation of vehicular access Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 23.03.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, countryside protection and sustainability reasons upheld (EDLP Strategies 7, 27 & 46 and Policy D1). Application for a full award of costs against the Council refused. BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3241441 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/1696/TRE Appeal Ref: 19/00083/TRE Appellant: Mr Leonidou Appeal Site: Garth Knowle Drive Sidmouth EX10 8HN Proposal: Fell a Portuguese Laurel subject of a Tree Preservation Order Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 23.04.2020 Procedure: Written Representations Remarks: Amenity reasons upheld BVPI 204: No Planning APP/TPO/U1105/7607 Inspectorate Ref:

page 17 Page 3 of 3 East Devon District Council List of Appeals in Progress

App.No: 18/2173/VAR Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3234261 Appellant: Mr David Manley Address: Enfield Farm Biodigester Oil Mill Lane Clyst St Mary EX5 1AF Proposal; Variation of conditions 2,5,7 and 10 of planning permission 17/0650/VAR to allow increase annual tonnage of crop input from 26,537 to 66,000 tonnes and increase annual tonnage of digestate exported from the site from 21,354 to 56,000 tonnes and vary wording of Odour Management Plan Start Date: 20 August 2019 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 27 August 2019 Statement Due Date: 24 September 2019

App.No: 19/F0077 Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/C/19/3234097 Appellant: John Howard Lomax Address: The Workshop, Longmeadow Road, EX8 5LF Proposal; Appeal against serving of enforcement notice in respect of the unauthorised installation of a sewage treatment plant Start Date: 23 October 2019 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 6 November 2019 Statement Due Date: 4 December 2019

App.No: 19/1557/CPL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/X/19/3238290 Appellant: Mr John Lomax Address: The Workshop Longmeadow Road Lympstone EX8 5LF Proposal; Certificate of lawfulness for the provision of a porous hard surface to be used for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of The Workshop, Longmeadow Road, Lympstone EX8 5LF as a dwellinghouse Start Date: 30 October 2019 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 6 November 2019 Statement Due Date: 4 December 2019

Page 1 of 8 page 18 App.No: 19/0078/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3242773 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Raggio Address: Lily Cottage Goldsmith Lane All Saints Axminster EX13 7LU Proposal; Demolition of former cottage and construction of new dwelling. Start Date: 8 January 2020 Procedure: Hearing Questionnaire Due Date: 15 January 2020 Statement Due Date: 12 February 2020 Hearing Date: To be arranged

App.No: 18/F0050 Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/C/19/3234227 Appellant: FWSC (Ladram) Ltd. Address: Ladram Bay Holiday Centre, Ladram Bay, Proposal; Appeal against the serving of an enforcement notice in respect of the construction of a raised platform with associated balustrade, storage areas and supporting structures Start Date: 17 January 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 31 January 2020 Statement Due Date: 28 February 2020

App.No: 19/1360/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3243366 Appellant: Dr Paul Barber Address: Gardeners Barn Honiton Bottom Higher Brand Lane Honiton Proposal; Change of use and alteration of agricultural building to form dwelling Start Date: 29 January 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 5 February 2020 Statement Due Date: 4 March 2020

Page 2 of 8 page 19 App.No: 19/2011/PDQ Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3243386 Appellant: Mrs S Herrod Address: Building At Pinneywood Farm Lodge Lane Axminster EX13 5RT Proposal; Prior approval for proposed change of use of agricultural building to a dwelling (use class C3) and associated operational development Start Date: 29 January 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 5 February 2020 Statement Due Date: 4 March 2020

App.No: 19/0821/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3244064 Appellant: Mark Thomas Address: 1 Hardys Court Hawkerland Road Colaton Raleigh Sidmouth EX10 0HL Proposal; Demolition of the old stables and construction of a new bungalow including new vehicular access from Hardys Court. Start Date: 10 February 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 17 February 2020 Statement Due Date: 16 March 2020

App.No: 19/0488/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3244536 Appellant: Mr Stuart Phillips Address: 8 Mill Street Ottery St Mary EX11 1AD Proposal; Conversion of 1st floor and part of ground floor to 4no. apartments; retention of part of ground floor as storage Start Date: 12 February 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 19 February 2020 Statement Due Date: 18 March 2020

Page 3 of 8 page 20 App.No: 19/1826/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3243903 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Boote Address: Oaklands Farm Monkton Honiton EX14 9QH Proposal; Change of use and conversion of existing farm shop/cafe and redundant agricultural buildings to create 5 no. dwellings together with extensive landscaping, vehicle parking and access. Start Date: 13 February 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 20 February 2020 Statement Due Date: 19 March 2020

App.No: 19/1962/LBC Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/Y/19/3243521 Appellant: Mrs Carol Gay Address: Fiddles Reach Preston Farm Upottery Honiton EX14 9PF Proposal; Infill of covered patio area to provide ground floor bedroom including insertion of doorway; construction of porch and 2no. dormers; construction of external wall Start Date: 25 February 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 3 March 2020 Statement Due Date: 31 March 2020

App.No: 19/0439/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3237187 Appellant: Mrs Hatice Oflaz Address: 20 New Street Honiton EX14 1EY Proposal; Change of use from A2 (professional Services) to (A3)restaurant use, including new rear access to serve residential unit and fenestration changes Start Date: 27 February 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 5 March 2020 Statement Due Date: 2 April 2020

Page 4 of 8 page 21 App.No: 19/1788/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3245326 Appellant: Mr Gordon Britton Address: Land Rear Of St Johns Close High Street Honiton Proposal; Erection of two bedroom dwelling Start Date: 27 February 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 5 March 2020 Statement Due Date: 2 April 2020

App.No: 19/1119/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3246094 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Whiting Address: Monkton Park Farm Honiton EX14 3HY Proposal; Removal of two barns, renovation and extension of existing C20 building to create a dwelling and alterations to the access Start Date: 11 March 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 18 March 2020 Statement Due Date: 15 April 2020

App.No: 12/1291/MOUT Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3246215 Appellant: Eagle Homes Ltd Address: Tithebarn Green Land At Monkerton, Exeter And Redhayes/North Of Blackhorse Proposal; Appeal against the refusal of the Council to discharge condition 3 relating to the submission of a framework plan / appearance palette for approved phase 13. Development of the site to provide up to 930 dwellings, a new link road, employment area (B1a Use Class), park and ride facility, local centre/square, health and fitness centre, creche, public and private open space and car and cycle parking, together with landscaping and associated servicing (all matters reserved except points of access) Start Date: 11 March 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 18 March 2020 Statement Due Date: 15 April 2020

Page 5 of 8 page 22 App.No: 19/2248/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3246861 Appellant: Mr & Mrs White Address: Autowhites Garage Bluebell Holt Lyme Road Uplyme Lyme Regis Proposal; New workshop building for new MOT bay plus associated residential accommodation. Start Date: 16 March 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 23 March 2020 Statement Due Date: 20 April 2020

App.No: 19/1351/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3247638 Appellant: Mr John Wilding (Liverton Business Park 2011 Limited) Address: Land At Liverton Business Park Salterton Road Exmouth Proposal; Installation of a synchronous gas-powered standby generation facility, plus ancillary infrastructure and equipment and access Start Date: 17 March 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 24 March 2020 Statement Due Date: 21 April 2020

Page 6 of 8 page 23 App.No: 19/0822/CPL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/X/20/3245342 Appellant: Mrs L Sweetland Address: Land At Rear Of Chestnut House Bunts Lane Seaton Proposal; Certificate of Lawful development for proposed development for the construction of dwelling without complying with condition 3 of approval of reserved matters granted under application 15/1949/RES Start Date: 26 March 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 2 April 2020 Statement Due Date: 30 April 2020

App.No: 19/2630/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3246701 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Burgess Address: Building Adjacent Carpenters Cottage Proposal; Alterations to existing building and change of use to form 1 no. residential unit (C3) Start Date: 30 March 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 6 April 2020 Statement Due Date: 4 May 2020

App.No: 19/1267/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3243651 Appellant: Mr C Olisa Address: Flat 1 6 Alston Terrace Exmouth EX8 1BH Proposal; Subdivision of flat 1 into two flats (retrospective application) Start Date: 31 March 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 7 April 2020 Statement Due Date: 5 May 2020

Page 7 of 8 page 24 App.No: 19/1571/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/D/20/3247489 Appellant: Mr Andrew Mann Address: 62 - 64 New Street Exmouth EX8 1RT Proposal; Conversion of 2nd floor to provide additional living accommodation to include raising of roof, first floor extension and dormer window extension Start Date: 24 April 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 1 May 2020

App.No: 19/1999/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3248033 Appellant: Mrs N Cochrane Address: Barn To South Of Grange Farm Newton Poppleford Proposal; Conversion of barn to dwelling including external alterations, change of use of equestrian arena to residential curtilage, formation of access driveway, and installation of package sewage treatment plant. Start Date: 29 April 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 6 May 2020 Statement Due Date: 3 June 2020

Page 8 of 8 page 25 Agenda Item 8

Ward Broadclyst

Reference 19/0995/MFUL

Applicant Eagle One MMlll

Location Land South Of Mosshayne Link Road Redhayes (Phase 8) Exeter

Proposal Erection of 33 dwellings and associated works

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 attached to the original report is adopted; and 2. APPROVE subject to conditions.

Crown Copyright an d database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 10002374 6

page 26 UPDATE REPORT

Broadclyst Committee Date: 18th May 2020 (BROADCLYST) 19/0995/MFUL

Applicant: Eagle One MMlll Ltd

Location: Land south of Mosshayne Link Road, Redhayes (Phase 8), Exeter

Proposal: Erection of 33 dwellings and associated works

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 attached to the original report is adopted; and 2. APPROVE subject to conditions.

Background This planning application was referred to the Development Management Committee (DMC) meeting held on 3rd March 2020. It was decided to defer making a decision to negotiate with the applicant on the following issues: 1) Pepper potting of the affordable housing to split the flats from the houses; 2) To provide more amenity space around the block of affordable flats; 3) To provide 50% of the new dwellings with the integral bat and bird bricks; 4) That the boundary treatments to the plots provide a ‘hedgehog highway’ through the development. Officers were asked to negotiate with the applicant on these concerns and then refer the application back to Development Management Committee for a decision. The applicant has responded with agreement to incorporate integral bird/bat boxes and provision for hedgehog movement but does not agree that more pepper potting and amenity space is required for the affordable units.

page 27 Considerations This update report addresses the reasons for deferral of the application with all of planning considerations as per the attached original committee report. Recent government guidance from July 2019 advises that planning conditions can be used to secure a net gain in biodiversity and examples given include “incorporating ‘swift bricks’ and bat boxes in developments and providing safe routes for hedgehogs between different areas of habitat”. In view of this, an amendment to the previous condition 12 is recommended to make reference to the bird/bat tubes and bricks being integral to the building and an additional condition to require details and implementation/maintenance of a hedgehog highway through the development. This has been agreed by the applicant. With regard to matters of Pepper-potting/clustering and amenity space, these are discussed separately below. Pepper potting/ clustering The applicant is not prepared to amend the proposed development to increase pepper potting as they consider it reflects the size of other affordable housing clusters approved on the Redhayes and Mosshayne developments and is in a location that is not ‘hidden away’ in the corner but when seen in relation to the location of other groups of affordable housing, is well integrated and located at the front of the development. A plan of the other areas of affordable housing on the wider adjoining developments will be included in the committee presentation for Member information. It should also be noted that this development would be part of the Redhayes and Mosshayne developments which are now up to 1,650 houses. The s106 requirements for affordable housing on the wider development allows clusters of up to 20 units on Redhayes and 25 units on Mosshayne. Whilst the other clusters are less than this, they are all greater than 10 in number and when seen in the wider context, 8 affordable units on this site are less than the majority of the other clusters and well below the s106 levels for cluster size. Whilst Members stated a preference for the two affordable houses to me moved to a different part of the site to aid pepper-potting, the applicant has not agreed to this. Partly for the reasons stated above, and party due to increased management issues from isolating two dwellings from the affordable flats on the site. Registered Providers do prefer to have their properties grouped together for ease of maintenance and management. It is therefore considered that the proposed affordable housing in terms of the wider context of the substantial amount of new housing, is consistent (and in most cases smaller) with the size of other clusters and is well related and integrated into the wider development. In light of the above, and given that there is no specific local or government guidance in relation to maximum clusters of affordable housing, it is considered that the Local Planning Authority would be very unlikely to win an appeal on the basis of the clustering of the affordable units in this instance.

page 28

Available amenity space around the affordable flats Previously the amount of amenity space around the flats was the subject of officer negotiations due to concerns about the impact of the use of the drive and parking area directly to the south of the flats on the amenity of the ground floor occupiers from traffic noise, fumes and head lights. As a result the amount of amenity area on this side of the flats was increased (to approximately 90sqm of grassed amenity apace) and with better boundary treatment, together with the relocation of a window onto the side elevation. This was a positive gain and although it was based primarily on protecting the amenity of occupiers from vehicles/users of the parking area, nevertheless some additional outside amenity area has been secured. The applicant does not feel it is reasonable to increase the amenity area as this is consistent with other affordable housing apartments on Redhayes. In particular the Minerva scheme that won a Building for Life ‘Outstanding’ award is given as an example with apartments with similar levels of open space considered acceptable due to the close links to other open space. This site also benefits from a very good level of open space of various types in the locality to off-set the amount of amenity space around the flats. Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the Local Plan suggests that occupants of future residential properties should have access to open space but no reference is made to whether this should be private or public open space. The Council does not operate standards for minimum private amenity space in new housing developments. However, the flats are located in a new development where significant areas of open space have or are to be delivered with good access by foot or bicycle. To the north of the site is the green corridor (a multi-use area of Green Infrastructure) which links into the country park, to the south of the site is to be delivered a series of sport pitches, to the west a public square and play area and there are to be links to the east to the existing public footpath network and cricket pitch. The site is next to the community hub of the Redhayes/Mosshayne development which will include a café/restaurant (with outdoor seating area), public house, shop, health care and a community facility. The site is therefore well connected to outdoor public amenity/open areas and other facilities which would adequately compensate for the small private amenity area. The Design Review Panel which considered this scheme, highlighted the enviable position of the site close to public space assets, where the scheme should concentrate on providing clear and attractive access points and develop a relationship to the adjacent open space as part of place making and enhancing public realm. This has been a key driver for the overall development in terms of providing various types of public realm and open space with good connectivity and access. This helps to off-set the fact that the amenity space around the flats is linear in nature and as such limited in its usability, by providing suitable multi-use public amenity areas within easy access.

page 29 It light of the connectivity of the site to a variety of open space and leisure facilities, it is considered that it would be very difficult to win an appeal on the basis of a lack of amenity space immediately around and serving the 6 affordable apartments. CONCLUSION It is appreciated that the applicant is prepared to provide integral bat and bird facilities and hedgehog highways and these can be secured by condition and have been included in the revised recommendation and conditions below. The applicant is not willing to change the clustering or private amenity space for the affordable flats but for the reasons given in this report and the original committee report, it is considered that the wider picture of affordable provision and access to open space across the whole development, means this development would be consistent with, and would be well integrated into, the wider area such that planning permission should be granted. It should be noted that the S106 agreement has now been completed so the recommendation no longer needs to provide for the completion of this agreement. On the grant of planning permission the obligations within the S.106 agreement will be binding. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 attached to the original report is adopted; and

2. APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission and shall be carried out as approved. (Reason - To comply with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning). 3. A Construction and Environment Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works commencing on site, and shall be implemented and remain in place throughout the construction period. The CEMP shall include at least the following matters: 1) Air Quality. 2) Dust control. 3) Lighting.

page 30 4) Noise and vibration. 5) Pollution Prevention and Control, including an emergency plan. 6) Monitoring Arrangements. 7) Ecology - as specified in the Ecological Appraisal no: 18/3436.01 Rev01. 8) Site compound and parking - location and size. 9) Construction traffic management. 10) Waste Management. 11) Airport safeguarding - to accord with the AoA Advice Note 4 "Cranes and Other Construction Issues". Notwithstanding the above, construction working shall not take place outside the hours of 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. There shall be no burning on site. There shall be no high frequency audible reversing alarms used on the site. (Reason - To protect the amenities of nearby occupiers and to protect the ecology/protected species in the locality to accord with policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) and EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031. The CEMP needs to be approved and implemented at the start of development operations as risks to the environment, amenity and ecology will be present from this point.) 4. No development above foundation level of any dwelling shall take place until a detailed landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme to include hard landscaping and the planting of trees (including street trees), hedges, shrubs, herbaceous plants, areas to be grassed (using a native seed mix) and planting methods, together with an implementation timetable and maintenance regime. The scheme to be submitted shall accord with the approved Landscape Plan no.1120 Rev D, External Works Plan no.1117 Rev D and the Landscape External Works Plan no.1119 Rev E and shall include the planting with native hedgerow species of the hedgebank on the eastern boundary of the site. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the approved planting season and no later than the first occupation of the development unless any alternative phasing of the landscaping is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the landscaping shall be maintained for a period of 5 years in accordance with the approved maintenance regime. Any trees or other plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To ensure that the details are planned and considered at an early stage in the interests of amenity, to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area and in the interests of ecology in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and

page 31 Features) and D2 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.) 5. Before any street tree planting takes place in accordance with the approved landscaping scheme as required by condition 4 above, further details of soil volumes together with a specification and details for a proposed crated soil system under hard paving for use in extension tree pits shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The soil volumes, locations and trees shall be provided in accordance with the approved details as part of the landscaping scheme and implementation timetable required by condition 4 above. (Reason - to allow the street trees proposed to properly survive and prosper therefore additional details are required in the interests of the visual amenity of the development to accord with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), D2 (Landscape requirements and D3 (Trees and Development Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031). 6. Should any contamination of soil and/or ground or surface water be discovered during excavation of the site or the development, the Local Planning Authority shall be contacted immediately. Site activities in the area affected shall be temporarily suspended until such time as a method and procedure for addressing the contamination is agreed upon in writing with the Local Planning Authority and/or other regulating bodies. (Reason: To ensure that any contamination existing and exposed during the development is identified and remediated in accordance with policy EN16 (Contaminated Land) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and with the National Planning Policy Framework.) 7. All walls and fences shall be erected in accordance with the approved details (Enclosures Plan 1114 Rev E and drawing numbers 1400 Rev C, 1401 Rev B, 1402 Rev B, 1403 Rev B, 1404 Rev B, 1405 Rev A) within, adjacent to or around the curtilage of the relevant dwelling before it is first occupied. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) () Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification), these walls and fences shall not thereafter be altered, removed or replaced without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: In the interests of preserving and enhancing the appearance of the area and/or protecting the privacy of local residents, in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031). 8. The development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details of finished floor levels and finished ground levels unless any variation is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

page 32 (Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the locality and the amenity of occupiers, in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031). 9. No development above foundation level on any of the dwellings hereby permitted shall take place until details of materials to be used externally for the buildings have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details to be submitted shall be based on the approved Materials Plan no. 1111 Rev D. The development shall be built using the materials approved. (Reason: To ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031). 10. The buildings comprised in the development hereby approved shall be constructed so that their internal systems for space and water heating are capable of being connected to the proposed decentralised energy network. Prior to the occupation of the development, necessary on site infrastructure shall be put in place for connection of those systems to the network at points on the site boundary agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: In the interests of sustainable development and to support the opportunities for decentralised energy supply systems to accord with Strategy 40 (Decentralised Energy Networks) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and policy contained within the National Planning Policy Framework). 11. No occupation of any part of the development shall be take place until a scheme for an External Lighting and Management Plan for the operational stage of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall provide details of the design, hours of use, locations and management of any exterior lighting within any public areas and communal parking areas (but not private gardens), including signage, floodlighting and road lighting. The lighting for the development shall then be installed and operated in accordance with the approved details. (Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the area, to protect future occupiers and protected species from excessive light levels and in the interests of airport safety in accordance with Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside), policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) and of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and policy contained within the NPPF). 12. No development above foundation level on any of the dwellings hereby permitted shall take place until a scheme for the provision of integral bird bricks and integral bat tubes/bricks on at least 50% the dwellings comprised in the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the physical details of the tubes/bricks, the location of the buildings which would be fitted and their position on the buildings. No dwelling approved to have a tube/brick shall be

page 33 occupied until the tube/brick has been provided on that dwelling in accordance with the approved details and it shall thereafter be maintained for the intended purpose (Reason: To ensure that the development mitigates against habitat loss and enhances biodiversity in accordance with Strategy 47 (Nature Conservation and Geology) and Policy EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and government policy contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and guidance in the National Planning Practice Guidance). 13. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Soil Resources Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Soil Resources Plan shall set out the procedures that will be put in place to ensure that all high quality soil resources on the site that will be displaced by the development are conserved and reused elsewhere in the locality. The Plan shall detail how high quality soil resources will be identified, how they will be stored and relocated and where they will be reused. The development shall thereafter only be carried out in accordance with the approved plan. (Reason - To ensure that the high quality soil resources at the site are conserved and re-used having regard to the site being identified as 'best and most versatile' land to accord with policy EN13 (Development on High Quality Agricultural Land) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and government policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. These details are required prior to the commencement of development as the soil resource will be affected from the start of operations on the site). 14. Prior to the occupation of a particular dwelling on the development hereby approved, the proposed sound insulation specifications for the glazed and ventilation elements for that particular dwelling shall be provided in accordance with the submitted Acoustic Design Statement AS11081.190430.ADS.V1.1, including figure 11081/GP1. Thereafter, the installed glazing and ventilation elements shall be retained in perpetuity. (Reason - To protect the amenities of future residents from noise, in accordance with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031). 15. Prior to any occupation of the development hereby permitted, a detailed site waste management plan for the operational stage of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The requirements of the approved site waste management plan shall be implemented in full during the operational stages of the development. (Reason- to ensure that the waste arising from the development is managed sustainably and responsibly in accordance with policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031, policy W4 of the

page 34 Devon Waste Plan 2014 and policy within the National Planning Policy for Waste). 16. Should an electricity sub-station be required on the site, prior details to show the location and appearance of the electricity sub-station shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority. The details submitted shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any commencement is made on the construction of the electricity sub-station and the electricity sub-station shall be sited and constructed in accordance with the approved details. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 15, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no further electricity sub-station shall be provided or the approved electricity sub-station(s) shall not be re-located or modified without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interests of the appearance of the development to secure a sensitive design and location for any electricity sub-station and protect areas of open space from an inappropriate location and/or design to accord with strategy 9 (Major Development at East Devon's West End) and policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031). 17. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The design of this permanent surface water drainage management system shall be in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in the Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment for the Proposed Residential Development at Tithebarn H5 Exeter Project Reference 18.10.246 dated May 2019 Revision PL03, together with the Drainage Layout Plan no. 1050 Rev PL04. No part of the development shall be occupied until the surface water management scheme serving that part of the development has been provided in accordance with the approved details and the drainage infrastructure shall be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development. (Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems in accordance with the requirements of policy EN22 (Surface water Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031. The details are required before commencement of development as the surface water drainage system will need to be installed in part or whole, at or soon after the start of the development). 18. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development site for the full period of its construction has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system shall satisfactorily

page 35 address both the rates and volumes, and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site. The approved surface water drainage management system shall be implemented during the whole construction period. (Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area in accordance with policy En18 (Maintenance of Water Quality and Quantity) and policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031. The details are required before commencement of development as the construction surface water drainage management system will need to be implemented from the start of the development and a plan needs to be demonstrated prior to the commencement of any works to ensure that surface water can be managed suitably without increasing flood risk downstream, negatively affecting water quality downstream or negatively impacting on surrounding areas and infrastructure). 19. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until details of the exceedance pathways and overland flow routes across the site in the event of rainfall in excess of the design standard of the proposed surface water drainage management system have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: To ensure that the surface water runoff generated from rainfall events in excess of the design standard of the proposed surface water drainage management system is safely managed in accordance with the requirements of policy EN22 (Surface water Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031. The details are required before commencement of development as the details are needed to form part of the overall surface water drainage system and this will need to be installed in part or whole, at or soon after the start of the development). 20. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until the full details of the adoption and maintenance arrangements for the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: To ensure that the development's permanent surface water drainage management systems will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development in accordance with the requirements of policy EN22 (Surface water Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031). 21. The vehicular access points, on-site turning areas and vehicular parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the "Planning Layout 1100 Rev Q", and thereafter they shall retained for those purposes at all times. (Reason: To provide adequate visibility to achieve safe and suitable accesses, turning areas and parking, in accordance with policy TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) and policy TC9 (Parking Provision in New

page 36 Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and with paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework). 22. Notwithstanding the submitted details, the footways to be provided on both sides of the main access road into the site (north-south alignment), as shown on the approved Planning Layout No.1100 Rev Q, shall be a minimum width throughout of 2 metres. (Reason: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance policy TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the NPPF). 23. No commencement shall be made for the construction of the main permanent access road into the site until details of a vehicular ramp into the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the ramp has been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter it shall be retained for those purposes at all times. (Reason: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance policy TC4 (Footways, Bridleway and Cycleways) and policy TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the National planning Policy Framework). 24. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to show how the west-east aligned pedestrian and cycle route shall be provided with a 3m effective width from the western boundary of the site through to the shared surface between plots 1 and 31 and from the shared surface between plots 12 and 13 through to the bank on the eastern boundary. The pedestrian and cycle route through the bank on the eastern boundary shall be not exceed 3m in width. The details to be submitted shall also include a timetable for the provision of the pedestrian and cycle route to be completed and open for use. The access route for pedestrians and cyclists shall have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved plans and timetable and shall thereafter be retained for those purposes at all times. (Reason: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance policy TC4 (Footways, Bridleway and Cycleways) and policy TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework). 25. Prior to commencement of the construction of any of the dwellings above ground level, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to show secure covered cycle parking provision for the development, except for units 18 to 23 and unit 25. The cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before the occupation of each dwelling unit to which the particular cycle parking relates.

page 37 (Reason - to ensure the dwellings are provided with adequate cycle parking in the interests of sustainable transport in accordance with policy TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031). 26. Notwithstanding the approved enclosure drawing 1114 Rev E and the details of close boarded fences and walls, prior to the occupation of any dwellings on the site, details to show how hedgehog movement will be provided for between gardens/private amenity space and to the surrounding land shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details to be submitted shall include suitable holes (13cm x 13cm) at ground level in close boarded fences and walls, appropriate signage and their locations. The approved details shall be incorporated into each property before it is occupied and thereafter they shall be maintained for the intended purpose and the hedgehog holes and signage shall not be blocked or removed. (Reason: To ensure that the development mitigates against habitat loss and enhances biodiversity in accordance with Strategy 47 (Nature Conservation and Geology) and Policy EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and government policy contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and guidance in the National Planning Practice Guidance).

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

The applicants attention is drawn to the accompanying s106 Agreement

Plans relating to this application:

18/3436.01 Protected Species 28.11.19 (amended) Report

acoustic design General 28.11.19 statement Correspondence

page 38 amended Design and Access 28.11.19 Statement revision PL03 Flood Risk Assessment 28.11.19 (amended)

1401 rev B : Proposed Combined 28.11.19 closeboard fence Plans (amended)

1400 rev C : Proposed Combined 28.11.19 brick wall Plans (amended)

1402 rev B : Proposed Combined 28.11.19 vertical railing Plans (amended)

1403 rev B : Proposed Combined 28.11.19 closeboard fence Plans (amended)

1404 rev B : Proposed Combined 28.11.19 1.8m boundary Plans hedge (amended)

1405 rev A : Proposed Combined 28.11.19 1.2m brick wall Plans (amended)

1015 rev PL03 : Other Plans 28.11.19 highways tracking plan (amended)

page 39 1170 rev B : Street Scene 28.11.19 streetscenes/sect ions (amended)

1113 rev D : Other Plans 30.01.20 waste collection plan (amended)

1100 Rev Q Layout 10.02.20

1114 Rev E: Other Plans 10.02.20 Enclosure plan

1115 Rev F: Other Plans 10.02.20 Indicative land ownership

1111 rev D : Other Plans 30.01.20 materials plan (amended)

1112 rev D : Other Plans 30.01.20 storey heights plan (amended)

1116 rev D : Other Plans 30.01.20 parking plan (amended)

1117 rev D : Other Plans 30.01.20 external works plan (amended)

1118 rev D : Other Plans 30.01.20 affordable

page 40 housing plan (amended)

1119 rev E : Other Plans 30.01.20 landscape external works (amended)

1120 rev D Landscaping 30.01.20 (amended)

1300 rev B L Proposed Combined 30.01.20 bin+cycle Plans store/elevations (amended)

1250 rev C : key General 30.01.20 to materials Correspondence (amended)

1240 rev G : Proposed Combined 30.01.20 house type G Plans (amended)

1232 rev G : Proposed Combined 30.01.20 house type D3 Plans (amended)

1231 rev F : Proposed Combined 30.01.20 house type D2 Plans (amended)

1230 rev K : Proposed Combined 30.01.20 house type F Plans (amended)

page 41 1229 rev G : Proposed Combined 30.01.20 house type E4 Plans (amended)

1227 rev G : Proposed Combined 30.01.20 house type E2 Plans (amended)

1226 rev G : Proposed Combined 30.01.20 house type E1 Plans (amended)

1224 rev F : Proposed Combined 30.01.20 house type C2 Plans (amended)

1223 rev I : Proposed Combined 30.01.20 house type C1 Plans (amended)

1222 rev K : Proposed Combined 30.01.20 house type B Plans (amended)

1220 rev I : Proposed Floor Plans 30.01.20 house type A (amended)

1221 rev E : Proposed Elevation 30.01.20 house type A (amended)

1011 rev PL05 : Other Plans 30.01.20 kerbing plan (amended)

page 42 1040 rev PL04 : Other Plans 30.01.20 external works levels (amended)

1050 rev PL04 : Layout 30.01.20 drainage layout (amended)

3999 PJA Transport Statement 10.05.19

1010 PL06 : Layout 30.01.20 section 38

1228 Rev G: Proposed Combined 30.01.20 House type G Plans

Tree Survey General 10.05.19 Correspondence

Land at Archaeological Report 10.05.19 Monkerton+Redh ayes

GCE00105/R2 General 10.05.19 Site Investigation Correspondence

18/3436.01 Ecological Assessment 10.05.19 Devon Wildlife

Air Quality General 10.05.19 Correspondence

1121 Rev B Location Plan 20.05.19

List of Background Papers

page 43 Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

page 44 ORIGINAL REPORT Committee Date: 3rd March 2020

Broadclyst Target Date: (Broadclyst) 19/0995/MFUL 14.02.20

Applicant: Eagle One MMlll

Location: Land South Of Mosshayne Link Road Redhayes (Phase 8)

Proposal: Erection of 33 dwellings and associated works

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 is adopted; and

2. APPROVE subject to the completion of the S106 Agreement and conditions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This application is before Members as it is a departure from Local Plan policy. This is a full planning application for the construction of 33 dwellings with associated infrastructure on phase 8 of the Redhayes/Tithebarn Green development close to the Exeter Science Park. The site is allocated for housing in the local plan and there is an extant planning permission for housing on this part of the Redhayes development. This current application is a full planning application because the 33 dwellings proposed would take the total number of units approved in detail on the wider Redhayes area to over the 580 units authorised by the outline planning permission. As such a reserve matters application could not be submitted. The application represents a departure from the local plan as Strategy 13 permits 1,500 houses in this location with a grant of this current planning application taking the total number to 1,513.

page 45 Overall, the application for housing is consistent with the Redhayes/Mosshayne development and the additional numbers would not be significant enough to raise an objection to the application. The proposed development was the subject of a Design Review Panel (DRP) assessment before the application was submitted. Some changes were incorporated for the application submission to address the DRP views but this was not considered sufficient to raise the standard of design to an acceptable level bearing in mind the government policy of achieving high quality places as outlined in Section 12 of the NPPF. As a result of this, further discussions have taken place and amendments have been made to the scheme to raise the quality and it is now acceptable and reasonably meets the DRP concerns. Permeability for pedestrians and cyclists has been improved and the car parking reduced in prominence. Technical matters, including drainage, have been addressed and the suggested S106 and conditions suitably control and mitigate the impact of the development. The application provides the required 25% affordable housing through 8 units on site plus a financial contribution. Overall, the principle of this development is considered to be acceptable and through the application process the quality of the scheme has been improved and is now considered to be acceptable.

CONSULTATIONS Local Consultations Parish/Town Council 05/06/19 - Thank you for consulting Broadclyst Parish Council. At its meeting on 4th June 2019, the Council resolved to submit the following comment on this application, which has previously been submitted to the developer’s agent at pre-app stage: Materials ' The materials used in this development are in keeping with the emerging character of the wider development. GI ' the proposals to retain and improve hedgerows are welcomed. The planting scheme throughout the parcel is appreciated as is the shared street design along the east-west pedestrian corridor. Parking ' House #10 has 2 parking bays split by a hedge; we suggest bays for 9, 10, and 11 be split into pairs as they are for #12-14 and #20-23. House #15-19 comprise 4 x 3-bed and 1 x 2-bed, served by 7 parking spaces. This is inconsistent with the rest of the development which provides and appreciated 2 spaces per 3 or 4-bed and 1 per 2-bed dwelling; such provision is likely to encourage on-street parking beyond the designated parking areas, especially on the grass verges in front of 15, 16, 18, and 19. It is not clear from diagram B-B on p13 of the proposals how the coach house will provide off- street parking and access to the rear courtyard.

page 46 Gardens ' house 27-29 are 3-bed properties, however the garden for 28 is very small compared to those of 27 and 29. Suggest the boundary between 27/28 be moved toward the south west slightly to be brought in line with the boundary for each property. Similarly, the gardens for 30 and 31 are different sizes. Properties 32 and 33 are the largest ones, benefitting from informal green space to the front, however property 32 would benefit from access through the garden from the garage/parking area. Would turning properties through 45 degrees clockwise so they are parallel with the footpath enable better use of the garden space to the rear and improve the view from 32 towards the recreation space? The Council is supportive in principle of this proposal but requests these comments be considered to improve the quality of life for future residents. Adjacent Parish Council 13/06/19 – supports the submission forwarded by Broadclyst Parish Council and believes that a higher standard of build is achievable on this site. It has no objection in principle.

Technical Consultations DCC Flood Risk SuDS Consultation 10/01/20 - We have no in-principle objections to the above planning application, from a surface water drainage perspective, at this stage. If the Planning Case Officer is minded to grant planning permission in this instance, I request that the following pre-commencement planning condition/s is/are imposed: 1. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with as the Lead Local Flood Authority. The design of this permanent surface water drainage management system will be in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in the Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment for the Proposed Residential Development at Tithebarn H5 Exeter Project Reference 18.10.246 dated May 2019 Revision PL03. No part of the development shall be occupied until the surface water management scheme serving that part of the development has been provided in accordance with the approved details and the drainage infrastructure shall be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development. Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems. Advice: Refer to Devon County Council's Sustainable Drainage Guidance. 2. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development site for the full period of its construction has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system must satisfactorily address both the rates and volumes, and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site.

page 47 Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area. Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: A plan needs to be demonstrated prior to the commencement of any works to ensure that surface water can be managed suitably without increasing flood risk downstream, negatively affecting water quality downstream or negatively impacting on surrounding areas and infrastructure. Advice: Refer to Devon County Council's Sustainable Drainage Guidance. 3. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until details of the exceedance pathways and overland flow routes across the site in the event of rainfall in excess of the design standard of the proposed surface water drainage management system have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. Reason: To ensure that the surface water runoff generated from rainfall events in excess of the design standard of the proposed surface water drainage management system is safely managed. 4. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the full details of the adoption and maintenance arrangements for the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development's permanent surface water drainage management systems will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development. Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: These details need to be submitted prior to commencement of any works to ensure that suitable plans are in place for the maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage management plan, for the reason above. Observations: The applicant has submitted the Ground Investigation Report Tithebarne Lane, Clyst Honiton, Exeter, Report, GCE00556/R1 dated June 2015 Version 1 which demonstrates that infiltration is not viable at this site. Above ground attenuation is not feasible due to current SWW adoption requirements. The applicant is proposing to attenuate the runoff in a below ground tank with restricted discharge into a surface water sewer which ultimately discharges to the Pinn Brook. 08/01/20 - At this stage, we object to this planning application because we do not believe that it satisfactorily conforms to Policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan (2013-2031). The applicant will therefore be required to submit additional information in order to demonstrate that all aspects of the proposed surface water drainage management system have been considered. Observations: Following my previous consultation response FRM/ED/0995/2019, dated 12th June 2019, the applicant has submitted additional information in relation to the surface water drainage aspects of the above planning application, for which I am grateful.

page 48 - Flood Risk And Drainage Assessment for the Proposed Residential Development at Tithebarn H5 Exeter, Project Reference 18.10.246 dated May 2019 Rev PL03 The applicant has kindly updated the FRA report to include the modelling results for the 1 in 100 year event and confirmed the attenuation volume required.

However, as stated in my previous response, the Site Investigation Report GCE00105/R2 dated July 2011 states that soakaway testing was not undertaken due to access constraints for plant. Further testing was undertaken in June 2015 and these results should be submitted to the local planning authority. 12/06/19 - Although we have no in-principle objection to the above planning application at this stage, the applicant must submit additional information, as outlined below, in order to demonstrate that all aspects of the proposed surface water drainage management system have been considered. Observations: The applicant should submit the attenuation calculation for the 1 in 100 year plus 40% design event to ensure the drainage design complies with the Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems dated March 2015. In addition it is noted that the Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment 18.10.246 dated May 2019 section 4.2.04 indicates an attenuation volume of 93 m3 whereas the accompanying outputs indicate 109 m3 for the 1 in 30 year event. The applicant should provide clarification on the volumes and update the report accordingly. It is noted that the Site Investigation Report GCE00105/R2 dated July 2011 states that soakaway testing was not undertaken due to access constraints for plant. Further testing was undertaken in June 2015 and these results should be submitted to the local planning authority. If additional information is submitted to the local planning authority, we would be happy to provide another substantive response. Environmental Health

03/12/19 - I have no further response to make from my previous comments of 09.07.19. 09/07/19 - I have considered this application and the noise report submitted by Clarke Saunders acoustics and I am satisfied with the design principals detailed in the report and the conclusion discussed within the same document. Therefore providing these specifications are met as the minimum standards I have no further comments to make. Contaminated Land Officer- Environmental Health 20/06/19 - I have reviewed and assessed the Geo Consulting Engineering Ltd Site Investigation Report titled "Redhayes, Exeter Report: GCE00105/R2 July 2011 - General Correspondence 19/0995/MFUL" and note the conclusions and recommendations in chapter 10 pages 50 to 51. 10.2 PPS23 - Land contamination The following conclusions and recommendations are relevant to PPS23 Annex 2 "Development on land affected by contamination"

page 49 o Chemical analysis of the soils encountered confirms acceptable concentrations when compared to current guideline values for residential development. Vanadium concentrations are close to LQM GAC values for allotments. However this is quite common for soils within the Exeter area, and is likely to be of natural origin. The chemical analysis includes targeted sampling and analysis of the soils beneath the former barn within field 4. o Chemical analysis of the water in Pinn Brook indicates slightly elevated Ammoniacal Nitrogen (NH3) compared to provisional freshwater EQS value. This result provides a baseline, suggesting an upstream source such as sewage discharging to the stream from the off-site treatment works. o Preliminary soil gas monitoring suggest near normal ground gas composition. Further monitoring in-line with current guidance is recommended to confirm this finding. This ideally should include six monitoring visits over a period of three months. The reason for this recommendation is based on soil gas monitoring undertaken by others on the adjacent Science Park where there was a recommendation for characteristic situation 2. o Provision for basic radon protection is suggested, in addition a geological report should be commissioned to confirm the requirement if any for radon protection measures DCC Highway DM Officer for Exeter, East of Exeter 16/12/19 - Observations: The submitted application is for the erection of 33 dwellings and associated works at the land south of Mosshayne Link Road, Redhayes (Phase 8). Trip Generation A transport assessment has been submitted with the application; analysis from the TRICS database (for consistency the trip rates for the adjacent Redhayes scheme has been used) has been provided, gauging the likely traffic generation of the proposed development. The resultant vehicle trip rates and associated traffic generation indicate that there will be 21 two-way trips in the AM Peak and 19 two-way trips on the PM Peak. Notwithstanding this, the application site is in a sustainable location. There will be buses running along Mosshayne Link Road and is located adjacent to a proposed school and local centre. Henceforth, given the above, the vehicular impact of the development cannot be deemed as severe and cannot form a reason for refusal. Access/On site layout The primary vehicular access point is proposed via an existing raised T-junction onto the Southern Mosshayne Link Road (SMHLR), which is acceptable in principle. However, it is noticed that within the site, there a missing ramp down into the onsite layout, where footways are proposed. There are some properties direct access off the SMHLR with the rest of the properties being served off dropped kerbs or parking courts within the site. The actual vehicular access points from the development onto the surrounding highway network has sufficient visibility requirements (2.4m x 43m) meeting the existing 30mph speed limit and therefore, in principle is acceptable. In the spirit of the NPPF, the applicant should be maximising the sustainable links on site.

page 50 It is noted that a 1.8m footway is to be provided on the both sides of the access road - it is expected that this should be 2m in width in accordance with MfS (section 6.3.22). This is also conditioned. Furthermore, when the land for the proposed local centre comes forward (to the west) together with the school (to the east) there will be a key desire line for pedestrians and cyclists. It is thought that vehicular levels are likely to be low in this section of highway and therefore shared space is being promoted; this is acceptable, however 3m effective width connection points on the red line boundary (to the west and east) are required safeguarding a suitable route through the site. The LPA should be made aware that there is limited visibility for the parking court serving plots 29 to 32, however, this is on private land. There are however a few elements of the design which are overly highway focused for residential streets. Options to provide a lower speed environment that better encompasses the manual for streets philosophies should be refined through the Section 38 process. The applicant is reminded that the highway authority will expect blacktop and/or imprint on the adoptable areas (and not block paving). The highway authority will not be responsible over the maintenance of trees. Parking The onsite layout appears to have enough parking spaces on site together with a number of visitor parking bays. These vehicular spaces and access points should be secured by condition. The submitted plans show that there is sufficient space to turn around and exit in forward gear. It is not clear if secure covered cycle parking has been provided for all of the dwellings proposed. To complement the good links to cycle routes, a condition is recommended to ensure secure cycle parking is provided. It is acknowledged that a bin and cycle store plan has been submitted. Travel Planning In accordance with paragraph 111 of the NPPF the development will be required to have a Travel Plan. DCC is currently adopting an approach for residential Travel Planning in the Exeter area with contributions paid directly to the Council for them to implement the Travel Plan and its measures. Consequently, a contribution of £500 per dwelling should be secured as part of any S106 agreement. This is akin to the contributions sought in adjacent developments. Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, RECOMMENDS THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN ANY GRANT OF PERMISSION:- 1. Financial contributions and as set out in the informative to be secured by an appropriate agreement (Travel Planning Contributions). 2. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use until the vehicular access points, on site turning areas and vehicular parking spaces as indicated on "Planning Layout Rev N", have been provided and maintained in accordance with

page 51 details that shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and retained for that purpose at all times REASON: To provide adequate visibility to achieve a safe and suitable access, in accordance with paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use until details of pedestrian footway widths through the site have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the widths have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved plans retained for those purposes at all times. REASON: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the NPPF 4. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use until details of vehicular ramp into the site have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the details of ramp have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved plans retained for those purposes at all times. REASON: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the NPPF 5. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use until 3m effective width pedestrian/cycle access points next to parking bays serving plots 1 and 12 have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the details of access points have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved plans retained for those purposes at all times. REASON: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the NPPF. 6. Prior to commencement of the development, details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority of secure cycle parking provision for the development. Development shall not be commenced until such details have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and prior to occupation the cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the submitted details. REASON: To provide adequate facilities for sustainable transport and in accordance with Policy TC9 of the EDDC local plan. Housing Strategy Officer Melissa Wall 07/06/19 - This reserved matters application is for 33 dwellings and forms part of the Tithebarn/Redhayes area. This site is not being brought forward under the outline planning consent for the area therefore the existing S106 agreement does not apply. In accordance with strategy 34 this site forms part of the major strategic 'West End' sites and a target of 25% affordable housing is sought (8.25 units). The tenure split should be 70% (6 units) rented accommodation and 30% shared ownership (2 units) or another form of low cost home ownership as defined in NPPF. The applicant is complying with this in their proposal.

page 52 The applicant is proposing to provide 8 units of affordable housing on-site with a commuted sum amounting to £12,448 for the remainder (0.25). A Section 106 agreement will be entered into which will secure the affordable housing provision, including the commuted sum, and will detail how the affordable units will be occupied on completion. The affordable units should be transferred to and managed by a preferred registered provider.

The proposal is to provide 6 x 1 bedroom apartments for rent and 2 houses (1x 2 bed & 1x 3 bed) for shared ownership. The apartments are contained within a block with each flat having a separate entrance, which is a good design feature. The sizes of the flats are good. The two houses for shared ownership are on the small size at 66.9 sq m for the 2 bed and 79.9 sq m for the 3 bed, although this is less of an issue for this tenure. The parking provision is good with the houses having 2 spaces each and the apartments 1 space each. The affordable units are all located in the North West corner and are not dispersed throughout the development. Whilst there are benefits for the affordable housing provider in having them in one area under local plan policy they should be pepper-potted. South West Water 23/05/19 - I refer to the above application and would advise that South West Water has no objection Police Architectural Liaison Officer - Kris Calderhead

11/06/19 - Thank you on behalf of Devon and Cornwall Police for the opportunity to comment on this application. It is pleasing to note that Community Safety has been referenced in the Design and Access Statement and that the principles of Secured by Design have been incorporated into the design. I have no objections to the application but include below some observations and recommendations. Boundary Treatments Any existing or new hedgerow that is likely to comprise new rear garden boundaries must be fit for purpose. They should be of sufficient height and depth to provide both a consistent and effective defensive boundary as soon as residents move in. If additional planting will be required to achieve this then temporary fencing may be required until such planting has matured. Any hedge must be of a type which does not undergo radical seasonal change which would affect its security function. Additionally, clear ownership and responsibility for the hedge must be established in order to ensure its effective maintenance and upkeep. Any retained hedge is often better kept within public space/realm rather than private garden, as is often easier to maintain. Where parking spaces abut rear gardens e.g. plots 27, 29-33, it would be desirable for the 1800mm close boarded timber fence/brick wall to be changed for 1500mm fencing/wall supplemented with 300mm trellis to 1800mm in order to aid surveillance. This would increase surveillance opportunities in the parking court and reduce the fear of crime. Lighting Presumably the site will be adopted and lit as per normal guidelines (BS 5489). I note and welcome that 'where rear parking is proposed the spaces will benefit from…good lighting'.

page 53 This should be implemented as often parking courts are left unlit which can contribute to an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour as well as the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour. Cycle & Bin Stores (Plots 18-23)

Bin stores can become a target for anti-social behaviour and also be an arson risk. Therefore where separate communal bin storage has been utilised, it is recommended that they conform to SBD standard as set out in Secured by Design New Homes 2016. SBD guidance is that bin stores should be fully enclosed (with exception to a ventilation space between the roof and the wall shells). External doors should have no windows and be fitted with a secure door set that meets the same physical specification as external doors detailed in the same document i.e. - PAS 24:2016, - STS 201 Issue 4:2012 - LPS 1175 Issue 7.2 (2014) Security Rating 2+ - STS 202 Issue 3 (2011) Burglary Rating 2 or - LPS 2081 Issue 1 (2015) Security Rating B+ Communal cycle storage areas must also be adequately secure as cycle theft is a threat to any new development. Stores should be lit using vandal resistant light fittings and energy efficient lamps. External containers specifically designed for the secure storage of bicycles and other property should be certificated to LPS 1175 SR 1 or Sold Secure Bronze or greater, with internal locking points to Sold Secure standards or LPS 1175. Where bicycle storage is provided in a robust shed, the minimum requirements for the shed construction and security are as follows: - 38x50mm (min) planed timber frame - Floor and roof constructed from 11mm boards (min) - 10x125mm (min) Tongue & Grooved board - No window to be present - Door hinges, hasp and staple to be coach-bolted through the shed structure 'Sold Secure' Silver or LPS 1654 Issue 1:2013 SR1 standard padlock to be used - Shall be securely fixed to a suitable substrate foundation - The bicycle security anchor shall also be certificated to 'Sold Secure' Silver Standard or LPS 1175 Issue 7.2 (2014) SR1 and securely fixed to the concrete foundation in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications - Proprietary wall-mounted anchoring systems certificated to Sold Secure Silver standard and installed according to the manufacturer's specifications are acceptable Physical Protection

page 54 All external doors and accessible windows should comply with the requirements of Approved Document Q (ADQ) of the Building Regulations and Secured by Design (SBD) standards as set out in Secured by Design Homes 2016. Exeter & Devon Airport - Airfield Operations+Safeguarding 09/07/19 - This proposal has been examined from an Aerodrome Safeguarding aspect and does not appear to conflict with safeguarding criteria. In terms of the Air Navigation Order, it is an offence to endanger an aircraft or its occupants by any means. In view of this I have included, as attachments, some safeguarding notes which all developers and contractors must abide by during construction and commissioning. These include: AoA Advice notes. Advice Note 4 Cranes can been seen under the Document Tab. 4 Cranes and other Construction Issues. Accordingly, Exeter Airport have no safeguarding objections to this development provided that all safeguarding criteria are met, as stipulated in the AoA Advice Notes, and there are no changes made to the current application. EDDC – Landscape Architect 10/02/20 - I have checked through the latest drawing amendments for the above application and am satisfied that these adequately address previous concerns raised.

10/07/19 1 Introduction This report forms the EDDC’s landscape response to the full application for the above site. The report provides a review of landscape related information submitted with the application in relation to adopted policy, relevant guidance, current best practice and existing site context and should be read in conjunction with the submitted information.

2 Landscape response 2.1 Overview A previous scheme was submitted by the applicant for independent design review. The Design Review Panel (DRP) advised that the proposal fell far short of an acceptable layout and that the scheme was compromised by excessive parking requirements, a high proportion of detached dwellings and poor coherence with open space opportunities beyond the site boundaries. The panel also noted that the Mosshayne Link Road (MLR) frontage was too fragmented and lacked opportunity for tree planting and that the western boundary was too inward looking and dwellings should front the open space to the west. The present application provides for the same number of dwellings but has been amended from the scheme submitted for Design Review. While the revised layout has taken on board some of the DRP comments such as frontage of the MLR and western boundary, other changes have exacerbated issues raised by DRP, particularly an over dominance of car parking and a reduction in planting that could otherwise help to soften the built form.

page 55 Other recommendations such as the creation of clear and attractive access points between the development and adjacent POS and changing the detached units on the southern boundary to terraced units have been ignored. It is recognised that the scheme is constrained by an awkward red line boundary area and uncertainty regarding the land/use and design of the open space to the west which makes it difficult to provide a fully integrated design solution with adjacent land. The DRP also recommended that planting along the MLR should reflect the sections consented to the west and east, however, the MLR to the immediate site frontage is already consented and the site layout reflects the approved alignment of the road, and adjacent foot and cycle paths which limits scope for on street planting. Page 2 of 4

2.2 Detail response Housing density While the design has responded to some of the issues raised by the DRP, essentially it seems that the housing density proposed is too great and it is considered that at least three units should be dropped in order to provide a satisfactory layout that is attractive, makes a positive contribution to road frontages and is well connected to surrounding public open space. Planting The current layout severely limits scope for planting areas which could otherwise help to soften the built form and provide amenity value. The MLR frontage limits tree planting opportunities allowing just two possible locations for trees between the building line and the footway. Within the site many of the planting beds are too narrow to support viable plant growth that can make a significant contribution to the street scene. The planting beds to the south side of the apartment block, north side of the boundary to plot 17 and south side of plots 15, 31 and 32 and tree pits between parking bays to the fronts of plots 3 and 10 are unfeasibly narrow. Further planting blocks are needed to break up the run of parking bays to the fronts of plots 1- 4 and 9-12. The proposed native hedge forming the southern boundary to the POS is shown as 0.8m wide. To be viable allowance should be made for a native hedge to grow to 2m width and the width of the planting bed should be a minimum of 1.5m wide particularly where it is abutting a fence line. The proposed hedge to the western boundary is shown as 0.5m width, which is too narrow. A minimum 1m width planting bed should be provided. Existing hedgerow Where the existing hedgerow to the eastern site boundary abuts private gardens a post and wire-mesh fence should be provided, offset 1m from the inside face of the hedge to demarcate the limit of private ownership. Land to the hedge side of the fence should be retained within the ownership of a management company. Such fencing should be indicated on the enclosures plan. The parking bays to plots 18 and 23 are too close to the hedge and are likely to impinge the root protection area. A minimum 1m margin should be provided between the face of the hedge and the edge of the parking area.

page 56 Plot 12 is also too close to the eastern boundary hedge. Construction works are likely to encroach on the root protection area and the hedge is likely to continually grow over the access path to the property. The unit should be moved away from the hedge line to provide a minimum 1m verge between the face of the hedge and the property boundary which should be demarcated by a post and wire fence. The eastern end of the access road to the front of plot 12 is similarly too close to the hedge line and should be set back 1m from the face of the hedge.

Public open space within development The small POS area within the development has been reduced from the scheme presented to DRP but still appears to attempt to provide play provision. Given the small size of the space and its Page 3 of 4 proximity immediately in front of plots 32-33 it is unlikely to provide an adequate play function and could become a nuisance for the adjoining residents. As recommended by the DRP it would be better for this space to be incorporated in front gardens. Enclosure The proposed short length of 1.8m high brick wall on the western boundary to the rear garden of plot 1 appears arbitrary and awkward and it would be better and more consistent if the southern boundary hedge were extended along this boundary to meet the proposed railings. The rear boundary to plots 1-12 should comprise a suitable mesh fence, minimum 1.5m high, rather than close boarded timber in order to allow light to eh base of the proposed hedge to the south. Alignment of access roads There is scope to realign the main access road by approximately 2m to the west of plot 15. This would provide a greater width of planting to the east side. At the point where the footway to the west side of the main access road ends, in between plots 32-33 the proposed road width increase to 6m. This seems unnecessary and should be reduced to 4.4m. The front garden areas to plots 5-8 could be extended northwards by 1.8m which would help to break up the wide straight run of the adjacent access road. Surfacing Beyond the limit of adoption the access road should be designed as shared use and there is no need to demarcate a footway over it and the entire roadway should be block paved. Pedestrian circulation. The connections to adjacent public open space are provided by narrow breaks in boundary hedge planting from each of the abutting access road. The openings should be centred on the access road and a better integration designed with the adjacent areas of POS. The proposed arrangement is uninviting particularly at the eastern end where the boundary hedge to either side will be high. A wider opening with grass verge to either side should be created. Agreement should be sought to provide a surfaced link path to join with the proposed path network through the open space. Cycle storage

page 57 There does not appear to be any provision for cycle storage for the apartment block. Sufficient covered storage space should be provided to accommodate a minimum of two bikes per apartment. 3 Conclusion and Recommendations The proposed scheme is considered an overdevelopment of the site. This has a detrimental impact on the quality of the layout and amenity value of the site. The proposals are also likely to adversely affect the existing eastern boundary hedgerow which is recommended for retention within the ecological report as part of a wider habitat corridor.

As such the current scheme is considered unacceptable in terms of landscape design and impact. A revised scheme with a lower density of housing should be designed that takes account of the above comments. The following additional information will be required as a condition of any approval: a) Soil resource plan which should include the following:  a plan showing topsoil and subsoil types, and the areas to be stripped and left in-situ.  methods for stripping, stockpiling, re-spreading and ameliorating the soils.  location of soil stockpiles and content (e.g. Topsoil type A, subsoil type B).  schedules of volumes for each material.  expected after-use for each soil whether topsoil to be used on site, used or sold off site, or  subsoil to be retained for landscape areas, used as structural fill or for topsoil manufacture.  identification of person responsible for supervising soil management. b) A detailed planting plan indicating proposed species, form, numbers and planting density of proposed trees, planting and grass areas. c) Planting specification including proposed soil specification, soil depths, cultivation, weed control planting and seeding details and means of protection. d) Tree root volume calculations and tree pit and staking details. e) A 10 year management and maintenance plan including:  Extent, ownership and responsibilities for management and maintenance.  Details of how the management and maintenance of open space/ communal areas will be funded for the life of the development. Inspection and management arrangements for existing and proposed trees and hedgerows.  Management and maintenance of trees, planting and grass areas.  Management and enhancement of biodiversity value.  Management and maintenance of any boundary structures, drainage swales and other infrastructure/ facilities within public/ communal areas. All planting and associated landscape works shall be completed no later than the planting season following first occupation of any dwelling on the development.

page 58 Any trees, plants or grass areas that fail to make satisfactory growth or die within the first five years following completion shall be replaced with plants of similar size, form and species to the satisfaction of the LPA. Natural England 24/07/19 - Thank you for your email consulting Natural England on the Appropriate Assessment for the above development in accordance with Paragraph 63 (3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Please be advised that, on the basis of the appropriate financial contributions being secured to the South-East Devon European Sites Mitigation Strategy (SEDESMS), Natural England concurs with your authority’s conclusion that the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC, East Devon Heaths SPA, Exe Estuary SPA and Exe Estuary RAMSAR site. 05/06/19 - DESIGNATED SITES [EUROPEAN] - FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED Habitats Regulations Assessment - Recreational Impacts on European Sites. This development falls within the 'zone of influence' for the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC, East Devon Heaths SPA and Exe Estuary SPA, as set out in the Local Plan and the South East Devon European Sites Mitigation Strategy (SEDEMS). It is anticipated that new housing development in this area is 'likely to have a significant effect', when considered either alone or in combination, upon the interest features of the SAC/SPA due to the risk of increased recreational pressure caused by that development. In line with the SEDEMS and the Joint Approach of Exeter City Council, Teignbridge District Council and East Devon District Council, we advise that mitigation will be required to prevent such harmful effects from occurring as a result of this development. Permission should not be granted until such time as the implementation of these measures has been secured. Natural England's advice is that this proposed development, and the application of these measures to avoid or reduce the likely harmful effects from it, may need to be formally checked and confirmed by your Authority, as the competent authority, via an appropriate assessment in view of the European Site's conservation objectives and in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). This is because Natural England notes that the recent People Over Wind Ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union concluded that, when interpreting article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, it is not appropriate when determining whether or not a plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a site and requires an appropriate assessment, to take account of measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on that site. The ruling also concluded that such measures can, however, be considered during an appropriate assessment to determine whether a plan or project will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European site. Your Authority should have regard to this and may wish to seek its own legal advice to fully understand the implications of this ruling in this context. Natural England advises that it is a matter for your Authority to decide whether an appropriate assessment of this proposal is necessary in light of this ruling. In accordance with the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), Natural England must be consulted on any appropriate assessment your Authority may decide to make. Highways England

page 59 06/06/19 - Referring to the notification of a planning application dated 21 May 2019 referenced above, in connection with the A30(T) and M5 J29, for the erection of 33 dwellings and associated works, at Land South of Mosshayne Link Road, Redhayes (Phase 8), Exeter, Devon, notice is hereby given that Highways England's formal recommendation is that we: a) Offer no objection; Highways Act Section 175B is not relevant to this application. This represents Highways England formal recommendation and is copied to the Department for Transport as per the terms of our Licence. Where relevant, further information will be provided within Annex A.

Should you disagree with this recommendation you should consult the Secretary of State for Transport, as per the Town and Country Planning (Development Affecting Trunk Roads) Direction 2018, via [email protected]. Annex A Highways England recommended no objections HIGHWAYS ENGLAND ("we") has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network (SRN). The SRN is a critical national asset and as such works to ensure that it operates and is managed in the public interest, both in respect of current activities and needs as well as in providing effective stewardship of its long-term operation and integrity. This response represents our formal recommendations with regard to planning application reference 19/0995/MFUL and has been prepared by the Planning Manager for the SRN in Devon. We have undertaken a review of the submitted documents in line with the current requirements as detailed in DfT Circular 02/2013 "The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development" and the DCLG National Planning Policy Framework. Statement of Reasons Proposed Development This is an application for the erection of 33 dwellings and associated works, at land south of Mosshayne Link Road, Redhayes (Phase 8), Exeter, Devon, and within the land boundary of the consented Tithebarn Green Redhayes residential development (12/1291/MOUT), to the east of Tithebarn Link Road. A30 trunk road runs to the south of the site and J29 of the M5 is located approximately 600m to the west. A Transport Statement (TS) dated April 2019 has been submitted in support of the application, prepared by PJA. Policy Background The site is located within the 'West End' area of East Devon. It is allocated as part of the North of Blackhorse' development under Strategies 9 and 13 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013- 2031 (adopted 2016). The Tithebarn Green Redhayes development was consented in 2012 for up to 580 dwellings, with a local centre and 8,850sqm commercial floorspace. Whilst the site is located within the

page 60 land boundary of this approved development, the application is in addition to the residential quantum approved under that consent. Transport Assessment A Transport Assessment (TS) has been supplied in support of the application which utilises the same trips rates previously accepted for the Tithebarn Green Redhayes Highways England Planning Response (HEPR 16-01) January 2016 residential and commercial development (12/1291/MOUT). The use of these rates is accepted by Highways England. Based on these rates the development is predicted to generate an additional 21 and 19 two- way trips in the AM and PM peaks respectively. Whilst no traffic distribution analysis is provided, it is accepted that not all trips are likely to route through M5 J29. Therefore the additional impact over the existing consented uses at Tithebarn Green Redhayes (12/1291/MOUT) is unlikely to have a severe impact on the safe and efficient operation of the SRN, as defined by NPPF. M5 J29 M5 J29 currently experiences congestion during peak periods, and Highways England notes that existing consents at Tithebarn Green and Cranbrook are subject to planning conditions requiring the delivery of improvements at the nearby Moor Lane roundabout. Assessment work undertaken as part of this improvement scheme identifies that the upgrade is unlikely to provide capacity to accommodate growth in addition to the developments previously consented or assessed. Whilst it is accepted that the proposed development for an additional 33 dwellings is unlikely to cause significant worsening of the operation of M5 J29, Highways England will need to carefully consider the impact of future growth coming forward (outside that previously assessed). In view of the current capacity constraints at M5 J29, it is therefore likely that future development proposals will be required to mitigate any impact at this junction to ensure the continued safe and efficient operation of the SRN. Recommendation Notwithstanding the above, Highways England accepts that traffic movements arising from the proposed development are unlikely to have a severe impact on the safe and efficient operation of the SRN, as defined by NPPF. We therefore have no objection to application 19/0995/MFUL. EDDC Trees

17/06/19 - There are no existing trees on the site. I have discussed with Chris Hariades comments relating to the rear garden fences adjacent to the retained and proposed hedges. NHS Foundation Trust – Royal Devon and Exeter 17/06/19 - see report under "view associated documents" tab (received 17/06/2019). Essentially the Trust advises that they are operating at full capacity in the provision of acute and planned healthcare. It can plan for known population growth but not for unanticipated additional growth in the short to medium term. A contribution is sought for £47,276.00 for the Trust to provide services needed by the occupants of the new development for the first year. Other Representations: 07/02/20 – One email raising the following comments:

page 61 The Protected Species Report dated 25th June 2019 advises a 1:2 ratio of bird/bat boxes to dwellings. This is in line with a similar ratio at the adjacent Mosshayne site. This is a laudable mitigation measure. It would however, be even better if the bird homes were BIRD BRICKS, built into the wall and the bat roosts were bat tunnels or tubes. This suggestion is much more in line with current industry standards.

Ideally, this ratio should be 1:1 bird/bat bricks to dwellings, but this is a good compromise considering where this application stands at this time. Some national developers (Bovis, for example) are now going to install hedgehog highways on all new developments. I see no mention of this for this application. This is a very easy step to give wildlife (not only hedgehogs) a chance. Planners and Councillors have a great opportunity here (on this relatively small development) to set a standard and insist on this at the Decision Notice stage. The layout of trees is seen in the landscaping, but could be enhanced to increase towards a 25% tree cover for such developments. Planners and Planning committees should now be seriously addressing the climate change and species extinction emergency, head on. Developments throughout the district should be mitigated to allow biodiversity to substantially increase. National Planning Policy Framework Para 175 d) Development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported; while opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity. Local Plan 2013 Page 174 22 The Natural and Historic Environment EN5 - Wildlife Habitats and Features: Wherever possible sites supporting important wildlife habitats or features not otherwise protected by policies will be protected from development proposals which would result in the loss of or damage to their nature conservation value, particularly where these form a link between or buffer to designated wildlife sites. Where potential arises positive opportunities for habitat creation will be encouraged through the development process. Where development is permitted on such sites mitigation will be required to reduce the negative impacts and where this is not possible adequate compensatory habitat enhancement or creation schemes will be required and/or measures required to be taken to ensure that the impacts of the development on valued natural features and wildlife have been mitigated to their fullest practical extent. PLANNING HISTORY

page 62 12/1291/MOUT - Outline planning permission approved on 29th November 2013 for the construction of up to 930 dwellings, a new link road, employment area, park and ride, local centre, health and fitness centre, open space and associated servicing. This application was shared with Exeter City Council with 580 dwellings being located in EDDC area. This application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) under the EIA Regs.

15/1515/MRES - Approval of reserved matters approved on the 28th August 2015 for the construction of the northern phase of the link road with associated infrastructure and landscaping. This RMA has now been implemented. 16/0902/MRES - Approval of reserved matters on 8th June 2016 for the revised drainage scheme for the approved section of the link road, including the construction of a drainage pond and associated works. 16/1354/MRES - Approval of reserved matters on 5th October 2016 for the construction of the southern phase of the link road with associated infrastructure and landscaping. This section of the link road has just been completed. 16/1934/MRES - Approval of reserved matters on 25th July 2017 for the country park, SUDS and associated infrastructure. 16/1935/MRES - Approval of reserved matters on 14th February 2017 for the erection of 248 dwellings, public open space, landscaping, cycle, pedestrian and vehicular links. This development by BDWH has recently commenced. 17/0644/MRES - Approval of reserved matters on 29th August 2017 for the construction of the southern Mosshayne link road. 17/1825/MRES - Approval of reserved matters on 22nd November 2017 for creation of the central green corridor. 18/0382/MRES Approval of Reserved Matters on the 23rd May 2018 for the construction of 79 dwellings, including affordable housing, landscaping and associated infrastructure together with the partial discharge of certain conditions on the outline planning permission 18/0837/MRES Reserved matters application giving approval of appearance, landscaping, layout, access and scale for the development known as Phase 17 of Tithebarn Green. The proposed development comprises 160 dwellings, along with highway and drainage infrastructure and associated landscaping works. 18/1365/MRES Approval of reserved matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) application in relation to phase 18, pursuant to outline planning permission 12/1291/MOUT for the provision of a Park & Change facility with associated infrastructure and landscaping. The partial discharge of conditions 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 19 of application 12/1291/MOUT relating to phase 18. 19/0028/MRES Reserved Matters approval (access, appearance, landscaping , layout and scale) for the construction of 81 dwellings including affordable housing, landscaping and associated site infrastructure, pursuant to outline planning permission reference 12/1291/MOUT (phase 3). The partial discharge of conditions 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 17, 19, 20 and 21 of outline planning permission 12/1291/MOUT relating to phase 3.

POLICIES

page 63 Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways) TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development) TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones) Strategy 1 (Spatial Strategy for Development in East Devon) Strategy 2 (Scale and Distribution of Residential Development) Strategy 3 (Sustainable Development) Strategy 4 (Balanced Communities) Strategy 5 (Environment) Strategy 5B (Sustainable Transport) Strategy 9 (Major Development at East Devon's West End) Strategy 10 (Green Infrastructure in East Devon's West End) Strategy 11 (Integrated Transport and Infrastructure Provision at East Devon's West End) Strategy 13 (Development North of Blackhorse/Redhayes) Strategy 34 (District Wide Affordable Housing Provision Targets) Strategy 37 (Community Safety) Strategy 38 (Sustainable Design and Construction) Strategy 40 (Decentralised Energy Networks) Strategy 43 (Open Space Standards) Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs) Strategy 47 (Nature Conservation and Geology) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D2 (Landscape Requirements) D3 (Trees and Development Sites) EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) EN7 (Proposals Affecting Sites which may potentially be of Archaeological Importance) EN13 (Development on High Quality Agricultural Land) EN14 (Control of Pollution) EN18 (Maintenance of Water Quality and Quantity) EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development)

page 64 H2 (Range and Mix of New Housing Development) Government Planning Documents National Planning Practice Guidance Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019) Background The application site is located on phase 8 of the Redhayes outline planning permission 12/1291/MOUT - see history above. Within the parameter plans approved under the outline planning permission, the use of phase 8 is for residential and is to be developed at a lower density with a maximum building height of 2 to 2.5 storeys (9m). The outline planning permission specified up to 580 dwellings on the East Devon side. So far reserved matters approvals have been issued for phase 2 (248 units), phase 3 (81 units), phase 6 (79 units) and phase 17 (160 units), giving a total of 568 units. With the proposed 33 units, this takes the number to 601 units which is more than permitted in the outline planning permission. This application has therefore been submitted as a 'full' proposal as a reserved matters could not be submitted. The application site also forms part of the Development North of Blackhorse/Redhayes mixed use allocation under Strategy 13 of the Local Plan. Whilst the allocation in the local plan and the extant outline planning permission are clearly relevant to this application, nevertheless as a 'full' application, all material planning considerations must be considered as a whole. Before this application was submitted, the proposed development was referred to a Design Review Panel (DRP). The DRP letter on the original proposals was considered by the applicant which resulted in the scheme submitted with the application. This has again been amended following concerns that several of the DRP comments had not been adequately addressed. The report below considers the DRP comments relevant to the issues. Site location The site has an indicated area of 0.7765 ha and is currently agricultural land towards the south east part of the residential element of the Redhayes development site - 12/1291/MOUT. In the approved phasing plan, this site is known as phase 8. To the south, the land has permission for sports pitches and there is the proposed Local Centre to the west. The site slopes gently down towards the north east end with the highest parts of the site being towards the southern end. There is a fall in the site of about 2.5m. The northern boundary is marked by the new southern Mosshayne link road. To the east is open agricultural land which forms part of the undeveloped area of the Mosshayne development of 900 houses. To the south is open land with a consent for sports pitches. Further to the north of the southern Mosshayne link road is the recently started Persimmon development of 160 houses. There is not much on the site in the way of vegetation; this being mainly a bank running down the eastern boundary with a few trees further to the south of this and a poor condition hedgerow. To the north west of the site, running north-south, is the green corridor which forms an essential element of Green Infrastructure for the Redhayes development. This has recently been completed and was consented under a separation approval of reserved matters. The

page 65 land forming the western extremity of the site acts as a visual continuation of the green corridor. The proposed development Full planning permission is sought to construct 33 residential units on the site with associated infrastructure including a vehicular access, areas of landscaping and pedestrian/cycle links.

The original outline planning permission 12/1291/MOUT was EIA development. A screening opinion was submitted prior to this application being submitted which confirmed that whilst this development would be an extension/change to the Redhayes development, it would nevertheless not result in adverse environmental effects sufficient to trigger the need for an Environmental Statement. The details submitted through various amendments, show one vehicular access into the site from the consented junction on the southern Mosshayne Link Road (SMLR) leading into the site before terminating in an enlarged turning head from which private drives serve the development at the southern end of the development. The northern end of the site is served by parking courts with a limited amount of access points onto the SMLR. There would be a main pedestrian/cycle link running west-east through the central part of the site, partly on proposed adopted road and partly on private roads. The frontage to the SMLR is built up with a group of apartments and a terrace of units. The proposed houses are predominantly semi or detached units. The style of the units is predominantly contemporary with mostly traditional forms but with a number of more modern forms along the southern edge of the site backing onto the sports pitch land. The units are predominantly two storey with some 2.5 storey. At the south western side are some more contemporary, flat roofed units to a height of 3 storey where they face the Local Centre land. The western portion of the site is to be left open at this stage but it does form some of the underground surface water drainage system for the site. Details of the treatment/development of this part of the site are expected at some time. A draft S106 was submitted with the application to cover the following: Affordable Housing provision including a contribution for off-site provision to make up the small shortfall. Open Space provision and the use of the pedestrian/cycle link by the public. Habitats mitigation contribution Travel Plan contribution. The draft S106 has subsequently been amended to include the connection to the DHN. The development is CIL liable. A number of other supporting documents have been submitted as follows: 1) Design and Access Statement. 2) Ecological Appraisal. 3) Air Quality assessment. 4) Planning Statement.

page 66 5) Tree Survey and Tree Protection Plan. 6) Site Investigation report. 7) Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment. 8) Transport Statement. 9) Acoustic design Statement. 10) Archaeological Assessment.

Planning Analysis The site forms part of the Redhayes mixed use development which is allocated in the Local Plan (Strategies 9 and 13) for development including 1,500 homes and there is an extant outline planning permission - 12/1290/MOUT - which includes an overall provision for 580 houses. Taking into account the reserved matters approvals for the other residential phases both under construction and awaiting starts, this application would take the numbers of houses to 601 which exceeds the outline planning permission and consequently has resulted in this application being submitted as a "full" application. The overall housing number of 1,500 in the Local Plan includes the Mosshayne development for up to 900 houses. Therefore, this application and including the reserved matters approvals at Redhayes and the full Mosshayne permission, would result in 1,501houses but this doesn't include the current reserved matters application for 12 Science Park/key workers apartments on the Redhayes site (which would take the Redhayes development up to the full 580 units). Therefore in reality, this development would take the housing numbers to 1,513 i.e. 13 residential units over the policy threshold of 1,500. As a result of this, the application was advertised as a 'departure' because the 1,500 houses in Strategy 13 would be breached with this application by 13 units. The main in principle issue is therefore whether this additional number would be a significant or material breach of policy. The accompanying text with Strategy 13 suggests around 600 homes at Redhayes (580 is the true number) which would tend to indicate that the numbers specified in the strategy is not exact. An additional 13 units in relation to 1,500 houses overall is a small additional percentage (less than 1%) and would not be a significant or material breach of the strategy. Whilst the proposed development is strictly speaking over the Strategy 13 housing amount, it is not considered to be a robust reason to object in principle terms. As the site is both allocated and consented for housing (albeit the total number is slightly in excess), the principle of this housing application is considered to be acceptable in the balance of considerations. Whilst, the principle of the development is considered to be acceptable, there are still the outstanding issues of detail to be considered which could still make the proposed development unacceptable if found to not comply with the policies of the Local Plan and government policy contained within the NPPF, with guidance in the NPPG. These issues are discussed below. Design Review Panel comments The comments from the DRP were based on the original scheme which went through amendments before being submitted as an application. During the consideration of the application, the scheme has again been amended due to concerns that it did not adequately address the DRP comments. The current scheme has therefore gradually evolved to be more in line with the main comments raised by the DRP.

page 67 The main principle design criteria raised by the DRP, and subsequently addressed during the application, are briefly summarised below: 1) Connectivity and parking - the site is well related to open space and community facilities. Any scheme needs to relate well and integrate with the surroundings as an element of place making, it should not be car dominated and have good links to the surrounding land uses.

2) Public realm, open space & trees - there should be a high quality, strong frontage onto the streets particularly the SMLR with tree planting, street design and street furniture to improve the public realm. Terraces and a consistent street frontage should be developed. 3) Character & elevations - the DAS should justify and reference in relation to the Redhayes development, the house designs and several in particular were mentioned. Short terraces on the SMLR to establish density and the character aspirations of the primary street. Site Layout The layout has been developed through several iterations. The frontage to the SMLR is now more built-up with an apartment block and a terrace. The buildings have been moved back slightly to allow for more landscaping/street trees. The development facing the Local Centre now has greater bulk to integrate with the Local Centre building. The main access road has an improved frontage with landscaping. The development to the south end the site has a relatively uniform frontage and whilst it is still dominated by car parking, this has been improved. The layout now better relates and integrates with the surrounding open space/community facilities. The layout has significantly improved from the first scheme and now reasonably addresses the DRP comments. Appearance The general design of the buildings is contemporary with a palette of materials to generally match to rest of the Redhayes development. The Redhayes development is generally of a more modern design and overall the proposed development is in keeping. The designs have a traditional form except for those on the southern end of the site, but incorporate modern detailing. Roofs are pitched with a tiled finish, again except for the houses at the southern end which have a shallow mono-pitch and plots 28-31, at the western end of the site, which have a very shallow pitch hidden behind a parapet. Finishes for the walls are a mix of brick and render with feature details and some slate hanging. Building height The development is two storey in height with the four units (plots 28-31) at the North West corner being 3 storey. This is in keeping with the Redhayes development. Landscaping A landscaping scheme has been submitted with the application which does not include the detail but does illustrate the existing features and the main areas for proposed landscaping. This illustrates that the eastern boundary hedgebank and generally this is protected by keeping rear gardens away from the bank and securing it as a responsibility of the

page 68 management company. A hedge would be formed on the southern boundary to link to the eastern hedgebank as required in the ecology report. A landscaping area adjacent to the SMLR has been secured and enlarged to allow for landscaping and street tree planting. Otherwise amenity landscape areas are provided for in other parts of the development, particularly next to the roads/private accesses.

The landscaping has been assessed by the EDDC Landscape Architect and negotiations have taken place to secure a number of required improvements. Car Parking The DRP considered the provision and amount of car parking resulted in the development being excessively car dominated. This issue was again picked up during the application process as not sufficient progress on this had been achieved between the DRP and submission. The car parking has been slightly reduced and the integration with the development has been improved within the northern half of the development. However, the concern remained that the east-west access was still dominating the street scene and the applicant was requested to find ways of reducing this impact. This now has been broken up more with landscaping areas and the parking would not be so dominant in the street scene. Privacy and amenity The nearest housing to the site is on the north side of the SMLR where there is a reasonable separation distance. Internally to the site, there are no windows that would directly face from a close distance other windows. Some gardens are overlooked but not to an unacceptable extent. Overall there would not be an unreasonable loss of privacy for residents on the site or to the adjacent development. In terms of amenity, the main issue is the parking courts close to rear gardens and windows. To a certain extent, solid brick/render walls between car parking and gardens would help resolve this issue and amendments have been made to improve this. The main area of amenity concern is the close proximity of the parking area to the ground floor windows on the rear of the apartments. There is very little separation between the parking/access and main windows for the ground floor flats which could result in the poor level of amenity for occupiers. The applicant has been informed about this issue and has looked at ways of improving the amenity/privacy by moving the private access further away to provide a small landscape buffer area with a 1.2m high screen wall. This would provide some privacy and improve amenity for occupiers of the adjacent ground floor and is considered to be acceptable. Affordable Housing Strategy 34 of the Local Plan requires on this 'west end' allocated site, a level of 25% affordable housing (AH) with an agreed split in tenure of 70% rented accommodation and 30% shared ownership or other form of low cost home ownership. The development is providing 8 units located at the north east end of the site close to the southern Mosshayne link road. The policy requirement would need 8.25 units so the draft s106 provides for a commuted sum of £12,448 for the remaining 0.25 of a unit. The proposal is to provide 6 x 1 bedroom units in a single block for rent and two 2 bed units for shared ownership.

page 69 The current mix, unit size and parking has been agreed with our Housing Strategy Officer (HSO). Strategy 34 says that AH 'should' be 'pepper-potted' across the development. The HSO has concerns that the AH is not dispersed enough but recognises that RP's prefer the AH to be located in one area for ease of maintenance. The applicant has been asked to move the 6 apartments to the western boundary facing the Local Centre land but has declined to do this. As the policy is 'should', and there are benefits to a RP having the AH close together and due to the small number of AH units concerned, it is considered that the clustering would not be sufficient reason to object to the application. This is particularly bearing in mind that across the wider development of 580 dwellings, it is not unusual to have clusters of between 10-20 affordable units and as such the proposal will not be any different to this. The draft S106 has provisions for the delivery of the AH and the commuted sum. It does, however, include the possibility for the provision of at least 6 of the units being provided as Non-RP affordable dwellings with a specific management scheme. The HSO has asked for more information on this and accepts this as long as it is controlled through the s106. Habitat Regulations The site is located within 10km of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC and SPA together with the Exe Estuary SPA and Ramsar sites. During the operational phase, the development is likely to increase recreational pressures on these European sites which will likely have both direct and indirect significant effects when considered alone or in combination. This therefore requires the authority to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. This has been undertaken which also concludes that the proposed development, as it is within 10km, is likely to have significant effects on the interest features of these European sites. The joint approach for mitigation by the relevant local authorities relies on a mechanism by which developers can make contributions to mitigation measures delivered by the South East Devon Habitat Regulations Partnership. This is a CIL liable development so part of the CIL will be spent on mitigation with an additional mitigation contribution for non-infrastructure mitigation to be secured through a S106. The draft S106 provides for this contribution, currently at £201.61 per dwelling. Natural England was consulted on the AA (attached) and have advised that on the basis of the appropriate financial contributions being secured to the South-east Devon European Sites Mitigation Strategy, they would concur with this authorities conclusion in the AA that the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European Sites. It is for the LPA to adopt the AA and accordingly there is a further recommendation on this at the end of the report. Ecology Submitted with the application is an Ecology Appraisal as an up-date to the previous work undertaken including an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey undertaken early in 2019. The site generally has a low habitat quality and no further surveys are recommended. Badgers - no setts or signs of activity but badgers likely to forage/commute within the area. Risk is likely during construction so this will need to be covered in the CEMP - see recommended condition. Bats - no trees or buildings present to support a roost. The site has limited value to bats but hedgerows will be used for foraging/commuting. The eastern hedgebank will provide commuting habitat but the cycle/pedestrian link through should be minimised in size. Lighting will need to be carefully designed to limit the impact on bat activity. The landscape proposals

page 70 will need to include the enhancement of the hedge through native planting and a condition is recommended to secure details of exterior lighting. Birds - some common species are present and the hedge is likely to support nesting and foraging. The ground vegetation may develop to support ground nesting birds. The hedge would be planted with native species to enhance its habitat and any vegetation should be removed outside the nesting season unless supervised by an ecologist. The CEMP condition recommended will deal with vegetation removal during construction.

Dormice - they have been recorded in the wider area. The hedge does provide some potential for habitat although this is limited. The hedge would be enhanced through the landscape planting which will enhance the habitat. Reptiles - the eastern hedge does provide some foraging and commuting habitat for the low numbers recorded - slow worm and common lizard. Any vegetation must be removed carefully and additional planting of the hedge will be secured as part of the landscape planting. Overall and number of mitigation and enhancement measures are proposed: The eastern hedgerow to be enhanced through native planting and with limited rear gardens directly onto the hedge. This is shown on the layout and a management company will be responsible for the hedge. Planting will be controlled through the landscaping. Southern boundary to be connected to the eastern hedge. Planting shown on this boundary to link with the eastern hedge and will form part of the landscaping scheme. Grassland areas to be a native seed mix to be secured through the landscaping scheme. Bird and bat boxes on 50% of the buildings - see recommended condition. Grass cuttings and brash shall be left in piles beneath the vegetation on the eastern boundary. This will be a responsibility of the management company. Starting from a relatively low quality base, the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures represent a reasonable biodiversity gain and insisting on more would not represent a reason for refusal. Surface Water Drainage Submitted with the application is a Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment including a Drainage Layout Plan. The site itself is not at risk of fluvial flooding being outside of any functional flood plain and is located in Flood Zone 1. As such, there are no flood hazards that need to be considered. Policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the Local Plan looks to ensure that major developments are managed by sustainable drainage systems and the surface water implications of a proposal have been fully considered and found to be acceptable. To achieve SUDS, a hierarchy of solutions should be followed from the preferred option to infiltrate to the ground to the least preferred option of connection to a sewer. The applicant has advised that infiltration rates on the site is low and therefore a positive drainage network and attenuation is proposed with the offsite discharge restricted. To achieve this, the western section of the site has been made available for below ground adoptable/private attenuation systems. Discharge from the attenuation feature would be to the

page 71 storm water sewer network at an approved controlled and restricted rate. It is expected that this network will ultimately be adopted by SWW. The DCC Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) initially required further information to be submitted. Following receipt of this, further comments from the LLFA have been submitted withdrawing the initial objection subject to the recommended conditions outlined in the consultation section of this report and the recommended conditions. Air Quality An Air Quality report has been submitted which concludes that there will be no concerning levels of either nitrogen oxides or particulates from motor vehicles and the additional traffic associated with the development will be negligible and no further assessment work is required. Construction site issues will be controlled through the CEMP. Open Space Strategy 43 of the local plan requires a development of this size to provide amenity open space at a level of 3 sqm per person i.e. about 220 sqm. The original submission had an area of open space to the front of plots 32 and 33 which was below the standard. However, the DRP noted that the site was in close proximity to existing or proposed areas of open space and it was more important that the development showed a good relation and connection to this rather than provide a small area of open space within the site. It must be remembered that this development is part of a wider mixed use development which does or will include open space, play and sports within a short distance. In addition, the land to the west side of the application site is required for underground surface water drainage and the applicant's intention is to landscape this area as public open space. In view of the above, it is considered therefore that a little area of amenity open space within the main development parcel would not be meaningful but taking into account the western area of the site and the relation of the development to various areas of open space in the close vicinity, would reasonably mean that the open space requirements are met. Noise and Vibration An Acoustic Design Statement has been submitted to assess the impact of the road, rail and airport noise on the amenity and health of potential occupiers. There is clearly the potential for noise during construction but this would be controlled through the requirement for a CEMP, secured by a condition. In terms of noise sources considered (such as traffic, aircraft), it is recommended in the noise report that suitable mitigation would be in the form of the orientation of houses and their sensitive rooms/ amenity areas, together with sound insulation specifications for glazed and ventilation façade elements for various plots in the development. These details can be secured through a condition requiring the mitigation details to be approved and implemented. The Environmental Health Officer has been consulted on the application and agrees the noise reports and the standards proposed as minimum standards. Airport safeguarding. The airport have been consulted on the application and have no safeguarding objections provided that construction complies with the AoA Advice Notes.

page 72 Waste Waste will be generated during the construction phase which needs to be controlled through the CEMP. Clearly waste will be generated during the operational phase and a condition should be imposed to require a Site Waste Management Plan during the operational stage. Soil and Agriculture Policy EN13 (Development on High Quality Agricultural Land) of the Local Plan aims to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a) from development and this is supported in the NPPF. The land is grade 2/3a although it should be noted that the site is allocated for development in the Local Plan and has an extant outline planning permission. On this basis, a housing development proposal on the site would not prevent the loss of this agricultural land which was assessed previously and considered to be acceptable when balanced against all the other planning considerations. However, the soils on the site could be recovered and handled correctly to minimise the loss of soil resource as identified in the Environmental Statement. The NPPF also requires that decisions should protect and enhance soils. It is therefore recommended that any permission forthcoming should require a scheme of soil recovery and handling. Archaeology The site has been the subject of previous assessment, geophysical survey and evaluation trenching. DCC have these reports and have sufficient information to advise that no further archaeological work is need as confirmed by DCC Archaeologist. Highways and Movement The application has been supported by a Transport Statement and Design and Access Statement (DAS). Consultation has taken place with Highways England (Strategic Road Network) and DCC Highway Authority (local road network). Highways England have assessed the application in terms of the extant outline planning permission and the additional traffic generated by an extra 33 houses to consider the possible impact on the strategic road network nevertheless this would not be severe. As such, Highways England are satisfied that the number of vehicles generated by the development are not likely to have a severe impact on the safe and efficient operation of the strategic road network and have no objection. A number of detailed comments were made and conditions recommended - see consultation section. There has been further discussions with the agent and some minor changes made and therefore there is now no overall highway objection subject to the conditions recommended. NHS request for contributions During the application process, the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust (The Trust) requested that the development should make a financial contribution of £47,276 towards the cost of providing capacity to maintain service delivery during the first year of occupation of the dwellings on the development. This contribution would be used directly to provide additional health care services to meet patient demand. It has previously been considered in a previous report to the DM Committee on a nearby site, that the information provided by the Trust for the contribution towards 'services' could be considered as being outside the definition of 'infrastructure' for the purposes of CIL. Whilst the

page 73 applicant does not agree and has submitted a Counsel Opinion to this effect, nevertheless the Council had its own Counsel Opinion prepared which advised of the view that 'services' could fall outside the term 'infrastructure' as a matter of fact and degree. The Trust provided a list of services that would be part funded out of a contribution and this is considered to reasonably constitute 'services' that fall outside the definition of 'infrastructure', albeit that the Council wished to see more information on these services. In terms of the Regulation 122 tests, the Counsel Opinion advised that Regulation 122(2) (b) and (c) raises no forceful argument against meeting the tests for the contribution. The main issue is whether the contribution meets the Regulation 122 (2) (a) test of being necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Whilst the Trust has a mandatory duty to provide the relevant services, the Counsel Opinion view was that without the contribution, there would be a tangible risk of a qualitatively inferior service and necessity could be proven. The main outstanding issue that has not been satisfactorily resolved with The Trust is whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the Regulation 122(2) tests. In this respect, the Trust has been asked over a period of time to provide further information to satisfy the Council that there is sufficient and direct evidence on the precise impact this development would have on their services. Whilst, the general methodology is acceptable, further work/clarification was requested from the Trust on: 1) The geographic spread of demands on their service and information about whether it is appropriate to calculate based on a district average of demand or whether they should use post code specific demand data to calculate. It is understood that the NHS have data on the demands placed on their services from each location and so this information could be presented geographically across the district to understand how much variation there is between different parts of the district and therefore whether the district average is sufficiently accurate to be used across the district. 2) The other was information about what the monies would actually be spent on to ensure that it could be specified and to absolutely confirm that it is non-infrastructure under the CIL Regs. The NHS were going to provide a list of costs incurred as a result of the additional demands envisaged from the development so that we could understand how these are made up and satisfy ourselves that they are not infrastructure costs and that they are costs directly arising from the proposed developments. At the time of preparing this report, the above information has not been satisfactorily received. Whilst this does not mean that the contribution is ultimately unlawful, however, without this information and being allowed to consider it, we cannot categorically state at the present time that it is lawful. As such and until this information has been received and assessed as being acceptable, it would not be reasonable to require the contribution. Therefore it is recommended that this issue should not be given significant weight. Draft S106 The authority is in a CIL regime and consequently the S106 relates purely to on site requirements to mitigate the impacts of the development or off-site non-infrastructure requirements. A draft S106 has been submitted with the application to secure various provisions: 1) Affordable housing at 25% (8 units) with a specified tenure and mix. The draft agreement provides for 6 units as affordable rented and 2 as intermediate but includes the

page 74 option for the developer to provide at least 6 of the units as non-RP affordable. The mix is predominantly one bed units (75%) with the rest being an equal split of 2 and 3 bed units. 2) Affordable Housing contribution - £12,448 to be paid before 50% occupation. 3) Open space - the submission of an Open Space Specification for the provision, implementation and management. This is effectively the land to be managed by the Management Company and the provision of the west-east pedestrian/cycle link across the site. The OS Specification is to be submitted for approval before the construction of any dwelling above slab level, which shall then be implemented in accordance with the specification, the public shall be allowed unfettered access, it shall be maintained and transferred to a Management Company. 4) The pedestrian/cycle link shall be completed before the occupation of 90% of the dwellings. This should be lower e.g. 80% in the interests of providing a suitable public facility earlier on in the occupation. The pedestrian/cycle link will not be dedicated as a highway but the owner shall permit its use by members of the public on foot or bicycle. 5) Habitats Mitigation contribution - a sum of £201.61 per dwelling for non-infrastructure mitigation of the Exe Estuary and Pebblebed Heaths SPA's. 50% would be payable before commencement and the rest before 50% occupation. 6) Travel Plan - a sum of £500 per dwelling for DCC to deliver travel planning for the development. The sum to be paid before 50% occupation. For the draft s106 to be acceptable requires it to meet the tests of regulation 122 (2) of the CIL Regulations i.e. - (a) a planning obligation must be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) it must be directly relevant to the development; and (c) it must be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. It is considered that all of the provisions above meet the tests being necessary, relevant and fairly/reasonably related in scale and kind to the development as required by Council policy which requires this level/type of affordable housing, open space to be suitably managed, permeability for pedestrians and cyclist, mitigation for the impacts on European protected sites and travel planning to encourage non-car usage for future residents. However, the draft S106 did not include a provision to connect to the District Heating Network (DHN) existing in the area and to which the Redhayes and Mosshayne developments are committed to. Strategy 40 of the Local Plan requires developments of this size to connect to an existing DHN if available and if viable. There is one available therefore to comply with policy, the S106 should also require a connection of the development to the DHN - this is similar to the S106's on Redhayes and Mosshayne. No viability evidence has been submitted. Conditions A number of conditions are proposed aimed at making the development acceptable in planning terms rather than resort to refusing permission – these are listed in the recommendation section. It is considered they are necessary, relevant to planning and the development, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. Pre-commencement conditions have been kept to a minimum and are only included when it has to be agreed and/or carried out before development starts. By virtue of the requirements under section 100ZA(5) of the TCP Act 1990, the LPA must seek the written agreement of the applicant to the terms of the condition and followed the relevant procedure. The applicant must either accept the conditions or provide a substantive response on any disputed condition(s)

page 75 within 10 working days. The applicant has responded within the time period to say the proposed condition 21 appears to be unnecessary. It should merely be necessary for the access points, turning areas and parking to be provided in accordance with the approved plans and there should be no need for any further plans to be provided. Any further plans should only be required for the technical approval process but this does not require a planning condition as it is covered by other (highways) legislation. No other comments have been raised about the other proposed pre-commencement conditions. DCC Highways have confirmed that as the access points, turning and parking areas are shown on the current drawings and have been amended to accord with DCC requirements, there is no need for additional details to be agreed as part of the planning permission. However, the details approved under this application still need to be provided and maintained for their purpose so the new condition 21 specifies this. CONCLUSION The site is allocated for housing in the local plan and there is an extant planning permission for housing on this part of the Redhayes development. This is a full planning application because the quantum of housing (580 units) approved in detail on Redhayes (reserved matters and/or under construction) and including this particular development, would run to over the 580 units authorised by the outline planning permission and just over the total allocated in the local plan. Whilst this is therefore a departure application, it is not significant as the number over with this development is small in relation to the overall numbers. Overall, the application for housing is consistent with the Redhayes/Mosshayne development and the additional numbers would not be significant enough to raise an objection to the application. The proposed development was the subject of a DRP assessment before the application was submitted. Some changes were incorporated for the application submission to address the DRP views but this was not considered sufficient to raise the standard of design to an acceptable level bearing in mind the government policy of achieving high quality places as outlined in Section 12 of the NPPF. As a result of this, further discussions have taken place and amendments have been made to the scheme to raise the quality and it is now acceptable and reasonably meets the majority of the DRP concerns. Permeability for pedestrians and cyclists has been improved and the car parking reduced in prominence. Technical matters have been reasonably addressed and the suggested S106 and conditions suitably control and mitigate the impact of the development - see detailed comments in the relevant sections of this report. Overall, the principle of this development is considered to be acceptable and through the application process the quality of the scheme has been improved and is now considered to be acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION 1. That the Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 is adopted; and

2. APPROVE subject to the completion of the S106 Agreement and the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission and shall be carried out as approved.

page 76 (Reason - To comply with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning). 3. A Construction and Environment Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works commencing on site, and shall be implemented and remain in place throughout the construction period. The CEMP shall include at least the following matters: 1) Air Quality. 2) Dust control. 3) Lighting. 4) Noise and vibration. 5) Pollution Prevention and Control, including an emergency plan. 6) Monitoring Arrangements. 7) Ecology - as specified in the Ecological Appraisal no: 18/3436.01 Rev01. 8) Site compound and parking - location and size. 9) Construction traffic management. 10) Waste Management. 11) Airport safeguarding - to accord with the AoA Advice Note 4 "Cranes and Other Construction Issues". Notwithstanding the above, construction working shall not take place outside the hours of 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. There shall be no burning on site. There shall be no high frequency audible reversing alarms used on the site. (Reason - To protect the amenities of nearby occupiers and to protect the ecology/protected species in the locality to accord with policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) and EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031. The CEMP needs to be approved and implemented at the start of development operations as risks to the environment, amenity and ecology will be present from this point.) 4. No development above foundation level of any dwelling shall take place until a detailed landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme to include hard landscaping and the planting of trees (including street trees), hedges, shrubs, herbaceous plants, areas to be grassed (using a native seed mix) and planting methods, together with an implementation timetable and maintenance regime. The scheme to be submitted shall accord with the approved Landscape Plan no.1120 Rev D, External Works Plan no.1117 Rev D and the Landscape External Works Plan no.1119 Rev E and shall include the planting with native hedgerow species of the hedgebank on the eastern boundary of the site. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the approved planting season and no later

page 77 than the first occupation of the development unless any alternative phasing of the landscaping is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the landscaping shall be maintained for a period of 5 years in accordance with the approved maintenance regime. Any trees or other plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To ensure that the details are planned and considered at an early stage in the interests of amenity, to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area and in the interests of ecology in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) and D2 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.) 5. Before any street tree planting takes place in accordance with the approved landscaping scheme as required by condition 4 above, further details of soil volumes together with a specification and details for a proposed crated soil system under hard paving for use in extension tree pits shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The soil volumes, locations and trees shall be provided in accordance with the approved details as part of the landscaping scheme and implementation timetable required by condition 4 above. (Reason - to allow the street trees proposed to properly survive and prosper therefore additional details are required in the interests of the visual amenity of the development to accord with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), D2 (Landscape requirements and D3 (Trees and Development Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031). 6. Should any contamination of soil and/or ground or surface water be discovered during excavation of the site or the development, the Local Planning Authority shall be contacted immediately. Site activities in the area affected shall be temporarily suspended until such time as a method and procedure for addressing the contamination is agreed upon in writing with the Local Planning Authority and/or other regulating bodies. (Reason: To ensure that any contamination existing and exposed during the development is identified and remediated in accordance with policy EN16 (Contaminated Land) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and with the National Planning Policy Framework.) 7. All walls and fences shall be erected in accordance with the approved details (Enclosures Plan 1114 Rev E and drawing numbers 1400 Rev C, 1401 Rev B, 1402 Rev B, 1403 Rev B, 1404 Rev B, 1405 Rev A) within, adjacent to or around the curtilage of the relevant dwelling before it is first occupied. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), these walls and fences shall not thereafter be altered, removed or replaced without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: In the interests of preserving and enhancing the appearance of the area and/or protecting the privacy of local residents, in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031).

page 78 8. The development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details of finished floor levels and finished ground levels unless any variation is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the locality and the amenity of occupiers, in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031). 9. No development above foundation level on any of the dwellings hereby permitted shall take place until details of materials to be used externally for the buildings have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details to be submitted shall be based on the approved Materials Plan no. 1111 Rev D. The development shall be built using the materials approved. (Reason: To ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031). 10. The buildings comprised in the development hereby approved shall be constructed so that their internal systems for space and water heating are capable of being connected to the proposed decentralised energy network. Prior to the occupation of the development, necessary on site infrastructure shall be put in place for connection of those systems to the network at points on the site boundary agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: In the interests of sustainable development and to support the opportunities for decentralised energy supply systems to accord with Strategy 40 (Decentralised Energy Networks) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and policy contained within the National Planning Policy Framework). 11. No occupation of any part of the development shall be take place until a scheme for an External Lighting and Management Plan for the operational stage of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall provide details of the design, hours of use, locations and management of any exterior lighting within any public areas and communal parking areas (but not private gardens), including signage, floodlighting and road lighting. The lighting for the development shall then be installed and operated in accordance with the approved details. (Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the area, to protect future occupiers and protected species from excessive light levels and in the interests of airport safety in accordance with Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside), policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) and of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and policy contained within the NPPF). 12. No development above foundation level on any of the dwellings hereby permitted shall take place until a scheme for the provision of bird boxes and bat boxes/tubes on at least 50% the dwellings comprised in the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the physical details of the boxes/tubes, the location of the buildings which would be fitted and their position on the buildings. No dwelling approved to have a box/tube shall be occupied until the box/tube has been provided on that dwelling in accordance with the approved details and it shall thereafter be maintained.

page 79 (Reason: To ensure that the development mitigates against habitat loss and enhances biodiversity in accordance with policy EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and policy contained within the NPPF).

13. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Soil Resources Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Soil Resources Plan shall set out the procedures that will be put in place to ensure that all high quality soil resources on the site that will be displaced by the development are conserved and reused elsewhere in the locality. The Plan shall detail how high quality soil resources will be identified, how they will be stored and relocated and where they will be reused. The development shall thereafter only be carried out in accordance with the approved plan. (Reason - To ensure that the high quality soil resources at the site are conserved and re-used having regard to the site being identified as 'best and most versatile' land to accord with policy EN13 (Development on High Quality Agricultural Land) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and government policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. These details are required prior to the commencement of development as the soil resource will be affected from the start of operations on the site). 14. Prior to the occupation of a particular dwelling on the development hereby approved, the proposed sound insulation specifications for the glazed and ventilation elements for that particular dwelling shall be provided in accordance with the submitted Acoustic Design Statement AS11081.190430.ADS.V1.1, including figure 11081/GP1. Thereafter, the installed glazing and ventilation elements shall be retained in perpetuity. (Reason - To protect the amenities of future residents from noise, in accordance with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031). 15. Prior to any occupation of the development hereby permitted, a detailed site waste management plan for the operational stage of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The requirements of the approved site waste management plan shall be implemented in full during the operational stages of the development. (Reason- to ensure that the waste arising from the development is managed sustainably and responsibly in accordance with policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031, policy W4 of the Devon Waste Plan 2014 and policy within the National Planning Policy for Waste). 16. Should an electricity sub-station be required on the site, prior details to show the location and appearance of the electricity sub-station shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority. The details submitted shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any commencement is made on the construction of the electricity sub-station and the electricity sub-station shall be sited and constructed in accordance with the approved details. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 15, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no further electricity sub-station shall be provided or the approved

page 80 electricity sub-station(s) shall not be re-located or modified without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interests of the appearance of the development to secure a sensitive design and location for any electricity sub-station and protect areas of open space from an inappropriate location and/or design to accord with strategy 9 (Major Development at East Devon's West End) and policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031). 17. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The design of this permanent surface water drainage management system shall be in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in the Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment for the Proposed Residential Development at Tithebarn H5 Exeter Project Reference 18.10.246 dated May 2019 Revision PL03, together with the Drainage Layout Plan no. 1050 Rev PL04. No part of the development shall be occupied until the surface water management scheme serving that part of the development has been provided in accordance with the approved details and the drainage infrastructure shall be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development. (Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems in accordance with the requirements of policy EN22 (Surface water Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031. The details are required before commencement of development as the surface water drainage system will need to be installed in part or whole, at or soon after the start of the development). 18. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development site for the full period of its construction has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system shall satisfactorily address both the rates and volumes, and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site. The approved surface water drainage management system shall be implemented during the whole construction period. (Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area in accordance with policy En18 (Maintenance of Water Quality and Quantity) and policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031. The details are required before commencement of development as the construction surface water drainage management system will need to be implemented from the start of the development and a plan needs to be demonstrated prior to the commencement of any works to ensure that surface water can be managed suitably without increasing flood risk downstream, negatively affecting water quality downstream or negatively impacting on surrounding areas and infrastructure). 19. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until details of the exceedance pathways and overland flow routes across the site in the event of rainfall in excess of the design standard of the proposed surface water drainage management

page 81 system have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: To ensure that the surface water runoff generated from rainfall events in excess of the design standard of the proposed surface water drainage management system is safely managed in accordance with the requirements of policy EN22 (Surface water Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031. The details are required before commencement of development as the details are needed to form part of the overall surface water drainage system and this will need to be installed in part or whole, at or soon after the start of the development). 20. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until the full details of the adoption and maintenance arrangements for the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: To ensure that the development's permanent surface water drainage management systems will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development in accordance with the requirements of policy EN22 (Surface water Run- Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031). 21. The vehicular access points, on-site turning areas and vehicular parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the "Planning Layout 1100 Rev Q", and thereafter they shall retained for those purposes at all times. (Reason: To provide adequate visibility to achieve safe and suitable accesses, turning areas and parking, in accordance with policy TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) and policy TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and with paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework). 22. Notwithstanding the submitted details, the footways to be provided on both sides of the main access road into the site (north-south alignment), as shown on the approved Planning Layout No.1100 Rev Q, shall be a minimum width throughout of 2 metres. (Reason: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance policy TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the NPPF). 23. No commencement shall be made for the construction of the main permanent access road into the site until details of a vehicular ramp into the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the ramp has been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter it shall be retained for those purposes at all times. (Reason: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance policy TC4 (Footways, Bridleway and Cycleways) and policy TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the National planning Policy Framework). 24. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to show how the west-east aligned pedestrian and cycle route shall be provided with a 3m effective width from the western boundary

page 82 of the site through to the shared surface between plots 1 and 31 and from the shared surface between plots 12 and 13 through to the bank on the eastern boundary. The pedestrian and cycle route through the bank on the eastern boundary shall be not exceed 3m in width. The details to be submitted shall also include a timetable for the provision of the pedestrian and cycle route to be completed and open for use. The access route for pedestrians and cyclists shall have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved plans and timetable and shall thereafter be retained for those purposes at all times. (Reason: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance policy TC4 (Footways, Bridleway and Cycleways) and policy TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework). 25. Prior to commencement of the construction of any of the dwellings above ground level, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to show secure covered cycle parking provision for the development, except for units 18 to 23 and unit 25. The cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before the occupation of each dwelling unit to which the particular cycle parking relates. (Reason - to ensure the dwellings are provided with adequate cycle parking in the interests of sustainable transport in accordance with policy TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031). NOTE FOR APPLICANT Informative: In accordance with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 in determining this application, East Devon District Council has worked positively with the applicant to ensure that all relevant planning concerns have been appropriately resolved. The applicants attention is drawn to the accompanying s106 Agreement Plans relating to this application: 18/3436.01 Protected Species Report 28.11.19 (amended) acoustic design General Correspondence 28.11.19 statement amended Design and Access 28.11.19 Statement revision PL03 Flood Risk Assessment 28.11.19 (amended)

page 83 1401 rev B : Proposed Combined Plans 28.11.19 closeboard fence (amended)

1400 rev C : brick Proposed Combined Plans 28.11.19 wall (amended)

1402 rev B : Proposed Combined Plans 28.11.19 vertical railing (amended)

1403 rev B : Proposed Combined Plans 28.11.19 closeboard fence (amended)

1404 rev B : 1.8m Proposed Combined Plans 28.11.19 boundary hedge (amended)

1405 rev A : 1.2m Proposed Combined Plans 28.11.19 brick wall (amended)

1015 rev PL03 : Other Plans 28.11.19 highways tracking plan (amended)

1170 rev B : Street Scene 28.11.19 streetscenes/secti ons (amended)

1113 rev D : waste Other Plans 30.01.20 collection plan (amended)

1100 Rev Q Layout 10.02.20

page 84 1114 Rev E: Other Plans 10.02.20 Enclosure plan

1115 Rev F: Other Plans 10.02.20 Indicative land ownership

1111 rev D : Other Plans 30.01.20 materials plan (amended)

1112 rev D : storey Other Plans 30.01.20 heights plan (amended)

1116 rev D : Other Plans 30.01.20 parking plan (amended)

1117 rev D : Other Plans 30.01.20 external works plan (amended)

1118 rev D : Other Plans 30.01.20 affordable housing plan (amended)

1119 rev E : Other Plans 30.01.20 landscape external works (amended)

1120 rev D Landscaping 30.01.20 (amended)

1300 rev B L Proposed Combined Plans 30.01.20 bin+cycle store/elevations (amended)

page 85 1250 rev C : key to General Correspondence 30.01.20 materials (amended)

1240 rev G : house Proposed Combined Plans 30.01.20 type G (amended)

1232 rev G : house Proposed Combined Plans 30.01.20 type D3 (amended)

1231 rev F : house Proposed Combined Plans 30.01.20 type D2 (amended)

1230 rev K : house Proposed Combined Plans 30.01.20 type F (amended)

1229 rev G : house Proposed Combined Plans 30.01.20 type E4 (amended)

1227 rev G : house Proposed Combined Plans 30.01.20 type E2 (amended)

1226 rev G : house Proposed Combined Plans 30.01.20 type E1 (amended)

1224 rev F : house Proposed Combined Plans 30.01.20 type C2 (amended)

1223 rev I : house Proposed Combined Plans 30.01.20 type C1 (amended)

1222 rev K : house Proposed Combined Plans 30.01.20 type B (amended)

page 86 1220 rev I : house Proposed Floor Plans 30.01.20 type A (amended)

1221 rev E : house Proposed Elevation 30.01.20 type A (amended)

1011 rev PL05 : Other Plans 30.01.20 kerbing plan (amended)

1040 rev PL04 : Other Plans 30.01.20 external works levels (amended)

1050 rev PL04 : Layout 30.01.20 drainage layout (amended)

3999 PJA Transport Statement 10.05.19

1010 PL06 : Layout 30.01.20 section 38

1228 Rev G: Proposed Combined Plans 30.01.20 House type G

Tree Survey General Correspondence 10.05.19

Land at Archaeological Report 10.05.19 Monkerton+Redha yes

GCE00105/R2 Site General Correspondence 10.05.19 Investigation

18/3436.01 Devon Ecological Assessment 10.05.19 Wildlife

page 87

Air Quality General Correspondence 10.05.19

1121 Rev B Location Plan 20.05.19

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

page 88 Appropriate Assessment

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

Application Reference 19/0995/MFUL

Brief description of Erection of 33 dwellings and associated works. proposal

Location Land south of Mosshayne Link Road, Redhayes (phase 8), Exeter

Site is:

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

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

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

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

(See Appendix 1 for list of interest features of the SPA/SAC) Step 1 Screening for Likely Significant Effect on the proposed development on land to the east of Langaton Lane, Exeter Science park, Clyst Honiton

Risk Assessment Could the Qualifying Features of the European Yes - additional housing within 10km of the SPA/SAC will increase recreation impacts site be affected by the on the interest features. proposal?

Consider both construction and operational stages.

page 89 Conclusion of Screening Is the proposal likely to East Devon District Council concludes that there would be Likely Significant Effects have a significant effect, ‘alone’ and/or ‘in-combination’ on features associated with the Exe Estuary SPA, Exe either ‘alone’ or ‘in Estuary Ramsar Site, East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC and the East Devon Heaths combination’ on a SPA. European site?

See evidence documents on impact of development on SPA/SAC at:

East Devon District Council - http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/369997/exe- overarching-report-9th-june-2014.pdf

An Appropriate Assessment of the plan or proposal is necessary.

Local Authority Officer Andy Carmichael Date: 8th July 2019

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

In-combination Effects

Plans or projects with Additional housing or tourist accommodation within 10km of the SPA/SAC add to the potential cumulative in- existing issues of damage and disturbance arising from recreational use. combination impacts.

How impacts of current In –combination plans/projects include around 29,000 new dwellings allocated proposal combine with around the estuary in Teignbridge, Exeter and East Devon Local Plans. other plans or projects individually or severally. This many houses equates to around 65,000 additional people contributing to recreational impacts.

Mitigation of in- The Joint Approach sets out a mechanism by which developers can make a standard combination effects. contribution to mitigation measures delivered by the South East Devon Habitat Regulations Partnership.

page 90 Residential development is also liable for CIL and a proportion of CIL income is spent on Habitats Regulations Infrastructure. A Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) has been delivered at Dawlish and a second is planned at South West Exeter to attract recreational use away from the Exe Estuary and Dawlish Warren.

Assessment of Impacts with Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures Joint approach standard mitigation contribution required for non-infrastructure included in the proposal. • Residential units £201.61 x 33 dwellings = £6,653.13 Total.

Are the proposed Yes - the Joint Approach contribution offered is considered to be sufficient in mitigation measures conjunction with CIL contributions. sufficient to overcome the likely significant effects?

Conclusion

List of mitigation measures and safeguards Total Joint Approach contribution of £6,653.13 will be secured through the S106 to be completed before planning permission is granted.

The Integrity Test Adverse impacts on features necessary to maintain the integrity of the Exe Estuary SPA, Exe Estuary Ramsar Site, East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC and the East Devon Heaths SPA can be ruled out.

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

Local Authority Officer Andy Carmichael Date: 8th July 2019

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

Appendix 1. List of interest features:

Exe Estuary SPA

Annex 1 Species that are a primary reason for selection of this site (under the Birds Directive):

Aggregation of non-breeding birds: Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta

Aggregation of non-breeding birds: Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola

page 91 Migratory species that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Aggregation of non-breeding birds: Dunlin Calidris alpina alpine

Aggregation of non-breeding birds: Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica

Aggregation of non-breeding birds: Brent Goose (dark-bellied) Branta bernicla bernicla

Wintering populations of Slavonian Grebe Podiceps auritus

Wintering populations of Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus

Waterfowl Assemblage

>20,000 waterfowl over winter

Habitats which are not notified for their specific habitat interest (under the relevant designation), but because they support notified species.

Sheltered muddy shores (including estuarine muds; intertidal boulder and cobble scars; and seagrass beds)

Saltmarsh NVC communities: SM6 Spartina anglica saltmarsh

SPA Conservation Objectives

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

Dawlish Warren SAC

Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site (under the Habitats Directive):

Annex I habitat: Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (‘white dunes’).

(Strandline, embryo and mobile dunes.)

SD1 Rumex crispus-Glaucium flavum shingle community

SD2 Cakile maritima-Honkenya peploides strandline community

SD6 Ammophila arenaria mobile dune community

SD7 Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune community

Annex I habitat: Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (‘grey dunes’).

SD8 Festuca rubra-Galium verum fixed dune grassland

page 92 SD12 Carex arenaria-Festuca ovina-Agrostis capillaris dune grassland

SD19 Phleum arenarium-Arenaria serpyllifolia dune annual community

Annex I habitat: Humid dune slacks.

SD15 Salix repens-Calliergon cuspidatum dune-slack community

SD16 Salix repens-Holcus lanatus dune slack community

SD17 Potentilla anserina-Carex nigra dune-slack community

Habitats Directive Annex II species that are a primary reason for selection of this site:

Petalwort (Petalophyllum ralfsii )

SAC Conservation Objectives

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

A224 Caprimulgus europaeus; European nightjar (Breeding) 83 pairs (2.4% of GB population 1992)

A302 Sylvia undata; Dartford warbler (Breeding) 128 pairs (6.8% of GB Population in 1994)

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

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC:

This is the largest block of lowland heathland in Devon. The site includes extensive areas of dry heath and wet heath associated with various other mire communities. The wet element occupies the lower-lying areas and includes good examples of cross-leaved heath – bog-moss (Erica tetralix – Sphagnum compactum) wet heath. The dry heaths are characterised by the presence of heather Calluna vulgaris, bell heather Erica cinerea, western gorse Ulex gallii, bristle bent Agrostis curtisii,

page 93 purple moor-grass Molinia caerulea, cross-leaved heath E. tetralix and tormentil Potentilla erecta. The presence of plants such as cross-leaved heath illustrates the more oceanic nature of these heathlands, as this species is typical of wet heath in the more continental parts of the UK. Populations of southern damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale occur in wet flushes within the site.

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

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

H4030. European dry heaths

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

S1044. Coenagrion mercuriale; Southern damselfly

Objectives:

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

Qualifying Features:

A007 Podiceps auritus; Slavonian grebe (Non-breeding)

A046a Branta bernicla bernicla; Dark-bellied brent goose (Non-breeding)

A130 Haematopus ostralegus; Eurasian oystercatcher (Non-breeding)

A132 Recurvirostra avosetta; Pied avocet (Non-breeding)

A141 Pluvialis squatarola; Grey plover (Non-breeding)

A149 Calidris alpina alpina; Dunlin (Non-breeding)

A156 Limosa limosa islandica; Black-tailed godwit (Non-breeding)

Waterbird assemblage

Objectives:

Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring;  The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features

page 94  The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features  The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely  The population of each of the qualifying features, and,  The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

Exe Estuary Ramsar

Principal Features (updated 1999)

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

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

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

page 95 Agenda Item 9

Ward Clyst Valley

Reference 19/1849/MFUL

Applicant Mr Andrew Langdon (Langdon Properties)

Location Dart Business Park Clyst St George

Proposal Redevelopment of part of the business park (fuel storage depot and motor sales area) and extension to create 6 additional units to be used for offices and Light Industry use (Use Class B1), Storage and Distribution (Use Class B8)

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

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 96 Committee Date: 18th May 2020

Clyst Valley Target Date: (Clyst St George) 19/1849/MFUL 06.12.2019

Applicant: Mr Andrew Langdon (Langdon Properties)

Location: Dart Business Park Clyst St George

Proposal: Redevelopment of part of the business park (fuel storage depot and motor sales area) and extension to create 6 additional units to be used for offices and Light Industry use (Use Class B1), Storage and Distribution (Use Class B8)

RECOMMENDATION:

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before Members as the proposal represents a departure from the adopted East Devon Local Plan, and is contrary to Policies CSG6 and CSG19 of the Clyst St George Neighbourhood Plan.

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of 6 business units (office and storage and distribution use, B1/B8), each with a floorspace of 187 square metres, together with associated parking and circulation space which would extend the business park by 0.19ha. The application has been submitted following refusal of a larger proposal for 10 units by this Committee in May last year.

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

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

19/1849/MFUL page 97

Local Plan Policy E7 (Extensions to Existing Employment Sites) allows the small scale expansion of existing businesses or employment sites where they are at or near full capacity, and where the expansion is proportionate to the existing size and scale of site operations and where any impact from the proposals are acceptable. The current proposal has been substantially reduced from that previously considered, although it is of sufficient size to be regarded as greater than small scale and as such a departure from the local plan. It is also contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan as it proposes development outside of the business park, within an identified woodland and where adequate compensatory planting is not possible.

The site forms part of a woodland plantation, with an area extending to 0.19ha being removed to accommodate the development proposed. Part of the site also lies within an area identified as floodzone 2/3.

It is anticipated that the proposed development could create between 20-25 new jobs and the economic benefits to the local and wider community are considered to weigh heavily in favour of the proposal and accord with policies of the East Devon Local Plan and provisions of the NPPF in support of a prosperous rural economy (Paragraph 83).

This application has addressed previous technical concerns and subject to appropriate conditions, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of highway safety, flood risk, drainage issues, ecology and arboricultural impact.

Visually the proposed development would be seen against the backdrop of existing trees, and the landscape impact would be acceptable, particularly given some other landscape enhancements to the site and woodland edge proposed. There is no objection to the visual impact, loss of trees or wider impacts from the landscape officer or Parish Council.

Some additional noise and disturbance will arise from the use of the site, however the impact of this is considered to limited and localised, and such that the proposal will not have a significant impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Overall, it is considered the revised proposals addresses concerns raised by the previous application and that the economic benefits arising from the proposed development with the creation of additional new jobs and employment opportunities, outweigh any limited harm arising from the proposal and its conflict with the Local and Neighbourhood Plan policies seeking to retain the woodland and other policies relating to the location of employment generating development.

The application is therefore recommended for approval.

19/1849/MFUL page 98

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Clerk To Clyst St George Parish Council

On balance the Parish Council supports the application. Despite the application being contrary to our Neighbourhood Plan policy CSG6, (the application details the removal of an area of woodland on the site) however the reasons and landscaping plan put forward are compelling. The removal of trees above a high pressure gas pipeline is a matter of safety. Only a few trees are to be removed to facilitate the building of the new business units. The replanting along the line of the gas pipeline with native shrubs will create woodland edge conditions, good for biodiversity, the flood alleviation 'Swale' planted with various tree species and shrubs should do likewise. Views from the footpath to the West of the site will be of the Swale, an improvement from the present overgrown fence and ditch. Additionally the new units will create jobs and allow some local businesses to grow.

Technical Consultations

Environment Agency

Following review of the further information (email dated 22nd January 2020) from John Milverton, we are able to confirm that we have no objection to the proposed development subject to the inclusion of a condition on any permission granted relating to finished floor levels. Suggested wording for this condition and the reason for this position is provided below.

Condition - Floor Levels

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment (November 2019) and the email from John Milverton (22nd January 2020) and the following mitigation measure it details:

- Finished Floor Levels shall be set no lower than 4.7m above Ordnance Datum (AOD).

This mitigation measure shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the scheme's timing/phasing arrangements. The measure detailed above shall be retained and maintained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development. Reason - To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants.

Reason - The email from Mr Milverton clearly confirms that finished floor levels for the units will be set at 4.7mAOD. This confirmation overcomes our previous concerns.

Devon County Highway Authority

Observations:

19/1849/MFUL page 99

The site located off Topsham Road (C527), is proposed to have dedicated off- carriageway parking for each industrial unit.

As part of the application, a loop access construction is proposed to ensure that all vehicles can turn off-carriageway and re-enter the carriageway in a forward gear motion.

Additionally in order to encourage sustainable travel and reduce the traffic generation impact from this scheme, a 60m missing length of footway upon the southern side of Topsham Road is proposed for implementation, this will require a S.278 agreement with the County Highway Authority. This will supplement the existing local sustainable infrastructure of Topsham train station, Exe-Estuary trail and frequent bus services.

The removal of the existing gas and fuel depot should also reduce the percentage of heavy duty vehicles to this site.

Therefore the County Highway Authority has no objection to this planning application.

Natural England

Thank you for your consultations on the above dated 03 and 05 February 2020.

SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND'S ADVICE NO OBJECTION - SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATE MITIGATION BEING SECURED

We concur with the findings of the Appropriate Assessment and consider that without appropriate mitigation the application would:

- have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Exe Estuary Ramsar site and Special Protection Area

In order to mitigate adverse effects on the protected site bird populations and make the development acceptable, the following mitigation measures should be secured:

- A finalised Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP); - No construction or demolition works shall be undertaken between 1 October and 31 March; - Noise and Lighting Strategies to cover both the construction and operational periods.

We advise that appropriate planning conditions or obligations should be attached to any planning permission to secure the proposed ecological mitigation measures.

Additional information

We welcome the 13th December 2019 survey information and photographs of the area of woodland and pond east of the existing units, which is proposed for new planting in the Landscape Scheme and Habitat Creation Plan Rev D. In the light of this

19/1849/MFUL page 100

information we are satisfied that the new planting will provide a biodiversity enhancement.

Net gain

In relation to the information presented on biodiversity net gain, use of the biodiversity metric 2.0 is not mandatory at the current time, but NE are encouraging LPA's to prepare for this and trial the metric. We advise that a landscape and ecology management plan (LEMP) which includes the off-site habitat creation and enhancement areas, be secured by condition. The EDDC landscape response advises in further detail on these matters.

DCC Historic Environment Officer

The proposed development site lies in an area of archaeological potential with regard to known prehistoric or Romano-British activity in the vicinity. Recorded within 120 metres to the northeast of the site lies a prehistoric or Romano-British sub-rectangular enclosure that has been identified through aerial photography. There are also findspots to the south of the site indicating further Romano-British activity. As such, groundworks for the construction of the proposed development have the potential to expose and destroy archaeological and artefactual deposits associated with these heritage assets. The impact of development upon the archaeological resource should be mitigated by a programme of archaeological work that should investigate, record and analyse the archaeological evidence that will otherwise be destroyed by the proposed development.

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

If a Written Scheme of Investigation is not submitted prior to determination the Historic Environment Team would advise, for the above reasons and in accordance with paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and Policy EN6 (Nationally and Locally Important Archaeological Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan, that any consent your Authority may be minded to issue should carry the condition as worded below, based on model Condition 55 as set out in Appendix A of Circular 11/95, whereby:

'No development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out at all times in accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason 'To ensure, in accordance with Policy EN6 (Nationally and Locally Important Archaeological Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan and paragraph 199 of the National

19/1849/MFUL page 101

Planning Policy Framework (2018), that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development'

This pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that the archaeological works are agreed and implemented prior to any disturbance of archaeological deposits by the commencement of preparatory and/or construction works.

I would envisage a suitable programme of work as taking the form of a staged programme of archaeological works, commencing with the excavation of a series of evaluative trenches to determine the presence and significance of any heritage assets with archaeological interest that will be affected by the development. Based on the results of this initial stage of works the requirement and scope of any further archaeological mitigation can be determined and implemented either in advance of or during construction works. This archaeological mitigation work may take the form of full area excavation in advance of groundworks or the monitoring and recording of groundworks associated with the construction of the proposed development to allow for the identification, investigation and recording of any exposed archaeological or artefactual deposits. The results of the fieldwork and any post-excavation analysis undertaken would need to be presented in an appropriately detailed and illustrated report, and the finds and archive deposited in accordance with relevant national and local guidelines.

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

South West Water

I refer to the above application and would advise that South West Water has no objection.

For information a public water main runs through the site and19/1849 no buildings or alterations to ground cover will be permitted within 3m of it.

Environmental Health

We have assessed the application and we have also reviewed earlier environmental health comments for similar proposals.

We have no objection to the development in principle but consider that conditions would be required in order to protect the amenity of residents, some of whom live close to the west/south west boundary. The nearest residential property is approximately 100m from the nearest proposed unit.

There is one specific query though - the description of the development on the portal is for B1 and B8 units, whereas on the application B1 use is applied for. B8 uses

19/1849/MFUL page 102

sometimes request extended working hours and again this needs to be clarified. I have covered both scenarios in the controls suggested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

19/1849/MFUL page 103

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

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

I trust these comments and proposed conditions are self-explanatory and please do not hesitate to contact me for further advice or information.

Contaminated Land Officer

We have assessed the application and we have also reviewed earlier environmental health comments for similar proposals.

We do not anticipate any contaminated land concerns.

However there may be potential for materials to be encountered during oversite works and I therefore recommend that the following condition is included in any approval:

Should any contamination of soil and/or ground or surface water be discovered during excavation of the site or development, the Local Planning Authority should be contacted immediately. Site activities in the area affected shall be temporarily suspended until such time as a method and procedure for addressing the contamination is agreed upon in writing with the Local Planning Authority and/or other regulating bodies.

Reason: To ensure that any contamination existing and exposed during the development is identified and remediated.

I trust these comments and proposed condition are self-explanatory and please do not hesitate to contact me for further advice or information.

DCC Flood Risk Management Team Recommendation:

At this stage, we object to the above planning application because the applicant has not submitted sufficient information in order to demonstrate that all aspects of the surface water drainage management plan have been considered. In order to overcome our objection, the applicant will be required to submit some additional information, as outlined below.

Observations: The applicant has submitted the same surface water drainage strategy that was previously submitted for this site (planning application 17/3002/MOUT) and has updated the MicroDrainage model outputs.

19/1849/MFUL page 104

Although the surface water drainage strategy appears to be the same as previously proposed, the area being positively drained has changed. Therefore, MicroDrainage model outputs (or similar) are required to demonstrate that the updated surface water drainage system has been designed to the 1 in 100 year (+40% allowance for climate change) rainfall event.

The applicant should clarify the discharge rate from the swale. The previous proposals achieved a discharge rate of 8.2 litres/second for a 1 in 100 year (+40% allowance for climate change) rainfall event.

However, the current proposals are utilising a discharge rate of 13.4 litres/second for a 1 in 100 year (+40% allowance for climate change) rainfall event.

The applicant should confirm the area being positively drained. As this is a full application:

The applicant should confirm how the yard/parking areas associated with the units are proposed to be drained.

The applicant should confirm who shall be responsible for maintaining the surface water drainage system; what they shall be responsible for; what will be required to ensure that the system remains effective.

The applicant should provide a plan depicting the proposed exceedance flow routes within the site. Exceedance of the surface water drainage system could occur if a storm above the event designed for occurs, or due to blockage of the system.

Further comment 01.05.20:

Our objection is withdrawn and we have no in-principle objections to the above planning application at this stage, assuming that the following pre-commencement planning conditions are imposed on any approved permission:

• No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development site for the full period of its construction has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system must satisfactorily address both the rates and volumes, and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site. Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area. Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: A plan needs to be demonstrated prior to the commencement of any works to ensure that surface water can be managed suitably without increasing flood risk downstream, negatively affecting water quality downstream or negatively impacting on surrounding areas and infrastructure.

19/1849/MFUL page 105

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

• No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until details of the exceedance pathways and overland flow routes across the site in the event of rainfall in excess of the design standard of the proposed surface water drainage management system have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the surface water runoff generated from rainfall events in excess of the design standard of the proposed surface water drainage management system is safely managed.

• No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the full details of the adoption and maintenance arrangements for the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development’s permanent surface water drainage management systems will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development. Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: These details need to be submitted prior to commencement of any works to ensure that suitable plans are in place for the maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage management plan, for the reason above.

• No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The design of this permanent surface water drainage management system will be in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in the Drainage Strategy Including Addendum Part 1 September 2019. No part of the development shall be occupied until the surface water management scheme serving that part of the development has been provided in accordance with the approved details and the drainage infrastructure shall be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development. Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems.

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

Observations:

The applicant has produced a feasible surface water drainage strategy for this constrained site. The runoff will be attenuated within a an underground tank as well as a swale feature, albeit in the flood zone, which will offer storage of runoff to a maximum restricted rate of 12 l/s. Unfortunately due to the existing levels, part of the application which is existing hardstanding can not be picked up and drained within the proposed strategy but the strategy does offer betterment overall.

19/1849/MFUL page 106

The applicant has submitted a brief maintenance schedule for the proposed site as well as an analysis of exceedance flows for the site but I have proposed conditions for more details to be provided at discharge of conditions stage.

EDDC Landscape Architect

EDDC Landscape architect & Green Infrastructure Officer 06/02/20 - I am satisfied with the submitted photomontage re the above scheme. There are still some outstanding issues with regard to landscape design but these can be dealt with by condition. I have made recommendations for these in my last report. Additionally, as a contamination survey has not been forthcoming, a further condition should be included to require one as part of the detail design.

1 INTRODUCTION

This report forms the EDDC's landscape response to the Major Outline application for extension of Darts Business Park, Clyst St George to provide 6 additional business units.

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

1.1 Summary site description and context

The site is part of an established industrial estate situated between Topsham and Ebdon and comprises a former fuel depot to the north with a block of young, predominantly broadleaved woodland of about 1.8Ha on made ground to the south.

Boundaries to the south and west comprise native hedgerow. Surrounding land use immediately to the north and east is light industrial. A block of woodland covering approximately 5Ha separates the business park from the settlement of Ebdon to the east.

The Exe Cycle Path follows the western site boundary with further light industrial land to the west. The Exe estuary is 100m from the western site boundary. Land to the south is agricultural predominantly under arable cultivation. A small group of houses is situated adjacent to the southwest corner of the site. Access to the site is from the two existing entrances serving the Business Park to the north.

The site is situated on the edge of the Exe floodplain and land to the north and west is low lying. The northern area around the former fuel depot is level at about 4m AOD. The area of woodland within the site is situated on a mound that rises to 10m AOD before dropping away steeply to the eastern boundary and more gently, at a gradient of approximately 1:9, to the west and south.

There is public access within the site for customers of the existing business premises but no access to the area of woodland.

19/1849/MFUL page 107

The Exe Valley Cycleway follows the western site boundary and is a well-used recreational and commuter route for cyclists and pedestrians. Clyst St George footpath 7 follows the southern boundary along a private access road and Clyst St George footpath 6 runs parallel to this on higher ground approximately 170m to the south.

Views in and out of the site are currently limited by woodland or hedgerow to the south and east and by buildings to the north but there are views back to the site on higher ground to the northwest and from the Topsham Road to the north. There are glimpse views in and out of the site through the hedgerow boundary to the northwest and also to the southwest. Views during winter when trees and hedgerows are bare are likely to be greater.

The principle visual receptors are likely to be:

- Users of the Exe Cycle Way to the west of the site and Clyst St George footpaths 6 and 7 - Users of the Topsham-Ebdon county road including walkers and cyclists on the adjacent cyclepath. - Residents and patrons of the Bridge Inn - Residents of the properties adjacent to the south west boundary of the site, particularly Four Chimneys, Stile Cottage and Fairhaven which have views from first floor over the site.

1.2 Description of proposals

The proposals entail the removal of an existing oil storage depot, creation of 6 new business units and associated roads and infrastructure and the clearance of an area of woodland and perimeter leylandii tree screens with compensatory planting of native woodland areas.

1.3 Opportunities and constraints

The proposal offers the opportunity to remediate and improve the former fuel depot within the site. However this presently has limited visual impact beyond the existing site boundaries.

The existing woodland in the southern area of the site is a significant feature which reads as part of an extensive belt of tree-cover within the landscape especially in views form the northwest (Topsham) and proposed development should seek to retain and reinforce this as much as possible.

2 REVIEW OF SUBMITTED INFORMATION

2.1 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

The submitted Landscape and Visual Appraisal is not a comprehensive Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and appears to be based on the anticipated operational phase impacts of the development at maturity of proposed mitigation planting. It does not consider the construction phase impacts or the operational impacts at completion,

19/1849/MFUL page 108

prior to the establishment of effective screen planting, nor is there any consideration of night time or seasonal effects when trees are not in leaf.

The assessment is also based on the assumption that the proposed scheme would provide a high quality layout and green infrastructure provision although this cannot be ascertained from the submitted plans due to a lack of detail.

The assessment states that the establishment of an area of wet woodland within the site will be highly beneficial for biodiversity and structural diversity within the woodland. However, this is limited to planting within a proposed small drainage basin. As the great majority of the woodland is situated on raised ground the extent of wet woodland creation would be negligible.

In consideration of the visual impact of the proposals, the LVA is based on the assumption that surrounding tree cover is higher than the proposed buildings which will therefore be set against a wooded backdrop and not break the skyline. However figure 2 below demonstrates that due to proposed felling of trees on the highest part of the site south of units E-F, in some views from the Topsham Road these units would be seen against the skyline. Accurate photomontages should be provided to illustrate this, taken from locations on Topsham Road to be agreed with the LPA and showing the proposed development at completion and after 15 years.

Notwithstanding the above shortcomings, subject to securing high quality design proposals in relation to landscape and green infrastructure provision and good woodland management, the general conclusion that the proposed scheme would have a low/negligible landscape and visual impact once mitigation planting has sufficiently matured is broadly acceptable. Additionally, effective planting and good woodland management has the potential to improve the landscape setting and biodiversity value of the site in the long term.

2.2 Design and Access Statement (DAS)

The following points are noted:

Para 1.2, 6th bullet point notes the design works with the site topography to achieve balanced cut and fill. However no calculations are provided in support of this and only limited levels information is provided on the submitted drawings.

Para 2.6 notes the presence of a gas main across the site but does not provide any detail on the depth of this and any restrictions imposed in relation to planting and built form. Details of the restrictions prescribed by the utility company should be provided by the applicant.

Para. 2.8 notes the current poor visual quality of the interior of the business park.

Para. 3.5 notes the importance of the existing tree plantations both as a feature of the wider landscape and as a screen for the business park as identified in the submitted LVA.

19/1849/MFUL page 109

Para. 4.11 notes the applicant wishes the centre of the business park to be an attractive space and is happy to upgrade the landscaping in that area.

Only limited information is provided on proposed elevational finishes and no information is given on proposed roof materials although it is stated the new buildings will reflect the existing 'Topsham' units. No information is provide on proposed paving materials.

2.3 Ecological Assessment

The assessment makes recommendations for management of the woodland for bio- diversity benefit in accordance with a 15 year management plan.

Further recommendations are made for: a) The lighting scheme to be designed in accordance with Institute of Lighting Professionals/ Bat Conservation Trust guidance note 08/18 (Bats and artificial lighting in the UK, guidance note 08/18, Institute of Lighting Professionals/ Bat Conservation Trust, 2018), and to be reviewed for compliance by the ecologist.

b) Provision of sparrow and swift boxes on proposed buildings and bat boxes on selected perimeter trees.

2.4 Proposed site plan

The red line application area is incorrectly drawn and should be extended to cover the areas of proposed tree clearance to the southwest and southeast and drainage works to the west.

Units E and F are positioned too close to the proposed access road. There is scope to reposition them 3.5m further back from the road edge which would enable space to be provided between the parking bays and the road in which trees and shrubs could be planted as indicated in the over-marked plan extract, figure 2, below. This would help to screen the new buildings in views from the northwest and improve the visual quality of the site which is a stated aim of the applicant.

It is noted that existing trees growing within the gas pipe easement are to be cleared. There are also some buildings shown within the easement and the applicant should confirm whether these are to be removed also.

Proposed levels information is insufficiently shown. Spot levels should be added to proposed sitting areas and the extent of proposed grading works to surrounding woodland areas and any slopes steeper than 1:3 clearly indicated.

2.5 Arboricultural Constraints report and Tree Protection Plan

The arboricultural constraints report identifies all trees around the two ponds to the north of the woodland as C category and proposes that they are removed. In respect of the tree growth to the northern side of the north western pond these provide an

19/1849/MFUL page 110

effective screen for the buildings to the north (refer figure 1 below) and should be retained and suitably managed.

Section 4 of the Arboricultural report considers site soil conditions by reference to British Geological Survey data, past agricultural use and lack of disturbance to the existing woodland area for many years. There is no consideration of the current soil conditions within the brownfield land and a full site soil survey should be undertaken.

The extent of protective fencing shown on the plan to the west side of the proposed access road should be extended across the easement to the north side of hedge H5 to meet the northwest corner of the existing structure shown on the plan to the east of the easement.

2.6 Geotechnical and soil conditions

No geotechnical report is included with the application. Given the former use of the northern site area as a fuel depot there is potential for ground contamination from hydro-carbons and any other potential uses arising from past uses. There is no information provided on the make-up of the mound which should also be tested as it will be disturbed and regraded as part of the proposed works. If contamination is identified appropriate remediation measures will be required.

A soil survey should also be submitted providing information on topsoil and subsoil quality and depth in each area of the site and procedures for remediation, storage/ protection and spreading during construction to support healthy plant growth.

It was noted on a site visit on 11 October that clearance works had already been carried out around the ponds to the north of the site. The ground to the south of the larger pond is heavily compacted subsoil that has been over-tracked by a swing shovel.

Figure 1 - Recent and on-going clearance works to northern pond area.

Figure 2 - Aerial photo showing extent of proposed tree clearance and visibility of proposed units E-F in views from the northwest

Figure 3- Showing repositioning of units E-F to create space for planting to frontage and further suggested planting amendments to reduce visual impact and enhance site

2.7 Landscape Scheme and Habitat Creation Plan, Drawing no. D14 346 P5 Rev D

The submitted plan is unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

It is unclear from the layout how the new works will tie into the existing site layout at the northern end of the new access road and further detail should be added to the plan to show this.

There are a number of blank areas with no indication of their landscape treatment. These include:

19/1849/MFUL page 111

- Triangular area to the north east of unit J - Land to the west of the northern end of the proposed access road. - Land between unit G and proposed access road. - Areas not shown to be planted with native shrubs opposite the 2005/06 units.

Details of proposed planting within the above areas should be provided.

Further planting should be provided to the frontages of the proposed units, to the rear of the 2005/6 units and to the northwest of the proposed access road (refer figure 3 above).

The proposals include the felling of trees to the northern edge of the larger pond on northern edge of the site. While these trees are category C they provide screening of the industrial sheds to the north and should be retained particularly as any replacement planting is likely to struggle to establish in this location.

A number of trees are proposed to be planted within the bottom of the proposed swale (Area B on plan). It is likely that ground conditions will be too wet for new tree planting to survive and planting should be re-positioned around the perimeter of the basin.

The proposed shrub planting mix to the west side of the proposed access road is too close to the road edge and will result in plants growing out into the carriageway requiring frequent cutting back through the growing season. Planting should be set back 2m from the carriageway edge with a grass verge provided in between (refer figure 3).

Proposed tree sizes for replacement planting are generally 6-8cm girth. While this is acceptable for woodland mix areas, proposed tree planting around building curtilages should be supplied as 12-14cm girth heavy standards.

A large grey rectangle is shown adjacent to the parking bays to the northwest of unit H. An explanation should be provided of what this is.

Landscape specification notes

Topsoil: The specification makes reference to an outdated version of the British Standard for top soils. The correct version is BS3882: 2015. In respect of existing site topsoil the specification should include stripping, temporary storage as well as spreading and preparation of subsoil. The specification for topsoil to tree pits to be 900mm deep is contrary to best practice guidance and the notes in the tree planting details provided elsewhere in the specification and should be amended accordingly.

Planting preparation: The reference to HTA National Plant Specification is out of date and this publication is no longer available. A specification should be provided covering the handling, setting out, planting, watering in and mulching of trees and shrubs together with preparation of soil for seeding and grass sowing.

Maintenance: The maintenance notes should include a 10 year maintenance schedule covering the main operations required and their frequency including watering during

19/1849/MFUL page 112

drought periods and checking and removal of tree ties/ stakes. It should also cover maintenance of grass areas.

Other drawing notes

Grass areas: the last sentence states that the area to the front of units G-J may be used for a mobile food vending facility. There is no mention of a food vending facility in the DAS or any of the other supporting documents and the applicants should confirm their intention regarding such a facility. The suggested location in front of units G-J is considered inappropriate given its prominence.

Landscape designer involvement and supervision: the note indicates that the landscape planting has been purposefully left open so that species, locations and precise details can be altered to allow for specific circumstances. This is considered unsatisfactory, particularly given the sensitivities of the site and a detailed planting scheme should be provided indicating locations, numbers and species of all planting areas. A minor amendment or variation application should be submitted should circumstances subsequently entail a change to any approved planting scheme.

3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In principle, subject to the issues noted at 3.1 below being satisfactorily addressed the scheme could be considered acceptable in terms of landscape and visual impact.

3.1 Pre- determination requirements

The following amendments/ clarifications should be provided prior to determination of the application: a) The submitted Proposed Site Plan should be amended in line with comments at section 2.4 above including re-positioning of units E-F. b) The submitted Tree Protection Plan, drawing no. D14 346 P2 Rev D should be amended as noted at section 2.5 above. c) The submitted Landscape Scheme and habitat creation plan, Rev D should be amended to take account of comments at section 2.4 and 2.7 above. d) Confirmation should be provided on the following points:

- Details of utility company restrictions over the gas main easement and its depth below ground. - Intentions regarding the siting of a mobile food outlet. e) A ground contamination and site soil assessment should be submitted for the whole site. Contamination sampling should extend to 2m below proposed finished levels.

3.2 Landscape conditions

19/1849/MFUL page 113

Subject to satisfactory responses to the above points and approval of the application the following conditions should be imposed:

1 No development work shall commence on site until the following information has been submitted and approved: a) A detailed plan at 1:250 scale or larger showing site layout and proposed hard surface treatments, kerbs and edgings, walls, fences, railings, lighting, site furniture and signage in relation to existing buildings and vegetation together with associated construction details, materials and colour finishes. b) Detailed levels plans at 1:250 scale or larger showing the proposed grading and mounding of land areas including the levels and contours to be formed and any retaining structures and the relationship of proposed mounding/ excavation to existing vegetation and surrounding landform. c) A site clearance plan at 1:500 scale or greater showing extent of clearance of existing vegetation, pavings and structures. d) Details of locations, heights and specifications of proposed external lighting including lux level plan and statement of intended hours of operation and means of control together with verification from ecologist that proposals are compliant with ILE/ Bat Conservancy Council guidance note 08/18. Details of measures to limit light spill from buildings shall also be provided. e) Details of proposed elevational and roof materials should be confirmed and samples submitted for approval. f) A full set of soft landscape details including planting plans showing locations and number of new tree, shrub and herbaceous planting, type and extent of new grass/ wildflower areas, existing vegetation to be retained, tree pits details and staking methods and means of plant protection during the establishment phase. g) Plant schedule indicating quantity, form, size and density of planting h) The works shall be carried out in accordance with an approved soil resources plan which should include:

- a plan showing topsoil and subsoil types, and the areas to be stripped and left in- situ. - methods for stripping, stockpiling, re-spreading and ameliorating the soils. - location of soil stockpiles and content (e.g. Topsoil type A, subsoil type B). - schedules of volumes for each material. - expected after-use for each soil whether topsoil to be used on site, used or sold off site, or - subsoil to be retained for landscape areas, used as structural fill or for topsoil manufacture. - identification of person responsible for supervising soil management. i) A 15 year landscape and ecology management plan (LEMP) shall be

19/1849/MFUL page 114

submitted for the site which should include the following details:

- Extent, ownership and responsibilities for management and maintenance. - Inspection and management arrangements for existing and proposed woodland, trees and hedgerows. - Management and maintenance of grass areas. - Management and enhancement of biodiversity value including provision of bat and bird boxes as recommended in the Ecological Appraisal. - Management and maintenance of any boundary structures, drainage swales and other infrastructure/ facilities within the site.

2 The works shall be executed in accordance with the approved drawings and shall be completed prior to first occupation of any of the proposed buildings with the exception of planting which shall be completed no later than the first planting season following first occupation.

3 Measures for protection of existing perimeter trees during construction phase shall be implemented in full prior to commencement of construction work. Protective fencing shall be regularly inspected and maintained in sound condition for the duration of the works.

4 Any new planting which fails to make satisfactory growth or dies or any existing woodland trees which die or are uprooted within five years following completion of the development shall be replaced with plants of similar size and species to the satisfaction of the LPA.

Economic Development Officer

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

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

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

19/1849/MFUL page 115

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

Other Representations

Two representations have been received, one raising objections and one stating support with no observations. These objections raised can be summarised as follows:

• Encroachment in an area identified as Green Wedge • Removal of trees planted as a condition of a previous consent • No benefit to the local community • Additional noise and traffic • Existing drainage problems will be exacerbated • Inappropriate to drain excess rainfall into tidal ditch • Increased risk of flooding of residential properties

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies

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

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

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

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

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

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2018) National Planning Practice Guidance

Clyst St. George Neighbourhood Plan

19/1849/MFUL page 116

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

Site Location and Description

The application site is located to the south of the Dart’s Business Park in Clyst St George. It extends to an area of 0.9ha, part of which, until recently, has been used as a fuel storage depot with the remainder currently part of a wooded plantation.

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

Proposed Development

Planning permission is sought for the removal and redevelopment of an existing vacant fuel depot and an extension to the existing Business Park to create an additional 6 business units, together with operational development comprising a revised road network, associated parking and servicing. The proposed units each measure 187 square metres, with the proposed use falling within an office, light industry and storage and distribution use (Use Classes B1 and B8).

The design of the proposed units is reflective of a number of other similar units which were constructed to the east of the current site. The units are arranged in two blocks with four units facing into the main body of the site, and generally located in the position of the former fuel depot. The other two units front onto the new internal estate road, and orientated towards the south west of the site.

Supporting information suggests that the proposal will generate between 20-25 new jobs.

Planning History

There is one previous relevant application (17/3002/MOUT) - Outline application to extend Business Park to create 10 additional units to be used for offices, light industry and storage and distribution (Use Classes Order B1 & B8): all matters reserved other than access; consideration of scale and layout.

This application was refused at the Development Management Committee on the 3rd May 2019 for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, by virtue of its scale and extension beyond the built form of Darts Business Park and outside of any recognised development boundary is within the open countryside where new development is strictly controlled. As there are no policies within the Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plan that facilitate such development, the proposal represents development in the countryside in conflict with the spatial

19/1849/MFUL page 117

approach to accommodate industrial development within defined settlements as identified within the Local Plan and Clyst St George Neighbourhood Plan. It is not considered that there are material circumstances to outweigh the adverse impacts of further industrial development in this location. As such the proposal is contrary to Strategies 6 (Development within Built-Up Area Boundaries) and 7 (Development in the Countryside), and Policies E5 (Small Scale Economic Development in Rural Areas), and E7 (Extensions to Existing Employment Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031; and Policy CSG5 (Development Outside the Settlement Areas) of the Clyst St George Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2015 - 2031.

2. The proposed development, by virtue of its scale and position within the open countryside, and significant loss of trees would have a harmful visual impact which is not outweighed by any economic or other benefits. As a result the development will be contrary to Strategies 8 (Development in Green Wedges), 44 (Undeveloped Coast and Coastal Preservation Area), and 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs), and Polices D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), D2 (Landscape Requirements), and D3 (Trees and Development Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 -2031. It is also contrary to Policies CSG6 (Protection of Trees and Woodlands), and CSG9 (Design Matters) of the Clyst St George Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2015 - 2031.

As part of the consideration of that application, Members discussed that a scheme of a reduced size may be acceptable.

ANALYSIS

In determining this application the main issues to be considered relate to

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

Principle of the Proposed Development

The site lies in the open countryside as defined by Strategy 7 of the East Devon Local Plan where all development must be strictly controlled so that it does not impact unreasonably on the character and appearance of its surroundings. This does not

19/1849/MFUL page 118

preclude all development, however only proposals which are in accordance with a specific policy of the Local Plan are considered appropriate. The application site lies outside of any identified built up area boundary and as such has been advertised and is considered as a departure from the local plan.

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

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

Whilst Policy E7 of the local plan relates to the expansion of existing business parks, it also relates to ‘small scale’ expansion, proportionate to the size and scale of existing operations. It is therefore necessary firstly to consider the scale of the proposed development and whether the proposal would constitute ‘small scale’ In this respect, the proposal is for the development of 6 commercial and light industrial units, with a floor space of around 1,122 square metres. Whilst the policy does not specify ‘small scale’, this is relative to the size of the current business park. In this situation the increase in the size of the park by a further 6 units is considered to exceed what can be regarded as small scale. With this in mind, as the proposal would result in the loss of woodland protected in the Neighbourhood Plan (see below) contrary to criteria 3, and as there are no other specific policies which support the proposed development it is considered that principle is contrary to Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) of the Local Plan.

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

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

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

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

19/1849/MFUL page 119

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

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

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

The proposal would result in the loss of some of woodland (as identified on Map 7) without significant replacement planting (as there is no land within the site or elsewhere in the applicant’s ownership to enable this) and as such the proposal is contrary to Policy CSG6. This also weighs heavily against the proposal, although partly in mitigation the proposal includes new planting over a high pressure gas pipeline through the adjoining woodland which is a safety benefit, creation of a woodland edge planting area, flood alleviation benefits from a new 'Swale' planted with various tree species and shrubs, and other landscape improvements around the site.

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

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

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

19/1849/MFUL page 120

Economic Benefits

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

The proposed units are larger than these, being 187m² although the design principles are similar. They would offer a wider range of modern purpose built units which do not currently exist on the park. Supporting information suggests that between 20-25 new jobs would be created by the proposal which would make a positive contribution to the local economy.

The Economic Development Officer has confirmed that there remains a significant shortage of well-located B-use accommodation in East Devon with the Dart Business Centre, and East Devon Business Centre full to capacity and a short fall, and under- provision of similar units throughout the district.

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

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

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

This economic benefit weigh heavily in favour of the proposal with the final balance between these benefits and any harm from the proposal being contrary to local and neighbourhood plan policy discussed under the Conclusion section after consideration of all other matters.

Landscape and Visual Impact

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

19/1849/MFUL page 121

new development which could lead to the coalescence of adjacent or neighbouring settlements, and seeks to retain open land between settlements.

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

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

The site is largely constrained by the presence of a gas main which dissects the site, the trees on it, and its location including part of the site within an area identified as being within floodzone 2/3. The central area of the site is at a higher level than the existing units. The application involves the removal of part of the plantation, extending up to and including the easement of the gas main. It is understood that this easement should not have been included within the planted area.

A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been submitted as part of the proposal which assessed the impact which the proposed buildings would have from various receptor points. This report concludes that there would be some localised effects resulting from the loss of the trees to the western boundary, and those over the easement, but that further more appropriate planting will be undertaken to provide a replacement woodland edge in order to increase the diversity of the site.

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

As the proposed development is smaller than the previous proposal with a substantially larger area of the woodland retained, the visual impact from the proposal is significantly less than that proposed as part of the previously refused application. This is reflected in the comments from the Parish Council who support this proposal, having been strongly opposed to the previous application.

Trees

The construction of the units and associated infrastructure will result in the loss of a number of the trees within the plantation amounting to an area of approximately 0.2 hectares, with an additional 0.3 ha removed from the gas main easement. It is proposed to retain the majority of the boundary planting and to supplement and manage the retained woodland within the planation.

The site lies within an area of woodland identified as an important natural feature within Clyst St George Neighbourhood Plan. Policy CSG6 seeks to retain the trees,

19/1849/MFUL page 122

woodland and hedgerows that contribute positively to the character an amenity of the area. Where trees are lost the policy requires replacement planting.

The proposed development would result in the loss of a number of trees, with the site of insufficient size to permit replacement planting in accordance with the policy and no other land within the applicant’s ownership for replacement planting. As such the scheme would fail to accord with the Neighbourhood Plan. Having said this the proposal would allow proper management of the retained plantation (through condition), and through appropriate replacement planting over the gas main easement, and landscaping of the woodland swale, an improvement in the quality of the woodland can be achieved. Subject to these improvements the Landscape Officer and Parish Council have raised no objections to the removal of the trees. There are also economic benefits to the locality and the proposal will permit the proper management of the land above the gas main easement crossing the site.

Whilst the loss of any trees is regrettable this must be balanced against the potential benefits of the proposal. This application seeks to retain significantly more of the woodland than that previously proposed, and on balance it is considered that the overall economic benefits arising from the proposed development, together with appropriate additional planting and landscaping would be sufficient to mitigate this loss.

Residential Amenity

There are two residential properties which share boundaries with the wider area of the business park to the west, and a further 6 which are in close proximity to this. The proposed development would extend the built form of the business park towards the rear of these properties, and remove a number of trees from within the plantation, although the distance from the neighbouring dwelling to the closest unit is in excess of 90 metres with a large area of intervening woodland retained.

The proposed wetland swale and drainage ditch would be created through the woodland to the east of these properties, and concern has been raised regarding the adequacy of the drainage and the possibility of additional surface water run-off and the potential increase in flood risk. Whilst these concerns are appreciated, the proposal has been submitted with supporting drainage information and calculations which demonstrate that the proposed arrangements would not result in any increase in surface water run off or risk of flooding. These details have resulted in the removal of the original objection to the application from Devon County Council Flood Risk Team.

Other amenity concerns in terms of noise and nuisance and light pollution previously raised, are considered to have been addressed in the current proposal, with the reduced number of units and revised siting away from the neighbouring residents resulting in an acceptable scheme. A condition is however proposed to restrict openings and plant on the western elevations of units A-D to protect residential amenity.

19/1849/MFUL page 123

Having said this and in order to ensure that appropriate protection is afforded for the occupiers of the existing dwellings, conditions relating to noise and light pollution, as required by Environmental Health are considered to be appropriate.

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

Highway Safety

Access to the new units would be taken from the existing business park entrance, with a new link road being created through the former fuel depot to the south of the Topsham Units. This would result in a loop road layout which would assist internal circulation and reduce the number of vehicle manoeuvres.

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

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

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

Drainage and Flooding

Part of the site is located within an area identified as being within floodzone 2/3 where new development will normally be resisted. Having said this the nature of the proposed use is categorised as ‘less vulnerable’ in flood risk terms and, subject to appropriate resistance and resilience measures can be accommodated within such areas.

A drainage strategy and flood risk assessment has been submitted with the application which is considered to be appropriate to address previous concerns regarding surface water run-off and flood risk. It has been amended during the course of the application to address the original objection from the Lead Flood Authority who have subsequently removed their objection subject to the imposition of conditions.

The Environment Agency have confirmed that subject to appropriate floor levels being achieved there is no objection to the proposal.

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

19/1849/MFUL page 124

Subject to compliance with the submitted proposals and appropriate conditions to ensure suitable floor levels, flood resistance and resilience measures are undertaken, the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

Noise, Pollution, and Contaminated Land

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

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

Similarly light pollution can have a significant impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties (and wildlife, which is considered below). With this in mind the revised layout has moved the units further away from the nearest properties (in excess of 90m) and this together with suitable restrictions on the position and nature of any external lighting are considered to be appropriate to ensure that no nuisance arises from the development.

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

Ecology

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

19/1849/MFUL page 125

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

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

Appropriate Assessment and Habitats Mitigation

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

Impact on Protected Landscapes

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

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

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

19/1849/MFUL page 126

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

This weighs against the proposal and previously justified refusal of a larger application for 10 units on a site greater than that now proposed.

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

Further benefits arise from safer planting above the gas main, improved flood management through provision of new planted swales, better internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation and improved landscaping through the site.

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

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

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

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

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

19/1849/MFUL page 127

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

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

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

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

5. A Construction and Environment Management Plan must be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works commencing on site, and shall be implemented and remain in place throughout the development. The CEMP shall include at least the following matters: Air Quality, Dust, Water Quality, Lighting, Noise and Vibration, Pollution Prevention and Control, and Monitoring Arrangements. No construction or demolition works shall be undertaken between 1 October and 31 March with construction working hours outside of this shall be 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. There shall be no burning on site. There shall be no high frequency audible reversing alarms used on the site. (Reason: To protect the amenities of existing and future residents in the vicinity of the site from noise, air, water and light pollution.)

6. Prior to commencement of any development of the site the Planning Authority shall have received and approved a Construction Management Plan (CMP) including:

(a) the timetable of the works; (b) daily hours of construction;

19/1849/MFUL page 128

(c) any road closure; (d) hours during which delivery and construction traffic will travel to and from the site, with such vehicular movements being restricted to between 8:00am and 6pm Mondays to Fridays inc.; 9.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays, and no such vehicular movements taking place on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays unless agreed by the planning Authority in advance; (e) the number and sizes of vehicles visiting the site in connection with the development and the frequency of their visits; (f) the compound/location where all building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste will be stored during the demolition and construction phases; (g) areas on-site where delivery vehicles and construction traffic will load or unload building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste with confirmation that no construction traffic or delivery vehicles will park on the County highway for loading or unloading purposes, unless prior written agreement has been given by the Local Planning Authority; (h) hours during which no construction traffic will be present at the site; (i) the means of enclosure of the site during construction works; and (j) details of proposals to promote car sharing amongst construction staff in order to limit construction staff vehicles parking off-site (k) details of wheel washing facilities and obligations (l) The proposed route of all construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes. (m) Details of the amount and location of construction worker parking. (Reason: A pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that adequate facilities are available for construction and other traffic attracted to the site in accordance with Policy TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031)

7. No development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out at all times in accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To ensure, in accordance with Policy EN6 (Nationally and Locally Important Archaeological Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan and paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development'

8. No development shall take place until details of proposed groundworks have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include the following: • Plans showing the proposed grading and mounding of land areas including the levels and contours to be formed, showing the relationship of proposed mounding to existing vegetation and surrounding landform. • Sections showing the proposed grading and mounding of land areas including the levels to be formed, showing the relationship of proposed mounding to existing vegetation and surrounding landform. Each section shall include the existing site levels as a red dashed line.

19/1849/MFUL page 129

• Details of the site layout and proposed hard surface treatments, kerbs and edgings, walls, fences, railings, site furniture and signage in relation to existing buildings, together with associated construction details.

Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the development. (Reason - In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and Policy D2 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031. These details are required prior to the beginning of construction as groundworks will take place at the start.)

9. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development site for the full period of its construction has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system must satisfactorily address both the rates and volumes, and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site. (Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area.)

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

10. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until details of the exceedance pathways and overland flow routes across the site in the event of rainfall in excess of the design standard of the proposed surface water drainage management system have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: To ensure that the surface water runoff generated from rainfall events in excess of the design standard of the proposed surface water drainage management system is safely managed.)

11. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the full details of the adoption and maintenance arrangements for the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: To ensure that the development’s permanent surface water drainage management systems will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development.)

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

19/1849/MFUL page 130

12. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The design of this permanent surface water drainage management system will be in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in the Drainage Strategy Including Addendum Part 1 September 2019. No part of the development shall be occupied until the surface water management scheme serving that part of the development has been provided in accordance with the approved details and the drainage infrastructure shall be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development. (Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems.)

13. Prior to commencement of any works on site (including demolition), tree protection details, to include the protection of hedges and shrubs, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. These shall adhere to the principles embodied in BS 5837:2012 and shall indicate exactly how and when the trees will be protected during the site works. Provision shall also be made for supervision of tree protection by a suitably qualified and experienced arboricultural consultant and details shall be included within the tree protection statement. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the agreed details.

In any event, the following restrictions shall be strictly observed:

(a) No burning shall take place in a position where flames could extend to within 5m of any part of any tree to be retained. (b) No trenches for services or foul/surface water drainage shall be dug within the crown spreads of any retained trees (or within half the height of the trees, whichever is the greater) unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such installations shall be in accordance with the advice given in Volume 4: National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) Guidelines For The Planning, Installation And Maintenance Of Utility Apparatus In Proximity To Trees (Issue 2) 2007. (c) No changes in ground levels or excavations shall take place within the crown spreads of retained trees (or within half the height of the trees, whichever is the greater) unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - A pre-commencement condition is required to ensure retention and protection of trees on the site during and after construction. The condition is required in interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and D3 - Trees and Development Sites of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

14. Full details of the method of construction of hard surfaces in the vicinity of trees to be retained shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of any works on site (including demolition). The method shall adhere to the principles embodied in BS 5837:2012 and AAIS Arboricultural Practice Note 1 (1996) and involvement of an arboricultural

19/1849/MFUL page 131

consultant and engineer is recommended. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the agreed details. (Reason - A pre-commencement condition is required to ensure retention and protection of trees on the site during and after construction. The condition is required in the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and D3 - Trees and Development Sites of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

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

16. No development above foundation level shall take place until a landscaping scheme to the site and retained woodland has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme to include the planting of trees, hedges, shrubs, herbaceous plants and areas to be grassed. The scheme shall also give details of any proposed walls, fences and other boundary treatment. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of the development unless any alternative phasing of the landscaping is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the landscaping shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or other plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To ensure that the details are planned and considered at an early stage in the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and D2 - Landscape Requirements of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

17. A 15 year landscape and ecology management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas (including the adjoining retained woodland) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any development above foundation level. The proposals shall be carried out as approved for the full duration of the plan. (Reason - To ensure that the details are considered at an early stage in the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and D2 - Landscape Requirements of the Adopted New East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

19/1849/MFUL page 132

18. Prior to the occupation of any of the units hereby permitted, a lighting scheme shall be provided for the site which complies with the requirements of the Institute of Light Engineers guidance on the avoidance of light pollution. The lamps used shall not be capable of reflecting light laterally, upwards or off the ground surface in such a way that light pollution is caused. No area lighting shall be operated outside the agreed working hours of the site, although low height, low level, local security lighting may be acceptable. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the agreed scheme. (Reason: To control light pollution and to protect the amenity of nearby residents in accordance with Policy EN14 for the avoidance of light pollution)

19. The final finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 4.7m above Ordnance Datum (AOD), and shall be retained and maintained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development. (Reason - To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants)

20. The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the conclusions and mitigation measures indicated in the Updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal dated June 2019 and Ecological Assessment dated 21 January 2020 by Colmer Ecology Ltd. (Reason - To ensure the planned mitigation measures for biodiversity enhancement and wildlife protection are appropriate and provided in an appropriate manner in accordance with Policies EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) and Strategy 5 (Environment) of the East Devon Local Plan and advice contained in Paragraphs 170, 172, 175 and 176 of the revised National Planning Policy Framework)

21. The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the details contained in the Flood Risk Assessment dated November 2019 (Reason: To ensure that the proposed drainage of the site is considered with the proposed layout of the site as a whole in accordance with Policies EN19 (Adequacy of Foul Sewers and Adequacy of Sewerage Treatment Systems) and EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan

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

23. Noise emitted from any refrigeration unit, cooling system, extract ventilation system or any other specific noise source shall be inaudible beyond the boundary of the premises. Within one month of the installation of such equipment, details of any acoustic mitigation required to achieve this noise level shall be submitted

19/1849/MFUL page 133

to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the equipment shall not be used until and unless the mitigation has been installed as agreed. For these purposes, "inaudibility" shall be determined as the specific noise level (after corrections have been applied) being at least 5dB less than the lowest background noise level measured at the time of the assessment, all measured in accordance with BS4142:2014. (Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents from noise and in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031)

24. Notwithstanding the submitted details none of the units hereby approved shall be occupied until details of flood refuge, flood resistance and resilience measures have been installed in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These measures shall remain in place in perpetuity. (Reason – To ensure that a safe refuge and appropriate provision is made in the event of flooding and in accordance with the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

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

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

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

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

Plans relating to this application:

amended Flood Risk Assessment 21.11.19

11499_R01c_CP Landscape Visual 20.08.19 _HM Impact Appraisal

D14 346 05 Arboriculturist Report 20.08.19

June 2019 Ecological Assessment 20.08.19

19/1849/MFUL page 134

D14 346 02 Arboriculturist Report 20.08.19 (Sept 2017)

ACT Acoustics Noise Impact 20.08.19 Assessment

297_L01.01 Rev Location Plan 05.09.19 P3

297_L01.02 Rev Proposed Site Plan 20.08.19 P3 : proposed site masterplan

297_L01.03 Rev Other Plans 20.08.19 P3 : key site areas

297_L01.05 Rev Proposed Site Plan 20.08.19 P3 (topographical)

297_L02.03 Rev Proposed Combined 20.08.19 P3 (units E+F) Plans

297_L03.01 rev Sections 20.08.19 P3 : A

297_L03.02 rev Sections 20.08.19 P3 : B

297_L03.03 rev Sections 20.08.19 P3 : C

297_L03.04 rev Sections 20.08.19 P3 : D

Arborcultural Additional Information 10.12.19 update

D14 346 P2 Rev Tree Protection Plan 10.12.19 E

D14 346 P5 Rev Landscaping 10.12.19 E

Photos 08.01.20

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

19/1849/MFUL page 135

19/1849/MFUL page 136 Appropriate Assessment

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

Application 19/1849/MOUT Reference

Brief description Redevelopment of part of the business park (fuel storage depot and motor sales area) of proposal and extension to create 6 additional units to be used for offices and Light Industry use (Use Class B1), Storage and Distribution (Use Class B8) Location Dart Business Park Road Past Darts Farm Clyst St George Site is: Within 10km of Dawlish Warren SAC and the Exe Estuary SPA site

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

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

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

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

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

Risk Assessment Could the The proposal is for an employment use and whilst within 10km of the Protected Qualifying Landscapes, the employment units will not generate any increase in recreation Features of the impacts on the Protected Landscapes in themselves European site be affected by the proposal? The development will result in additional traffic, disturbance and Consider both employment/industrial activity adjacent to the Exe Estuary. This could result construction and in general noise and disturbance in addition to pressure from staff and visitors operational stages. using the protected landscapes during break times. Additional disturbance is likely during the construction period

Conclusion of Screening

19/1849/MFUL page 137

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

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

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

An Appropriate Assessment of the plan or proposal is necessary.

Local Authority Date: Officer

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

In-combination Effects Plans or projects Whilst there is additional housing and tourist accommodation within 10km with potential of the SPA/SAC which will add to the existing issues of damage and cumulative in- disturbance arising from recreational use, the proposal being of an combination industrial/business nature is not considered to add to the recreational impacts. pressure or to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Exe Estuary How impacts of SPA, Dawlish Warren SAC and Ramsar sites alone or in combination with current proposal other plans or projects. combine with other plans or projects individually or severally. Mitigation of in- combination effects. Assessment of Impacts with Mitigation Measures Mitigation As identified the application site lies close to the Exe Estuary Special measures included Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site. These sites are designated for their in the proposal. overwintering wildfowl and waders. In addition the works are within close proximity to the Dawlish Warren Special Area of Conservation (SAC), designated for its coastal geomorphology and dune systems. A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Additional Ecological Recommendations have been submitted as part of the application which

19/1849/MFUL page 138

outlines how the development could impact on the overwintering bird species. Because of the SPA and Ramsar designations the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 must be applied in the determination of this application. Regulation 61 requires East Devon District Council, as the competent authority, to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) of the implications of this proposal on the site's conservation objectives before granting permission for a proposal which is likely to have a significant effect upon a European site.

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

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

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

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

19/1849/MFUL page 139

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

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

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

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

Local Authority Date: Officer

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

Appendix 1. List of interest features:

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

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

19/1849/MFUL page 140

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

Dawlish Warren SAC Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site (under the Habitats Directive): Annex I habitat: Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (‘white dunes’). (Strandline, embryo and mobile dunes.) SD1 Rumex crispus-Glaucium flavum shingle community SD2 Cakile maritima-Honkenya peploides strandline community SD6 Ammophila arenaria mobile dune community SD7 Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune community Annex I habitat: Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (‘grey dunes’). SD8 Festuca rubra-Galium verum fixed dune grassland SD12 Carex arenaria-Festuca ovina-Agrostis capillaris dune grassland SD19 Phleum arenarium-Arenaria serpyllifolia dune annual community Annex I habitat: Humid dune slacks. SD15 Salix repens-Calliergon cuspidatum dune-slack community SD16 Salix repens-Holcus lanatus dune slack community SD17 Potentilla anserina-Carex nigra dune-slack community

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

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

19/1849/MFUL page 141

East Devon Heaths SPA:

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

Objectives:

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

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC:

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

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

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

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

S1044. Coenagrion mercuriale; Southern damselfly

Objectives:

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

19/1849/MFUL page 142

 The structure and function of the habitats of qualifying species  The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species rely  The populations of qualifying species, and,  The distribution of qualifying species within the site.

Exe Estuary SPA

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

Objectives:

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

Exe Estuary Ramsar

Principal Features (updated 1999)

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

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

Because of its relatively mild climate and sheltered location, the site assumes even greater importance as a refuge during spells of severe weather. Nationally important numbers of Charadrius hiaticula and Tringa nebularia occur on passage. Parts of the site are managed as

19/1849/MFUL page 143

nature reserves by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and by the local authority. (1a,3a,3b,3c)

19/1849/MFUL page 144 Agenda Item 10

Ward Ottery St Mary

Reference 20/0280/VAR

Applicant Mr Stuart Matthews

Location Alfington House Church Lane Alfington Ottery St Mary EX11 1PE

Proposal Application to vary condition 1 (Use Condition) of planning permission 10/0625/FUL to allow use as a bed and breakfast ancillary to the use of Alfington House.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal, with enforcement action to restore the use of the building in accordance with the original condition.

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 145 Committee Date: 18th May 2020

Ottery St Mary Target Date: (Ottery St Mary) 20/0280/VAR 06.04.2020

Applicant: Mr Stuart Matthews

Location: Alfington House Church Lane

Proposal: Application to vary condition 1 (Use Condition) of planning permission 10/0625/FUL to allow use as a bed and breakfast ancillary to the use of Alfington House.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal, with enforcement action to restore the use of the building in accordance with the original condition.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before Members as the recommendation is contrary to the view of one of the Ward Councillors.

Planning permission is sought to vary a condition to allow a converted outbuilding ancillary to the main house to be used as B&B accommodation operated from Alfington House. The use has already begun in contravention of the condition.

Policy E16 of the Local Plan is broadly supportive of the re-use of rural buildings for holiday accommodation purposes and the proposal satisfies most of the criteria of that policy. Where concerns have been raised by a neighbour, these can be addressed through a suitable re-wording of the condition or through future planning applications.

However, the proposal has given rise to an objection from the Highway Authority on the grounds that the proposal would lead to increased use of a severely substandard junction. The junction concerned is where Church Lane meets the B3177, which provides the only vehicular access to the site. Visibility in both directions at this junction is extremely poor, with emerging vehicles relying on mirrors to see oncoming traffic. The Highway Authority does not support the use of mirrors as an alternative to the provision of proper visibility splays because they can be misleading and unclear. Furthermore, the applicant cannot provide improved visibility.

While the proposal would bring a small economic benefit, this would be outweighed by the danger to the users of the holiday accommodation as well as to other road users. The proposal is therefore recommended for refusal, along

20/0280/VAR page 146

with enforcement action to cease the holiday accommodation use and to revert the building to its lawful use as an annexe.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Ottery St Mary - Cllr Vicky Johns With the information that I have to hand I don't have any objection to this application. As long as the neighbours have no objection, it doesn't lead to too much of an increase in the volume of traffic that uses the road and it doesn't cause any parking problems to uses of the village hall or Church. I reserve the right to change my opinion if any new information comes to light.

Ottery St Mary - Cllr Geoff Pratt I have no objection to this application provided that the Decision contains Conditions as set out in the letter from Mr and Mrs Creek dated 5th March 2020. Mr and Mrs Creek live in The Old School House adjacent to the site of the Coach House and there are concerns regarding the possible use of the driveway leading to the Coach House

I do not consider the objection by Highways to be of any merit due to a very limited amount of additional traffic.

Parish/Town Council Ottery St Mary Town Council supports this application but has a concern about the number of vehicle movements on the road.

Other Representations One representation has been received objecting unless:

• Access is only via Alfington House from the north • The coach house cannot be sold separately • The use is not for long-term letting • No business other than B&B is permitted

Technical Consultations

Environmental Health I have considered the application and do not anticipate any environmental health concerns relevant to the planning process. My colleagues in the commercial team will contact the applicant in due course to discuss any food hygiene matters that need addressing.

Devon County Highway Authority The site in question is located on Church Lane, B1777. The access to the site is of poor visibility, sub-standard to our current standard on both approaches, the presence of highway mirrors in this vicinity further emphasis's this issue. The County Highway Authority (CHA) no longer endorses the use of highway

20/0280/VAR page 147

mirrors as it has been found to make objects appear further away than they truly are, it can also present a dazzling effect in low or direct sunlight. Though I appreciate that the access is existing, due to the problem fore-mentioned the CHA would not wish to see the access undergo any increased use from increased trip generation. I also understand that the original application 10/0625/FUL in which this variation is based on was approved, however it must be stressed that this was for ancillary use and therefore has limited additional trip generation occurrence.

Therefore, in summary the CHA wish to raise an objection to this planning application.

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date 03/P3046 Conversion Of Stable/garage Refusal 30.01.2004 Annexe To Residential Annexe 10/0625/FUL Conversion of two storey Approval 28.04.2010 coach house to ancillary office, with gym/garden room/changing conditions room, gallery/studio and dormitery for foreign exchange students including alterations and extension.

POLICIES

Ottery St Mary and West Hill Neighbourhood (Made) Policy NP1: Development in the Countryside Policy NP9: Accessible Developments Policy NP20: Small-scale Farm Based Tourism

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) Strategy 33 (Promotion of Tourism in East Devon) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D8 (Re-use of Rural Buildings Outside of Settlements) E16 (Proposals for Holiday or Overnight Accommodation and Associated Facilities) TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

Site Location and Description

Alfington House is located just beyond the church at the end of Church Lane in Alfington. Described as a village in the Neighbourhood Plan, Alfington is a fairly linear settlement situated on the B3177 with development focussed in two distinct clusters.

20/0280/VAR page 148

The application site is in the Church Lane/Mill Lane part of the settlement where the church and village hall are located. In the other part of the village to the south of the site there is a small shop and access to the local bus service but the pub closed several years ago.

The application building is a former outbuilding which has been enlarged and has permission for ancillary use to the main house. It is situated close to the host dwelling and can be accessed from there or via a separate access around the side and rear of the village hall. This is also the access to School House, a dwelling situated just to the south east of the application building.

Alfington does not have a Built-up Area Boundary and the site is therefore in the countryside for planning policy purposes.

The building is detached from the main house and although there is a right of way to the building which is shared with the Old School House and the church hall, it is understood that the building is mainly accessed from the parking area on the north side of the host dwelling.

The property is advertised on AirBnB and is described as follows:

“The Coach house is recently renovated to a very high standard. It consists of a living room with plenty of seating, wood burner and free supply of logs, under floor heating, a dining room that opens into our extensive gardens, a bathroom with shower and plenty of fluffy towels and an upstairs double bedroom with seating area with views over the River Otter and garden. It is ideal for a couple but we can add a crib and/or single bed for young family if given prior notice.

The space

There is no kitchen although there is a range of crockery and glasses with a small fridge and tea and coffee making facilities and basket of complimentary fruit teas, ground and instant coffee, hot chocolate and biscuits. We want to make your visit as comfortable and enjoyable as possible.

There is plenty of parking and although you can park immediately out side we do request that you park by the house and walk through the garden to reduce disturbance of neighbours.

Guest access

The coach house opens onto the garden If staying for longer than a couple of days there are washing facilities for laundry by arrangement.

Other things to note

There are two sun loungers for use in the garden in which you are welcome to sit and enjoy the scenery. We appreciate how much energy youngsters have so you are welcome to let them play in the garden so long as you supervise them at all times.”

20/0280/VAR page 149

From this description it is clear that the building is not currently adapted for independent occupation.

Background

Planning permission was sought in 2003 to convert the building from a garage/store to an annexe for elderly relatives. Permission was refused on a number of grounds: highway concerns in relation to the road leading to the site, conflict with policy restricting the creation of new dwellings in the countryside, design concerns, and privacy impacts.

The same applicants applied again in 2010, this time proposing ancillary uses, such as a home gym, changing facilities for their swimming pool and a home office. Provision was also made for a small 'dorm' which the applicants required in their role as guardians for international students studying at schools in the UK. Based on the uses proposed in that application, permission was granted but a condition was imposed to prevent any independent occupation or commercial use. The condition states:

The building subject of the application shall be used only in conjunction with, and ancillary to, the use of Alfington House as a single dwelling house and shall not be used as a separate dwelling or for any commercial, industrial or business purpose. (Reason - The building is unsuitable for independent residential occupation and a commercial use could cause undue noise to adjoining occupiers.)

It is this condition which the applicants now seek to vary to allow B&B use.

Proposal

Planning permission is sought to enable the use of the converted outbuilding for Bed and Breakfast purposes as well as to retain the ancillary use. The B&B use has already begun although it is not clear when it commenced.

Assessment

The main issue for consideration is whether the principle of development is acceptable in this location.

The policy framework under which this application must be considered is entirely new since the 2003 and 2010 applications were determined. Even so, many of the principles are unchanged and it remains the case that the site is in the countryside for planning policy purposes.

The current local plan permits development in the countryside only where it would be in accordance with a specific local or neighbourhood plan policy.

Policy NP20 of the Neighbourhood Plan supports small scale holiday accommodation in the countryside but only where this would diversify a farm business. This builds on

20/0280/VAR page 150

Policy E19 of the Local Plan and reinforces Policy E4 but does not benefit the current proposal because there is no connection to a farm.

The main Local Plan policy of relevance is policy E16 which supports "Conversion or use of existing buildings in the open countryside, within close proximity to the main farm house or country house, for small-scale holiday accommodation uses", subject to a number of criteria. These criteria are now addressed in turn:

1. The scale, level and intensity of development is compatible with the character of the surrounding area, including adjoining and nearby settlements.

As a single unit of accommodation with other residential properties nearby, the proposal would neither be out of scale nor out of character with its surroundings.

2. The proposal does not harm the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Although the neighbours raised concerns about privacy in the 2003 scheme, these were addressed in 2010 and the Council concluded at the time that there would be no loss of privacy. It was also commented upon that re-use of the building might lead to increased activity near to the neighbour's dwelling but this was not expected to give rise to significant adverse effects.

The current application proposes no alterations to window or door openings and therefore raises no new privacy issues. Furthermore, although the use would give rise to holiday makers unfamiliar with the area coming and going, it is understood that this has been well managed so far and has not interfered with the neighbour's amenity.

Nevertheless, the current arrangements are informal and the neighbours, supported by one of the ward councillors, have made a number of suggestions regarding control over the use of the building. The first relates to access and is accepted. If planning permission were to be granted, an extra condition requiring the occupants of the building to park in front of Alfington House and to access the accommodation from the north would be justified. This would prevent frequent intrusion into the privacy of the occupiers of the Old School House if the other access were to be used.

The second suggestion is that the applicants should be prevented from selling the building separately. If they were to do that it is likely that the sole access would have to be via the access shared with The Old School House. However, it is not clear what access rights any future owners would acquire with the building nor what use it could be put to in the absence of a planning permission granting an independent use. Given that the planning authority cannot control ownership, a condition covering this is not possible. However as the planning authority would maintain control over future uses, and could therefore take into account any impact on the neighbours, it is not considered necessary to control ownership.

The third suggestion is that long-term letting of the property should not be allowed. From the submitted information it is clear that this is not what the applicants are seeking and, if the Committee is minded to grant planning permission, the condition

20/0280/VAR page 151

limiting the use would ensure that it could only be used for B&B purposes, or for uses ancillary to the occupation of the main house.

The fourth suggestion is that no other commercial use of the property should be allowed. Again, the applicants are not seeking any such use and the use could be limited by condition. Furthermore the planning authority would retain control over other uses.

In summary, it is considered most all of the neighbour’s concerns can be addressed (excluding the control over ownership), if the Committee is minded to grant permission.

3. On-site servicing and parking facilities are provided commensurate with the level and intensity of the proposed use.

As alluded to, there is parking provision on the north side of Alfington House which is adequate for the holiday accommodation and the host dwelling.

4. The proposal is accessible on foot, by bicycle and public transport and will not impair road safety or the free flow of traffic.

There are no public footpaths connecting the site to any services or facilities and no pavements on the main road. However, there is informal provision of a path around a field linking Church Lane to the other main cluster of houses in the village, bypassing the main road. Although this has no formal status there is no reason to believe that it will be withdrawn in future. This path means that holiday makers would be able to access the local bus service which connects Alfington to Ottery St Mary and Honiton. Alternatively, car journeys to local amenities in Ottery St Mary or Honiton would be fairly short. While this location is not ideal, and means the occupants are likely to be car-dependent, it is acceptable for a holiday use.

Turning to road safety, owing to the limited alternatives to accessing the site by car, it is likely that most, if not all, holiday makers staying at the property would arrive by car and make further car journeys from the site during their stay. The only vehicular access to the property is via the junction of Church Lane with the B3177. Visibility at this junction is severely substandard and drivers of vehicles emerging onto the main road rely on mirrors to see oncoming traffic from both directions. This is not an acceptable substitute for the appropriate visibility splays, which the applicant cannot provide in this case, and poses a danger to road users. On this basis the Highway Authority has objected to the proposal as it will result in an increase in traffic.

In mitigation the applicant has said “use of the coach house only occurs when we do not have our family (3 young, car owning adults) at home so the presence of B&B guests reflect a net reduction in the amount of traffic using Church & Mill Lanes.” However, this is not accepted as mitigation for the risk. First, the applicant’s family and business arrangements are personal to them; future owners of Alfington House are unlikely to occupy it in the same way. Second, the planning authority cannot control how many people occupy the main house but use of the outbuilding can be controlled. If the original permission is complied with, family occupation is unlikely to change but there would be no holiday use. In other words, approving this application would lead to occupation of the building when otherwise it would be empty and this would increase

20/0280/VAR page 152

the danger to road users. Finally, while it is accepted that local residents (including family) are familiar with the dangers of this junction, guests would not be and therefore the introduction of a holiday use represents an increased risk, both to the occupants of the building and other road users.

On that basis, criterion 4 is not satisfied and the proposal would also conflict with Policy TC7, which seeks to ensure that the proposed access would be safe.

For completeness, policy D8 of the local plan and paragraph 79 of the NPPF also need to be considered. Arguably, the site is not in an isolated location where the provisions of paragraph 79 would apply but policy D8 is in broad compliance with the NPPF in that both support the re-use of buildings in the countryside. However, in this case there would be no enhancement to the building or its setting as a result of the proposal and in any case these policies do not overcome the highway safety concerns.

In summary, owing to highway safety concerns, the proposal conflicts with Policies E16 and TC7 and hence also with Strategy 7 of the Local Plan.

CONCLUSION

The proposal would benefit the local economy and has already been doing so. This weighs in favour of the proposal. Indeed, Strategy 33 supports high quality tourism in the district. However, as the strategy makes clear, such development must be sustainable and should not be at the expense of other local plan objectives which seek to locate new development where it can be accessed safely.

In this case the only vehicular access to the property is severely substandard and consequently the highway authority has recommended refusal. In view of this objection, the risk to road users is considered to outweigh the economic benefit arising from the B&B use.

The proposal is therefore recommended for refusal, along with a recommendation for enforcement action to remedy the breach in the interests of highway safety and on the basis of the conflict with Strategy 7 and Policies E16 and TC7 of the Local Plan.

Human Rights Act 1998

In recommending enforcement action the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights have been considered with special attention being given to Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence", subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society".

The ‘public interest’ within Article 8(2) is considered necessary for the economic well- being of the country. In light of the harm identified, it is considered that the investigative actions undertaken and any subsequent and future enforcement action which may be undertaken are necessary and proportionate. In particular, such action would not conflict with the occupant's human rights.

20/0280/VAR page 153

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reason:

1. Use of the building for holiday accommodation purposes would lead to increased use of the junction of Mill Lane and the B3177 which has severely substandard visibility. This would pose a danger to occupants of the accommodation and other road users. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies E16 - Proposals for Holiday or Overnight Accommodation and Associated Facilities and TC7 - Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access and Strategy 7 Development in the Countryside of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031.

And serve an ENFORCEMENT Notice under section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on the owner(s) to secure:

• the cessation of the use of the building other than in accordance with condition 1 of planning permission ref 10/0625/FUL granted on 28 April 2010 • at The Coach House, Alfington House, Church Lane. Alfington, Ottery St Mary, EX11 1PE • because planning permission has been refused for the development as it is likely to cause a danger to highway safety contrary to Strategy 7 and Policies E16 and TC7 of the Local Plan • with a time period for compliance of 3 months.

Appeal Costs: 2 x £234

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Informative: In accordance with the aims of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 East Devon District Council seeks to work positively with applicants to try and ensure that all relevant planning concerns have been appropriately resolved; however, in this case the development is considered to be fundamentally unacceptable such that the Council's concerns could not be overcome through negotiation.

Plans relating to this application:

Letter 10.02.20

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

20/0280/VAR page 154 Agenda Item 11

Ward Whimple And Rockbeare

Reference 18/1222/MFUL

Applicant MRH (GB) Ltd

Location Land South Of Lily Cottage Exeter Road Whimple Proposal Application for the development of a new roadside service area to include a petrol filling station comprising sales building, canopy over, car and caravan parking, fuel pumps, HGV fuel pumps, 2 no. underground storage tanks and ancillary arrangements, new A3/A5 use building and drive-thru, HGV and coach parking, new access arrangements and landscaping and drainage

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 attached to the original report is adopted; and 2. APPROVE subject to the conditions detailed in the original report attached.

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 155 UPDATE REPORT Committee Date: 18th May 2020

Whimple And Target Date: Rockbeare 18/1222/MFUL 05.09.2018 (Whimple)

Applicant: MRH (GB) Ltd

Location: Land South Of Lily Cottage Exeter Road

Proposal: Application for the development of a new roadside service area to include a petrol filling station comprising sales building, canopy over, car and caravan parking, fuel pumps, HGV fuel pumps, 2 no. underground storage tanks and ancillary arrangements, new A3/A5 use building and drive- thru, HGV and coach parking, new access arrangements and landscaping and drainage

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 attached to the original report is adopted; and 2. APPROVE subject to the conditions detailed in the original report attached.

Background

This planning application was originally before Members at the 3rd December 2019 Development Management Committee (DMC). The Committee resolved to defer making a decision to seek further information from the applicant in relation to the visual impact of the buildings, their design and materials including CGI images of the proposal.

Officers were asked to seek this information from the applicant and then refer the application back to Development Management Committee for a decision.

As a result of the Committee decision, in discussion with the applicant it was agreed that images would be based on viewpoint locations 2 and 6 within the submitted LVIA. These were stipulated to be fully rendered, photo-realistic to accurately represent the scale, appearance, context, form and extent of the development, prepared in accordance with the following industry standard guidance:

• Visual Representation of Development Proposals, Technical Guidance Note 06/19, Landscape Institute September 2019; • Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd edition, Landscape institute/ Institute of Environmental Assessment 2013.

page 156

Before this Update Report assesses the further information submitted by the applicant, the following are the further consultation comments received as a result of consultation on the additional information submitted by the applicant.

Attached to this report for reference is the original Committee Report from December 2019 that remains unchanged in terms of the site location and description, site history, proposal and analysis and as such these matters are not represented in this Update Report. In addition, the recommendation and proposed conditions on the attached report remain unchanged.

LOCAL CONSULTATIONS

Whimple And Rockbeare – Ward Member - Cllr Kathy McLauchlan

30/03/20 - I would like to comment on the above application.

As Ward member for whimple my opinion is that This application is in my ward and my preliminary view is that it should be REFUSED.

The CGI images that were requested by the Development Management Committee are misleading and not representative of how the service station would appear on the landscape.

I am still of the opinion that the plans as they stand would cause significant harm to the countryside. I have driven the length of the A30 from Ilminster to Daisymount and still feel that this service station is neither desired nor required at this point on the A30, there is adequate places to stop and rest and get provisions at Honiton service station , open 24hrs.

Local plan policies which support objection.

Strategy 46. Development only permitted where it 1. Conserves and enhances the landscape character of the area.

Strategy 7. 2. Important natural and man made features which contribute to the local Landscape character, including topography, traditional field boundaries, area of importance for nature conservation and Rural buildings.

D1. Proposals will only be permitted when they:Ensure that the scale, massing, density, height, fenestration and materials of buildings relate well to their context.

1. Respect the key characteristics and special qualities of the area in which the development is proposed.

2. Ensure that the scale, massing, density, height, fenestration and materials of buildings relate well to their context.

page 157 However, I will reserve my position until all the facts are known and until I have heard full discussions should this application come to committee.

Ottery St Mary – Adjoining Ward Member - Cllr Vicky Johns

24/03/20 - > I object to this planning application on the grounds that the CGI is not in scale and so can not be adequately measured or judged. I also have concerns that the shop is quite large and not a farm shop, as I believe it should be within the policy on retail within the open countryside. > > So I object to this plan with the information that I have, however I reserve my right to change my view if other information comes to light.

West Hill and Aylesbeare – Adjoining Ward Member – Cllr Jess Bailey

22/04/20 - I urge the REJECTION of this planning application for the following reasons:

1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development is sited, designed and landscaped to minimise impact on the character and appearance on the landscape and therefore does not comply with policy TC11 (Roadside Service Facilities) of the Local Plan.

2. The proposal directly contradicts EDDC's declared climate change emergency.

3. The retail element of the application does not comply with policy TC11 (Roadside Service Facilities) or E15 (retail development in the open countryside outside built-up area boundaries) and due to the diversion of trade is likely to cause significant detriment to existing retail facilities in local villages and towns.

4. There is no established need for a service station in this location as there is an existing formally signed Trunk Road Service Area (TRSA) at Honiton which is situated only 7 miles away.

1. The Application is not sited designed and landscaped to minimise impact on the character and appearance of the area

The application is required to satisfy policy TC 11 (Roadside Service Facilities) of the East Devon Local Plan. The provisions of TC 11 includes a requirement that the service facility must be:

"Sited, designed and landscaped to minimise impact on the character and appearance of the landscape".

The applicants were given the opportunity to produce CGI images to demonstrate the impact on the character and appearance of the landscape. It is a highly sensitive and prominent site and I believe that the very urbanising appearance of the two storey MacDonalds and service station will be severely detrimental.

page 158 EDDC's own landscape architect has concluded that the submitted photomontages are considered to be "highly misleading and should not be given any weight in determining the application."

I find it unacceptable that the applicant has produced inadequate material in this way. The committee must surely conclude that the application does not satisfy the test that it is "sited, designed and landscaped to minimise impact on the character and appearance of the landscape" because the applicant has failed to provide appropriate material. 2. Approval of this application would directly contradict the climate change emergency declared by EDDC.

On 27th February 2020 plans for a third runway at Heathrow were ruled illegal because they did not adequately take into account the government's commitment to tackle climate change in the Paris Agreement.

In a directly parallel scenario, EDDC having declared a climate change emergency and adopted a climate change strategy and plan. EDDC cannot now sanction and approve planning applications which directly contradict this climate change emergency.

3.The retail element is likely to cause significant harm to existing retailers in surrounding towns and villages.

Paragraph 26.25 of the Local Plan clearly states goods sold at service stations which are not fuel and motor related, have to be dealt with under the appropriate retail policy - in this case policy E15 (Retail Development in Rural Areas outside Built-up Area Boundaries.

This application clearly does not meet the requirements of E15. The provisions of E15 are as follows: ______

E15 - Retail Development in Rural Areas outside Built-up Area Boundaries

In order to protect the viability of town centres in the District yet support local businesses, retail development in rural areas, outside villages, will be permitted only where it directly relates to an existing rural business subject to: a) a minimum of 60% of the produce/products for sale being produced on the premises or holding, and: b) No more than 30% of the produce/products being sourced and produced off the site of the premises or holding and from within a 16 km (10 mile) radius of the business. c) No more than 10% of the produce/products are from elsewhere. ______

What is particularly concerning is the size of the shop - 500 square metres. Based on figures from the Petrol Retailers Association, shops of this size typically have sales in

page 159 excess of £300,000 per year. It has the potential to cause significant harm to facilities in existing villages by diversion of trade. Our local plan contains very strict constraints on development in the open countryside for good reason. We cannot allow the subversion of those strict constraints on the pretext of a fuel station and allow inappropriate development via the backdoor.

The proposed condition in the EDDC committee report dated 21st November 2019 ("The Committee Report") does nothing to allay my concerns or satisfy the policy as it allows the sale of goods that are exactly what our local shops are selling. The recent case of the shop at Whiddon Down (West Devon Planning authority) is an interesting comparison. In that case the High Court quashed an appeal decision because objectors had not had an opportunity to look at the retail impact assessment which had been produced. In that case the net retail area was 228 square metres - less than half the size of this site. Whilst the circumstances of that case may be different what it does show is that the High Court considers that it is important to consider the retail impact even on a much smaller site.

4. Highways England have not advised that there is a need for a trunk road service area in this location, nor stated that they support the development in their formal consultation response.

The Committee Report stated in the executive summary "The proposal has the support of Highways England who have advised that there is a need for a service area facility on the A30/A3030 in Devon and that they support the principle of the proposal of a Trunk Road Service Area at this location." In the body of the report it states: "In their consultation response Highways England have advised that there is a need for a comprehensive service area facility on the A30/A303 in Devon and that they support the principle of the proposal for a Trunk Road Service Area at this location." This statement is incorrect. In their consultation responses of 26th September 2019, 28th January 2019, 6th September 2018, and 25th June 2018 at no point to do they make these statements. Highways England position is in fact "no objection" to this proposal which is very different from saying that they actively support it and there are no formal statements suggesting "that there is a need for a comprehensive service area".

The Committee Report states "The site is considered to be well located in terms of its distance from the other Trunk Road Service Areas. The nearest services to the application site are at the motorway services at junction 30 of the M5 motorway. From the motorway services there are no other road side service facilities on the A30 or A303 until the Ilminster services on the A303 which is approximately 31 miles from Exeter"

This statement is incorrect. There is a trunk road service area at Honiton (7 miles away) which is formally signed in both directions. It is formally signed from the A30 because it satisfies the requirements of a trunk road service area.

Adjoining Parish/Town Council 19/03/20 - This application was considered at the West Hill Parish Council meeting on 1st October 2019 The Parish Council voted unanimously to not support the application, for the following reasons. o No evidence has been provided to demonstrate the need for the development.

page 160 o Light pollution - The development is sited near the top of the hill and will be visible across a wide area. It is also located in close proximity to the airport. o Provision of a fast food outlet contrary to healthy eating guidelines. o Design of the scheme is not sympathetic to the local rural environment o There could be an increase in rubbish and litter o Insufficient landscaping to screen the development 19/03/20 - Whimple Parish Council welcomes the preventative measure built into both the build and on-going maintenance of the site to avoid potential bird issues in the area and aircraft flight path. However WPC does have concerns over access into the development particularly from Daisymount Junction which is already becoming an accident black spot.

WPC also would not wish to see the food outlets open 24 hours a day and wish to see a set closure time before midnight on all days.

WPC cannot support the application without reassurance to these concerns 19/03/20 - The Town Council has no objections to this application in view that McDonalds and the proposed service station make the whole area plastic free in line with Ottery St Mary's plastic free policy

19/03/20 - This application was considered at the West Hill Parish Council Meeting on 17th March 2020.

Councillors considered the new CGI information provided. They considered this was inadequate, not according to standard procedures and lacking technical information. The viewpoints were inadequate, not to the appropriate scale, taken from an odd angle and seemed unrepresentative.

The submitted proposed materials still present an urbanised appearance which is out of keeping with the rural location. Councillors continue to be concerned about granting permission for this retail site in association with a filling station, which is contrary to Policy E11 of the EDLP:

"Large retail developments of over 500 m2 that are proposed on sites outside of a defined Town Centre Shopping Area will be required to demonstrate that it would not have an unacceptable impact on centres within the catchment of the proposed development either in itself or when considered cumulatively with other existing or proposed developments of a similar type. New retail developments will not be permitted where they would be on land allocated for other uses unless satisfactory alternative provision for such uses can be made elsewhere within the immediate locality."

Councillors were also concerned that the proposed facility makes scant provision for electric car charging points. If planning permission is granted, this would be an ideal site to provide an electric car charging point hub, as promoted in the Chancellor's speech last week and in line with EDDC targets

Adjoining Parish/Town Council - Clerk To Ottery St Mary Town Council 18/03/20 - The Town Council supports this application

page 161 Technical Consultations

EDDC Landscape Architect & Green Infrastructure Officer 17/03/2020

Review of received images:

Three photomontages have been provided for each location comprising a grey block image and a fully rendered view of the proposed development. Although not requested, a further block image has been provided illustrating the extant permission for a hotel and service station complex.

The submitted images are very disappointing and misleading for the following reasons:

Location of viewpoints:

No plan has been submitted with the photomontages to indicate the exact viewpoint locations. The view point from the A30 slip road is not taken from the location requested but is taken instead from a point some 100m to the west from where the filling station area is largely concealed by the McDonalds building.

The viewpoint taken from the Whimple road is more or less as agreed.

Base line photography:

Contrary to best practice guidance there is no technical data supplied indicating the type of camera used, camera height, horizontal field of view etc. The base line photographs used for the photomontages appear to be taken as wide angle panoramas. This results in an ‘impossible view’ that does not relate to the actual viewing experience of a person on site - so for view point 1, taken from the A30 slip road, the two mature oak trees prominent to the left hand side of the image are at 90 degrees to the line of sight and therefore well outside the normal human eye viewing frame. A similar problem is experienced with the image from the other view point on Whimple road. This has the effect of reducing the apparent scale of the central area of the image which is further compounded by projection effects entailed in flattening the panoramic image. The result is evident in the surprisingly small scale of the depicted buildings.

Accuracy of computer model:

The positional accuracy of the proposed structures shown in the photomontages is also questionable. Notably, in the view from the Whimple road, the filling station canopy appears to be situated between the central oak tree and the Whimple Road, whereas the site layout plans clearly show that it is located beyond the oak tree.

Conclusion:

page 162 For the reasons noted above the submitted photomontages are considered to be highly misleading and should not be given any weight in determining the application.

Considerations

Members of Development Management Committee will recall the above application which was reported to the December 2019 Committee with officer recommendation to approve. Members deferred the application to seek further information from the applicant, including CGI’s, to allow further assessment of the visual impact of the buildings, their design and materials.

Following the committee meeting, planning officers in consultation with the Landscape Architect, requested CGI’s which complied with the relevant Landscape Institute’s best practice. In discussion with the applicant it was agreed that images would be based on viewpoint locations 2 and 6 within the submitted Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (one from the slip road to the A30 adjoining the site and one from the site entrance). These were stipulated to be fully rendered, photo-realistic to accurately represent the scale, appearance, context, form and extent of the development, prepared in accordance with the following industry standard guidance:

• Visual Representation of Development Proposals, Technical Guidance Note 06/19, Landscape Institute September 2019 • Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd edition, Landscape institute/ Institute of Environmental Assessment 2013

In response to this request, the applicant has provided updated documents which include:

• Design materials document for the petrol filling station building: • Updated elevations for the restaurant/drive-thru building – including updated materials; and • Three photomontages from two locations comprising a grey block image and a fully rendered view of the proposed development. Although not requested, a further block image has been provided illustrating the extant permission for the hotel and service station complex.

These are addressed below.

Updated Materials and finishes to the petrol station and restaurant/drive-thru

In response to concerns raised by Members regarding materials and finishes for the restaurant/drive-thru building, the applicant has also provided revised elevations which seeks to include more rural finishes avoiding garish colours in favour of a combination of walnut brown cladding and grey cladding for the walls and stone to sections of the building.

Whilst conditions are still recommended that require the submission of samples and finishes of materials within the development, and a separate application for advertisement consent for any signage would be required, it is acknowledged that the

page 163 proposed materials and finishes would help to provide a finish in tones and colours more appropriate to the rural character and environment within which the development would be located. This would further help to soften the visual impact of the roadside services from public vantage point outside of the site.

CGI’s

The submitted images have been considered by the Council’s Landscape Architect who has advised that they are very disappointing and misleading for the following reasons:

Location of viewpoints:

No plan has been submitted with the photomontages to indicate the exact viewpoint locations.

The view point from the A30 slip road is not taken from the location requested but is taken instead from a point some 100m to the west from where the filling station area is largely concealed by the proposed McDonalds building.

The viewpoint taken from the Whimple road is more or less as agreed.

Base line photography:

Contrary to best practice guidance there is no technical data supplied indicating the type of camera used, camera height, horizontal field of view etc.

The base line photographs used for the photomontages appear to be taken as wide angle panoramas. This results in an ‘impossible view’ that does not relate to the actual viewing experience of a person on site - so for view point 1, taken from the A30 slip road, the two mature oak trees prominent to the left hand side of the image are at 90 degrees to the line of sight and therefore well outside the normal human eye viewing frame. A similar problem is experienced with the image from the other view point on Whimple road. This has the effect of reducing the apparent scale of the central area of the image which is further compounded by projection effects entailed in flattening the panoramic image. The result is evident in the surprisingly small scale of the depicted buildings.

Accuracy of computer model:

The positional accuracy of the proposed structures shown in the photomontages is also questioned. Notably, in the view from the Whimple road, the filling station canopy appears to be situated between the central oak tree and the Whimple Road, whereas the site layout plans clearly show that it is located beyond the oak tree.

For the reasons noted above the Council’s Landscape Architect has advised that the submitted photomontages are considered to be highly misleading and should not be given any weight in determining the application.

page 164 In response to the comments from the Landscape Officer, the applicant has commented as follows:

• The applicant has employed a specialist consult to produce the CGI’s; • The location of the proposed pictures was shared with the planning officer and comments were received the week following. However, in that time, the specialist had taken the photos from what they understood to be the most appropriate location; • Whilst the location of one of the photos is slightly further South than the slip road, the small variance should not be a concern for members; • The overall image is taken directly from the 3-D model. Everything is modelled precisely to the mm based on the Proposed submitted drawings; • The model is layered into a Google Earth image which has been scaled to fit the site survey info and then used to place both CG cameras to match as close as possible the locations the photographs were taken from. Various points of interest were then used to refine the angle. i.e. large trees, road outlines and signage; • The photos include the necessary information needed to match the software when producing the images; • The applicants CGI consultant is confident that the images provided are of a high quality and accuracy and can wholly be relied upon by committee members when making their decision.

Whilst the applicant believes that the CGI’s are what members requested, it is disappointing that the montages produced are not of a form or accuracy which the landscape architect can support in determining the impact that the proposal will have.

In light of the comments from the Landscape Architect, and given that the CGI from the A30 does not appear to give a true representation from a car when travelling along the A30 (it appearing to be set down from the slip road on lower ground), officers cannot be sure that the CGI’s are 100% accurate and as such do not recommend that Members given them full weight when determining the application.

On the basis that the CGI’s cannot be relied upon to accurately assess the visual impact from the proposals, an assessment of the impact is still required in order to make a decision on the application and compliance with policy TC11 and the need to minimise impact on the landscape. Planning permission cannot be refused simply on the basis that the CGI’s may be inaccurate, there would have to be a harmful visual impact identified.

In effect, the Committee are back in the same position that there were at the December Committee in terms of having to assess the visual impact of the proposal on the landscape, giving some weight to the fall-back position for construction of a larger service area with a greater visual impact – albeit arguably of a higher quality design.

For the reasons stated in the December report to Committee, officers remain of the view, that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of its visual impact on the landscape, albeit recognising that from close range the proposal will be highly visible.

page 165 In the previous report it was explained that in landscape terms, the height and massing of the buildings, in particular the two storey drive through building would appear quiet visible and prominent in localised views from the A30 to the south and the slip road (but not beyond this due to the surrounding landscaping, trees and levels). The prominence that this development would have is inevitable given its open and exposed location to the north and west where limited mature vegetation and the gradually falling ground levels make this a prominent site combined within views from the A30.

Notwithstanding the localised impact, it is considered that the proposed roadside services scheme has been sited, designed and landscaped to minimise its impact on the character and appearance of the wider landscape when considered against the constraints imposed by Highways England and the Airport with regards to the type and amount of landscaping and planting that would be acceptable in highway and aviation safety terms.

Furthermore, there are a number of clear benefits arising from this scheme over the extant planning permission which includes the retention of the two mature oak trees and a reduced scale of development on the site which would result in an overall development which has less of an urbanising impact on the rural landscape, character and appearance of the area, and less of an overall localised impact when viewed from public vantage points outside of the site.

Other matters

In addition to the above, Cllr Bailey has raised questions over the following points:

• Do Highways England support the provision of the Service Area in this location?

Highways England Response: In line with our formal planning response to this application, which I have attached for your ease of reference, Highways England has no objection to this application.

• Does the trunk road finish at Honiton?

Highways England Response: No, the A30 trunk road joins the A303 at Upottery which then continues to the motorway network at the M3 near Basingstoke (the M3 is also part of the Highways England network).

• If the trunk Road stops at Honiton, does this not undermine the need for a service area in this location/the distances required between service areas?

Highways England Response: As above, the trunk road does not stop at Honiton. DfT Circular 02/2013 The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development Annex B, sections B4 and B5 does not stipulate a maximum distance between service areas. There are no policy grounds which stipulate criteria based on assessed ‘need’ and similarly there are no policy grounds for refusing multiple facilities in the same location.

page 166 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach ment_data/file/237412/dft-circular-strategic-road.pdf

• Would Highways England support refusal of permission for a service area here on the basis of their being no need?

Highways England Response: As above, there are no policy grounds under Circular 02/2013 to support the refusal of this application on the basis of ‘need’. As set out in our formal planning response, we have no objection to this application.

Whilst Highways England have not specifically stated their support for the proposal, it is clear from their comments that they do not object to the application and agree that a service area in this location complies with the requirements for the location and distances between service areas.

It light of this, a refusal of planning permission on the basis that the proposal is not required, or is not appropriately spaced from other service facilities would be very difficult to defend on appeal.

• The range of goods to be sold from the site should be restricted to those covered by Policy E15 of the Local Plan;

The explanatory text to policy TC11 states “Any retail facilities for convenience shopping, other than for fuel and associated motoring products, will need to be compatible with the shopping policies of the Local Plan.” The condition recommended (number 21) as part of the original report and recommendation seeks to restrict the goods sold to those usually expected to be sold by a petrol station as this is considered to be a reasonable comparison. Whilst the condition allows goods of a wider range than policy TC11, the above wording is in the explanatory text rather than the policy and as such carries significantly less weight. In addition, there are not considered to be any other relevant Local Plan retail policies applicable to this scheme.

Policy E11 is not relevant as the retail floorspace is smaller than 500sqm and with regard to Policy E15, when read in conjunction with the explanatory text that precedes it, it is clear that the policy applies to farm shops, garden centres, nurseries etc. As such it is not considered to be applicable to roadside service areas. This is considered to be demonstrated by the criteria of the policy which requires a minimum of 60% of the produce/products for sale to be produced on the premises or holding. It is not considered reasonable to expect a roadside services to comply with this. For these reasons Policy E15 is not considered to be applicable either.

In light of the above the goods covered by Condition 21 are considered to be reasonable and it would be difficult to put together a case to argue that the range of good sold should be limited to those complying with Policy E15 that could be successful on appeal.

• Climate Change Emergency

Whilst the Council has declared a Climate Change Emergency, decisions on planning applications still need to be made in accordance with the Development Plan. As such

page 167 the application still needs to be considered against the NPPF and the policies within the adopted Local Plan. The declaration by the Council does not mean that Policy TC11 can be ignored or reduced in weight and as the proposal is considered to comply with the policy, planning permission is recommended for approval.

Conclusion

In conclusion, notwithstanding the issues identified regarding the submitted CGI’s, and visual impact from the proposal from close range views, officers remain of the opinion that the proposed design and layout of the development would create an acceptable roadside services scheme alongside the A30, particularly when compared against the visual impact from the much larger scale extant scheme. In addition, the proposal would meet an established need and perform an important road safety function by providing opportunities for the travelling public to stop and take a break by closing the existing gap in the provision of roadside facilities along this section of the A30.

The benefit from the additional roadside service facility and associated road safety function, when weighed alongside other benefits such as job creation during construction, longer term employment opportunities within the petrol filling station, shop and the drive-thru building, and the contribution to the local economy that would be derived from this scheme, are considered to be significant social and economic benefits that outweigh the limited and localised visual impact and landscape harm.

On balance, having regard to all of the above considerations and the schemes compliance with the DfT Circular, the NPPF and in particular policy TC11 (Roadside Service Facilities) of the East Devon Local Plan, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and is therefore recommended for approval as per the attached report.

page 168 ORIGINAL REPORT

Committee Date: 3rd December 2019

Whimple And Target Date: Rockbeare 18/1222/MFUL 05.09.2018 (Whimple)

Applicant: MRH (GB) Ltd

Location: Land South Of Lily Cottage Exeter Road

Proposal: Application for the development of a new roadside service area to include a petrol filling station comprising sales building, canopy over, car and caravan parking, fuel pumps, HGV fuel pumps, 2 no. underground storage tanks and ancillary arrangements, new A3/A5 use building and drive- thru, HGV and coach parking, new access arrangements and landscaping and drainage

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to the report be adopted; and 2. The application be approved subject to conditions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before members of the Development Management Committee as the officer recommendation differs from the view of the Parish Council.

This proposal is for a roadside services development on a site where the need has long been accepted and where the principle of development has been previously established through the grant of outline planning permissions since 1994 and the implementation of a reserved matters permission ref 07/1228/MRES. Indeed works to implement the reserved matters permission have been implemented through the construction of a vehicular access on the site such that the planning permission is considered to be extant and capable of implementation.

The proposal has the support of Highways England who have advised that there is a need for a service area facility on the A30/A3030 in Devon and that they support the principle of the proposal of a Trunk Road Service Area at this location. Furthermore, Highways England have advised that the roadside services scheme is in compliance with the current policies of the Secretary of State as set out in the DfT Circular 02/2013 ‘The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development’ and those contained within the NPPF.

page 169

Detailed concerns raised by technical consultees which include Exeter Airport, Highways England, and the Devon County Council Flood Risk Management Team have been addressed in conjunction with officers and consultees such that it is considered subject to conditions there would be no significant impacts in terms of aviation and highway safety, flood risk and surface water management, ecology and biodiversity, heritage assets, residential amenity or trees.

In landscape terms, the height and massing of the buildings, in particular the two storey drive through building would appear quite visible and prominent in localised views from the A30 and in particular from the slip road adjoining the site. The prominence that this development would have is inevitable with any roadside services proposal on this site due to its open and exposed location to the north and west where limited mature vegetation and the gradually falling ground levels make this a prominent site combined within views from the A30. Notwithstanding the localised impact, it is considered that the proposed roadside services scheme has been sited, designed and landscaped to ensure an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the landscape when considered against the constraints imposed by Highways England and the Airport with regards to the type and amount of landscaping and planting that would be acceptable in highway and aviation safety terms.

Furthermore, there are a number of clear benefits arising from this scheme over the extant planning permission which includes the retention of the two mature oak trees and a reduced scale of development on the site which would result in an overall development which has less of an urbanising impact on the rural landscape character and appearance of the area and less of an overall localised impact when viewed from public vantage points outside of the site.

The proposed design and layout of the development would create a landmark roadside services scheme alongside the A30 that would meet an established need and perform an important road safety function by providing opportunities for the travelling public to stop and take a break by closing the existing gap in the provision of roadside facilities along this section of the A30. The site is considered to be well located in terms of providing an additional roadside service facility to perform the required road safety function which, when coupled with job creation during construction, longer term employment opportunities within the petrol filling station, shop and the drive through building and the contribution to the local economy that would be derived from this scheme are considered to be significant social and economic benefits that outweigh the limited and localised visual impact and landscape harm.

On balance, having regard to all of the above considerations and the schemes compliance with the DfT Circular, the NPPF and in particular policy TC11 (Roadside Service Facilities) of the East Devon Local Plan, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and is therefore recommended for approval.

CONSULTATIONS

page 170

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council

Comment Date: 08 Oct 2019

Whimple Parish Council previous comments remain the same - Whimple Parish Council welcomes the preventative measure built into both the build and on-going maintenance of the site to avoid potential bird issues in the area and aircraft flight path. However WPC does have concerns over access into the development particularly from Daisymount Junction which is already becoming an accident blackspot. WPC also would not wish to see the food outlets open 24 hours a day and wish to see a set closure time before midnight on all days. WPC cannot support the application without reassurance to these concerns.

Previous comments: 02 Apr 2019

Whimple Parish Council welcomes the preventative measure built into both the build and on-going maintenance of the site to avoid potential bird issues in the area and aircraft flight path. However WPC does have concerns over access into the development particularly from Daisymount Junction which is already becoming an accident black spot.

WPC also would not wish to see the food outlets open 24 hours a day and wish to see a set closure time before midnight on all days.

WPC cannot support the application without reassurance to these concerns

Previous comments: 18 Sep 2018

Whimple Parish Council have no objection and our previous comments remain

Previous comments: 19 Jun 2018

Whimple Parish Council welcome the building of a new service area to alleviate the pressures on Exeter Services and also the job opportunities both the construction and on-going business would bring to the Parish. We would ask that consideration is given to the design of sympathetic buildings which make the most of the views towards the moors and we would ask that all packaging used in the sale of goods and food is fully recyclable. We would ask that the meat, food and products will be sourced locally from Devon suppliers and healthy options are available. We do have concerns about the possible spread of litter outside of the boundary of the development and hope that the business takes full responsibility for litter picking in and around the Daisymount/London Road access routes. Consideration also needs to be given to potential light pollution from vehicles exiting the site onto the properties opposite the development.

Adjoining Parish: West Hill

page 171 Comment Date: Wed 02 Oct 2019

WHPC Planning Comments

Agreed at the Council Meeting 1st Oct 2019

18/1222/MFUL Straightway Head Junction, Exeter Road, Whimple. Applicant MRH (GB) Ltd Proposal: Application for the development of a new roadside service area to include a petrol filling station comprising sales building, canopy over, car and caravan parking, fuel pumps, HGV fuel pumps, 2 no. underground storage tanks and ancillary arrangements, new A3/A5 use building and drive-thru, HGV and coach parking, new access arrangements and landscaping and drainage

This application was considered at the West Hill Parish Council meeting on 1st October 2019 The Parish Council voted unanimously to not support the application, for the following reasons. o No evidence has been provided to demonstrate the need for the development. o Light pollution - The development is sited near the top of the hill and will be visible across a wide area. It is also located in close proximity to the airport. o Provision of a fast food outlet contrary to healthy eating guidelines. o Design of the scheme is not sympathetic to the local rural environment o There could be an increase in rubbish and litter o Insufficient landscaping to screen the development

Previous comments: 24 Apr 2019

West Hill Planning Comments

Agreed at the Council Meeting 2nd Apr 2019

This application was considered at the West Hill Parish Council meeting on 2nd April. The Parish Council voted unanimously to not support the application, for the following reasons. o Councillors were concerned about light pollution, especially as the development will be located on a hill. It is also located in close proximity to the airport. o They were also concerned about the increase in traffic using the Daisymount roundabout, which has already seen a considerable increase in traffic due to large- scale housing developments in Cranbrook and Ottery St Mary since the original application some years ago. o They thought that the design of the scheme was not sympathetic to the local rural environment and they were concerned that there could be an increase in rubbish and litter.

Previous comment: 19 Sep 2018

The following are comments from West Hill Parish Council: This application was considered by West Hill Parish Council at its meeting on 18th September 2018. Although in the neighbouring parish of Whimple, the development would affect West Hill residents. Councillors were concerned about light pollution

page 172 and upheld their previously-submitted objections. They also added that large-scale illuminated signs are not in keeping with the rural setting, and likewise for the design of the children's play area which will include a bright red playhouse.

Councillors voted unanimously to not support the application.

Previous comments: 06 Jul 2018

This application was discussed by West Hill Parish councillors at their meeting on 3rd July 2018 as a neighbouring parish consultee.

Councillors voted unanimously to not support the application, for the following reasons. Councillors were concerned about light pollution, especially as the development will be located on a hill. They were also concerned about the increase in traffic using the Daisymount roundabout, which has already seen a considerable increase in traffic due to large-scale housing developments in Cranbrook and Ottery St Mary since the original application some years ago. They thought that the design of the scheme was not sympathetic to the local rural environment and they were concerned that there could be an increase in rubbish and litter.

Adjoining Parish: Ottery St Mary

Comment Date: 03 Oct 2019

The Town Council supports this application subject to it being an environmentally friendly development as it has declared a Climate emergency. It should therefore include: o Electric charging points o Sustainable urban drainage system o Renewable energy and energy efficient o Sensitive street lighting system

It should also take into account its proximity to Exeter airport's flight path, therefore should have unobtrusive lighting. There will be an increase of traffic at Daisymount roundabout, therefore request that it be served by a regular bus service to or through Ottery St Mary.

Previous comments: 09 Apr 2019

The Town Council has no objections to this application in view that McDonalds and the proposed service station make the whole area plastic free in line with Ottery St Mary's plastic free policy

Previous comments: 19 Sep 2018

There was a short discussion and it was agreed that the Town Council's original comment would stand which was which was:

The Town Council has no objections to this application in view that McDonalds make the whole area plastic free in line with Ottery St Mary's plastic free policy.

page 173

Adjoining Ward Member – West Hill and Aylesbeare Ward - Cllr J Bailey

This is my comment. Please include this is in the officers report, including my photos. I will be asking to speak at DMC. I would be grateful if Chris Hariades could also attend in case of questions on the key issue of landscape impact.

I am astonished that in 2019 and with the backdrop of a climate change and ecological emergency Eddc officers are supporting the development of a petrol station and 2 storey McDonalds drive through on top of a very large hill.

I am strongly opposed to this application on the basis of material and significant detriment which will be caused to the landscape in the immediate and the surrounding area not only in day time but also at night. As a 24 hour petrol station there will be huge light pollution which will spill into surrounding areas and the visual prominence will be quite remarkable. The ability for any screening and mitigation is limited due to the proximity of Exeter airport which places restrictions on trees etc in order to not encourage birds and risk bird strike. Under Strategy 46 of the Local Plan, development needs to be undertaken in a manner that is sympathetic to and helps conserve and enhance the quality and local distinctiveness of the natural and historic landscape character of East Devon...development will only permitted where it (a) conserves and enhances the landscape chatacter of the area and (b) does not undermine landscape quality. This application fails on every level.

What is more it is my concern that Eddc officers are applying a less robust approach on the basis than they normally would on the basis that there is already an implemented planning permission for a larger scheme. In my view this approach is incorrect.

The draft report states in the executive summary:

‘The proposal is for a roadside services development where the need has been long accepted and where the principle of development has been previously established through the grant of outline planning permission since 1994 and the implementation of a reserved matters permission re 07/1228.’

For some reason, the draft report does not provide thorough analysis of the basis on which planning permission was implemented. It is quite clear to me that the 2007 planning permission was not in fact ever implemented.

I have located the letter from the agent to Eddc dated 24 Feb 2011. This states ‘I enclose copies of drawing H7544-D4B which shows the extent of [these] works which include an element of the access road, associated landscaping and signage to create an entrance vista...... I should be grateful if you will confirm that the works defined constitute a start on site and by doing these works that the planning permission has been lawfully implemented”.

The letter from Eddc planning officer Nigel Barrett dated 31st March 2011 made it quite clear that he considered it implemented on a caveated basis. The caveats

page 174 were that it could only be treated as implemented if it was constructed in accordance with the plans and subject to satisfaction of any pre-commencement conditions.

Although the then applicant submitted some photos there is no evidence that these accord with H7544-d4b. There is no temporary link with the highway and no signs as shown. It was therefore not constructed in accordance with the plans. What is more, the pre-commencement planning conditions require a landscaping plan to be submitted before any landscaping works are carried out and there is no evidence that this was ever submitted.

It is therefore incorrect in my view to state that the previous (larger) application was implemented and this one needs to be seen in that context (and subject to a less rigorous approach). It is open countryside within the meaning of the local plan.The correct position is that the application needs to be measured only against our local plan, which was not in place when the applications were considered previously. All there is now is a lapsed planning permission.

I have spoken to Eddc’s landscape architect Chris Hariades and discussed with him the impact of granting permission for a petrol station and 2 storey building including a McDonalds and drive thru on top of a hill will have on the landscape. He explained that any comments he made about possible acceptability of the proposal were on the basis that it was only because they were less bad than what he believed had been implemented.

How can this application possibly be acceptable when the local plan requires that any service station is “sited, designed and landscaped to minimise impact on the character and appearance of the area” and the landscape architect advised “that the proposal is likely to have a high adverse landscape and visual effect on the site and it’s immediate environs due to surrounding landform, tree form and hedgerows”. I attach various photos of the site taken today, and the thought of it turning into a petrol station is horrendous. There is quite clearly no link between the minimal tarmac and the highway. In fact there is a telegraph poll in the way, so to indicate that this is or ever was an "entrance vista" is plainly wrong. The photos submitted by the then applicant show no link temporary or otherwise between the site and the highway.

I am also concerned by the description of the buildings as being "highly urban" and there seems to be a question of whether the applicant would change the cladding on the grounds of viability.

Our understanding of the natural world and the importance of our landscape and biodiversity has changed dramatically since outline planning was granted in 1994. The application is clearly contrary to the policies in our local plan and must be refused. It is a site in the open countryside rich in biodiversity and it must be looked after and not plundered.

Technical Consultations

page 175 Highways England

Comment Date: Thu 26 Sep 2019 Referring to the notification of the submission of new plans on 13 September 2019 in respect of the application referenced above, dated 6 June 2018, for the development of a new roadside service area to include a petrol filling station comprising sales building, canopy over, car and caravan parking, fuel pumps, HGV fuel pumps, 2 underground storage tanks and ancillary arrangements, new A3/A5 use building and drive-thru, HGV and coach parking, new access arrangements and landscaping and drainage on land south of Lily Cottage (Straightway Head Junction), Exeter Road, Whimple, Devon, notice is hereby given that Highways England's formal recommendation is that we: a) offer no objection;

Recommendation Highways England has no objection to application 18/1222/MFUL.

Previous comments: 28 Jan 2019

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Landscape Management plan relating to the above application.

Our Environmental team have reviewed the information provided and confirm that they are content with the proposals.

Highways England therefore has no objections to the landscape proposals as outlined.

Previous comments: 06 Sep 2018

Referring to the notification of a planning application dated 6 June referenced above, in connection with the A30, and the development of a new roadside service area to include a petrol filling station comprising sales building, canopy over, car and caravan parking, fuel pumps, HGV fuel pumps, 2 underground storage tanks and ancillary arrangements, new A3/A5 use building and drive-thru, HGV and coach parking, new access arrangements and landscaping and drainage on land south of Lily Cottage (Straightway Head Junction), Exeter Road, Whimple, Devon, notice is hereby given that Highways England's formal recommendation is that we: b) recommend that conditions should be attached to any planning permission that may be granted (see Annex A - Highways England recommended Planning Conditions);

Recommendation

Highways England recommends that a planning condition should be applied to any consent the planning authority is minded to grant in respect of application reference 18/1222/MFUL, to the effect that:

page 176

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a detailed landscaping and boundary treatment plan for the boundary adjacent to the A30 trunk road and its associated slip road shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The boundary treatment shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed plan and maintained as such thereafter. Reason: in the interest of the safe and efficient operation of the A30 trunk road.

Previous comments: 25 Jun 2018

Council's Reference: 18/1222/MFUL Referring to the notification of a planning application dated 6 June referenced above, in connection with the A30, and the development of a new roadside service area to include a petrol filling station comprising sales building, canopy over, car and caravan parking, fuel pumps, HGV fuel pumps, 2 underground storage tanks and ancillary arrangements, new A3/A5 use building and drive-thru, HGV and coach parking, new access arrangements and landscaping and drainage on land south of Lily Cottage (Straightway Head Junction), Exeter Road, Whimple, Devon, notice is hereby given that Highways England's formal recommendation is that we: a) offer no objection; b) recommend that conditions should be attached to any planning permission that may be granted (see Annex A - Highways England recommended Planning Conditions); c) recommend that planning permission not be granted for a specified period (see Annex A - non determination); d) recommend that the application be refused (see Annex A - Reasons for recommending Refusal).

Highways Act Section 175B is not relevant to this application.1 1 Where relevant, further information will be provided within Annex A. This represents Highways England formal recommendation and is copied to the Department for Transport as per the terms of our Licence. Should you disagree with this recommendation you should consult the Secretary of State for Transport, as per the Town and Country Planning (Development Affecting Trunk Roads) Direction 2018, via [email protected]. Signature: Sally Parish Date: 25 June 2018 Name: Sally Parish Position: Planning Manager Highways England: Ash House, Falcon Road, Industrial Estate, Exeter, EX2 7LB Email: [email protected]

Annex A Highways England recommended no objections

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND ("we") has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure

page 177 Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network (SRN). The SRN is a critical national asset and as such works to ensure that it operates and is managed in the public interest, both in respect of current activities and needs as well as in providing effective stewardship of its long-term operation and integrity.

This response represents our formal recommendations with regard to planning application 18/1222/MFUL and has been prepared by the Planning Manager for the SRN in Devon. We have undertaken a review of the relevant documents supporting the planning application to ensure compliance with the current policies of the Secretary of State as set out in DfT Circular 02/2013 "The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development" and the DCLG National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Statement of Reasons This planning application seeks permission for the construction of a trunk road service area at Straightway Head junction of the A30(T). The total quantum of development includes an A5 takeaway/drive-thru (376sqm), a service station shop (500sqm), petrol filling station comprising 10 pumps, HGV filling station comprising 2 filling positions, and a total of 103 car parking spaces, including 81 light vehicle spaces, 4 disable spaces, 10 motorcycle spaces and 8 HGV/coach spaces. The planning application is supported by a transport assessment prepared by MDJ & Associates.

Planning History The site has a long planning history related to it, which includes planning permission for a larger trunk road service area (TRSA), which dates back to 1994. More recently permission was granted in 2008 for a TRSA (planning reference: 07/1228/MRES), with variations to conditions in 2011 (reference 11/0063/VAR). Following this it is understood this permission was implemented by constructing the vehicular access to the site. The applicant has indicated that there is a record of correspondence with the LPA which confirms that the access road works to serve the development does constitute a lawful commencement of the approved scheme, and there is therefore a lawful implementation of planning permission 11/0063/VAR. Therefore; Highways England consideration of the current application is against the impact of the approved scheme for this site.

Trip Generation Impact on the SRN The extant planning consent for this site is considerably larger than the proposals within this planning application. The submitted transport assessment does not provide the trip generations for the extant use, which would be a useful comparator. The impact on the SRN as a result of this planning application would be any net increase, after the trips from the extant permission have been considered. The extant planning consent included a 12-pump petrol filling station, 3,000sqm restaurant/shop, 50 bed hotel, 263 car parking spaces and 18 hgv parking spaces. The reduced proposals are likely to generate fewer trips than the extant proposals, and therefore Highways England is content that the application will not have a severe impact on the operation of the SRN.

page 178 Operational Impact on the SRN The proposed site lies immediately to the north of the A30 trunk road and the eastbound off slip at Daisymount. There is therefore the potential for the site layout to impact on the safe operation of the trunk road.

The treatment of surface water drainage for the site is covered within the foul water drainage report with an attenuation pond to be located in the western corner of the site. It is unlikely that the drainage proposals will adversely impact on the trunk road, however the applicant should be aware that DfT Circular 02/2013 The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development does not permit the discharge of surface water from new developments into the trunk road drainage system. The circular states that in order to ensure the integrity of the highway drainage systems, no water runoff that may arise due to any change of use will be accepted into highway drainage systems, and there shall be no new connections into those systems from third party development and drainage systems. No specific plan has been provided in relation to the landscaping/boundary treatment alongside the A30, although reference is made to hedge banks and tree planting. The site layout suggests there is the potential for headlight glare from parking vehicles to create a distraction to trunk road users, and it will therefore be important for adequate screening to be provided. It will also be important to ensure that any landscape planting avoids species that may create longer term maintenance problems. However, we are satisfied that this can be addressed by a suitable planning condition.

Signage for Service Areas Annex B of Circular 02/2013 sets out the policy on the provision, standards and eligibility for signage of roadside facilities on the SRN. Table B1 sets out the minimum requirements for signing from the SRN, and for an all-purpose trunk road service area which includes the following: o Open minimum 12 hours per day between 8am and 8pm every day except Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year's Day o Free Parking for up to 2 hours minimum for all vehicles permitted to use the road served by the facility (the level of which is stated within Schedule 1 of Annex B) o Free toilets/hand washing facilities with no need to make a purchase o Fuel o Hot drinks and hot food available 8am to 8pm for consumption on the premises o Access to a cash operated telephone.

Schedule 1 of Annex B states the required car parking provisions in order to meet the criteria to be signed from the SRN. For an all-purpose TRSA there is a requirement to provide parking equal to 0.1% of the daily traffic flow. This should use the most recent complete year data to identify the peak monthly flow, and averaging that to find the daily flow. The applicant has used WebTRIS data from 2017 to determine the daily flow, which indicates that the busiest month is August, where there is an average daily flow of 37,724. This leads to a requirement to provide 38 car parking spaces. In addition to this there is a requirement to provide a minimum of 2 HGV spaces, 1 abnormal load space, 1 coach space and 2 caravan spaces. Whilst the plans appear to show that the development would meet the majority of these criteria, it is not clear what provision has been made for abnormal loads. The HGV spaces provided do not appear conducive for abnormal loads, and in the absence of

page 179 space being provided for these abnormal loads the proposals would not meet the specification of Circular 02/2013 and therefore is not able to be signed from the A30. It is also not clear from the submitted drawings where the cash operated telephone will be located, which will also be a requirement for trunk road signing. Therefore, in order for the service area to qualify for trunk road signing, the applicant will need to address the above issues.

Recommendation Highways England recommends that a planning condition should be applied to any consent the planning authority is minded to grant in respect of application reference 18/1222/MFUL, to the effect that: Condition: prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a detailed landscaping and boundary treatment plan for the boundary adjacent to the A30 trunk road and its associated slip road shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval (who shall consult with Highways England on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport). The boundary treatment shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed plan and maintained as such thereafter. Reason: in the interest of the safe and efficient operation of the A30 trunk road.

County Highway Authority

Comment Date: 11 Oct 2019 Addendum; 08/10/2019

The CHA is content that the latest plans made available satisfy our modification requirements to the adjoining road network and that the proposed internal site layout will not have a detrimental effect upon the local highway network.

Comment Date: Wed 22 Aug 2018 Observations:

The aim of a Roadside Service Area at Straightway Head has been established by the approval of 07/1228/MRES and the subsequent construction of an access set back from the roadside edge on the B3174 which has made 07/1228/MRES abiding.

This development proposal has seen an increase in non-retail linked, rest car and bus parking spaces, which will go some way towards resolving Highways England concerns, although this is a direct issue with Highways England and the association with the A30.

Works on the B3174 for the proposed Roadside Service Area have previously been agreed with a Unilateral Undertaking in accordance to a Section 106 dated 14/10/2008. I appreciate these works related to the original planning application, and the current planning application varies to this, for example with no hotel provision, however Cranbrook has now increased traffic movements in this vicinity and as such the County Highway Authority (CHA) believes that the following works are still necessary to not cause a detrimental effect in the provision of this roadside service area.

- A new priority junction access to the services with a central pedestrian crossing

page 180 island and ghost island right turn lane. - A central pedestrian crossing island east of the site access junction providing access to a new footway and bus stop.

- A new westbound bus lay-by adjacent to the site entrance. - A new central island adjacent to the new bus lay-by on the approach to the right turn lane to discourage overtaking a this junction.

- To widen and maintain a two lane approach to the A30 Roundabout in order to improve capacity.

- Widening and extending the flare on the roundabout approach in order to increase waiting capacity.

The above details have been subject to a stage one safety audit however these elements would still be subject to a stage two safety audit before commencement.

Therefore the County Highway Authority is content that this proposal as it stands is adequate and acceptable.

Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, MAY WISH TO RECOMMEND CONDITIONS ON ANY GRANT OF PLANNING PERMISSION

1. Enter an appropriate legal agreement with the CHA to commence CHA requested works. REASON; To mitigate the highway impact from the commencement of this planning application.

2. Prior to commencement of any part of the site the Planning Authority shall have received and approved a Construction Management Plan (CMP) including:

(a) the timetable of the works;

(b) daily hours of construction;

(c) any road closure;

(d) hours during which delivery and construction traffic will travel to and from the site, with such vehicular movements being restricted to between 8:00am and 6pm Mondays to Fridays inc.; 9.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays, and no such vehicular movements taking place on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays unless agreed by the planning Authority in advance;

(e) the number and sizes of vehicles visiting the site in connection with the development and the frequency of their visits;

(f) the compound/location where all building materials, finished or unfinished

page 181 products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste will be stored during the demolition and construction phases;

(g) areas on-site where delivery vehicles and construction traffic will load or unload building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste with confirmation that no construction traffic or delivery vehicles will park on the County highway for loading or unloading purposes, unless prior written agreement has been given by the Local Planning Authority;

(h) hours during which no construction traffic will be present at the site;

(i) the means of enclosure of the site during construction works; and

(j) details of proposals to promote car sharing amongst construction staff in order to limit construction staff vehicles parking off-site

(k) details of wheel washing facilities and obligations

(l) The proposed route of all construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes.

(m) Details of the amount and location of construction worker parking.

(n) Photographic evidence of the condition of adjacent public highway prior to commencement of any work;

Previous comments: 25 Jun 2018

Observations:

The aim of a Roadside Service Area at Straightway Head has been established by the approval of 07/1228/MRES and the subsequent construction of an access set back from the roadside edge on the B3174 which has made 07/1228/MRES abiding.

I note the provision of non-customer rest parking allocated for HGVs, Caravans and general vehicles and this will help towards highway safety on long journeys that Devon often facilitate.

Works on the B3174 for the proposed Roadside Service Area have been agreed within the existing Unilateral Undertaking in accordance to Section 106 dated 14/10/2008, which comprises;

A new priority junction access to the services with a central pedestrian crossing island and ghost island right turn lane.

A central pedestrian crossing island east of the site access junction providing access to a new footway and bus stop.

A new westbound bus lay-by adjacent to the site entrance.

page 182

A new central island adjacent to the new bus lay-by on the approach to the right turn lane to discourage overtaking a this junction.

To widen and maintain a two lane approach to the A30 Roundabout in order to improve capacity.

Widening and extending the flare on the roundabout approach in order to increase waiting capacity.

Therefore the County Highway Authority is content that this proposal is adequate and acceptable.

Recommendation:

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

Exeter & Devon Airport - Airfield Operations+Safeguarding

Comment Date: Mon 23 Sep 2019

Location: Land South Of Lily Cottage Exeter Road Whimple

I acknowledge receipt of the amended plans in relation to the above planning application for the proposed development at the above location.

The amendments have been examined from an Aerodrome Safeguarding aspect and do not appear to conflict with safeguarding criteria providing that the previous guidance relating to heights, landscape and wildlife management and crane operations etc. are adhered to at all times.

Accordingly, Exeter Airport have no safeguarding objections to this development provided there are no changes made to the current application.

Kindly note that this reply does not automatically allow further developments in this area without prior consultation with Exeter Airport.

Previous comments: 02 Apr 2019

I acknowledge receipt of the amendments including technical safeguarding report, lighting specification, landscaping plan and wildlife hazard management plan in relation to the above planning application for the proposed development at the above location.

This proposal and the amendments have been examined from an Aerodrome Safeguarding aspect and they now do not appear to conflict with safeguarding criteria.

page 183 Accordingly, the previous objection to this development can now be withdrawn as Exeter Airport now have no safeguarding objections to this development providing that the guidance and recommendations within the wildlife hazard management plan, the soft landscaping plan and the aviation safety assessment are followed and adhered to at all times during the construction phase and afterwards when open and operational, and there are no changes made to the current application.

Kindly note that this reply does not automatically allow further developments in this area without prior consultation with Exeter Airport

Previous comments: 17 Jan 2019

I acknowledge receipt of the additional Wildlife Hazard Management Plan, Amended Landscape Plan and Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.

The amended plans have been examined from an Aerodrome Safeguarding aspect with the following findings.

The soft landscape plan SY17-184-LPP-18-01 lists several tree types that are capable over time of growing to heights in excess of 20m. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment states that 79 large trees would be planted to provide additional green canopy cover in and around the site. The proposed site is on ground that already penetrates several of the airports critical limitation surfaces and any new penetrating trees would be unacceptable. These trees could penetrate the surfaces further, have a negative impact on instrument flight procedures for aircraft operating into and out of Exeter airport, adversely affecting aircraft safety and the operations of Exeter Airport. Ideally, over time surface penetrations should be reduced so that aircraft safety is maintained. Large trees with canopy's are also attractive to birds which could lead to an increase in the risk of birdstrike to aircraft with potentially catastrophic results.

The additional Wildlife Hazard Management Plan is acceptable and approved providing it is implemented and adhered to at all times during the construction phase and afterwards when the site is open and operational.

Also, the issues highlighted in the Airports initial objection regarding the Technical Safeguarding Assessment have not yet been addressed. Currently we have Zero tolerance for Instrument Landing System disturbance budget consumption and the safeguarding report does not appear to be robust enough for us to be sure that the safeguarding process has been appropriately applied in this case.

Accordingly, Exeter Airports objection to this proposal remains on the grounds of aviation safety and operational impacts.

Comment Date: Thu 05 Jul 2018

We acknowledge receipt of the above planning application for the proposed development at the above location.

page 184 This proposal has been examined from an Aerodrome Safeguarding aspect and it does appear to conflict with safeguarding criteria.

In brief Aerodrome Safeguarding is a process of checking proposed developments so as to:

1 Protect blocks of air through which aircraft fly, by preventing penetration of surfaces created to identify their lower limits.

2 Protect the integrity of radar and other electronic aids to air navigation, by preventing reflections and diffraction of the radio signals involved.

3 Protect visual aids, such as Approach and Runway lighting, by preventing them from being obscured, or preventing the installation of other lights which could be confused for them. In brief lighting for the site should be designed in such a way that it is not confusing or dazzling to pilots or air traffic control. Generally all lights should be directed away from approaching aircraft and the air traffic control tower with no light spill above the horizontal.

4 Avoid any increase in the risk to aircraft of a birdstrike by preventing an increase in hazardous bird species in the vicinity of the aerodrome and, whenever the opportunity arises, to reduce the level of risk.

Physical Safeguarding assessment. The ground in this location already penetrates several of the airports obstacle limitation surfaces namely the Type A 08, Conical, Take Off and Climb 08 and Approach 26 surfaces, and any new objects or additions to existing objects should not extend above an approach surface, above a transitional surface or above a take- off climb surface, except when in the opinion of the Civil Aviation Authority(CAA) the new object or addition would be shielded by an existing immovable object. The principle of shielding is employed when a substantial and permanent object or natural terrain already penetrates an obstacle limitation surface. When it is considered that such an obstacle is permanent, objects of equal or lesser height around it may, at the CAA's discretion, be permitted to penetrate the surface. Guidance, further information and what would be acceptable in terms of shielding can be found in CAA publication CAP168 Chapter 4 The assessment and treatment of obstacles. https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%20168%20Licensing%20of%20Aerodrom es.pdf It is mentioned within the supplied Aviation Safeguarding Assessment that the surrounding terrain is more dominating however it needs to be demonstrated that it complies with the sheilding criteria within CAP168.

Technical Safeguarding Assessment from items within the supplied Aviation Safeguarding assessment. 1. In 3.2 it omits primary and secondary radar in the list of systems to be protected. 2. The methodology in 3.2 is flawed, it does not mention radar, it does not mention computer modelling for Instrument Landing System(ILS) for example, it states referral to National Air Traffic Services(NATS) for any reflections that could impact the CNS system. NATS do not have jurisdiction in this case, the airport is the expert in determining that correct safeguarding has been applied and may recommend

page 185 certain specialist organisations to ensure appropriate impact or modelling assessments are conducted to the satisfaction of the CAA - not NATS. 3. Section 5 para 2 is incorrect, a change or building does not have to be exactly in line with the approach for it to have an effect on the ILS beam pattern. I note in the safeguarding report there is no reference to the type of ILS, whether it is single frequency or dual or what antenna system it uses which are all important safeguarding variables. The width of the propagated beam of both the ILS glide and localiser will most likely illuminate the site. 4. Section 5 para 3 trees and vegetation cannot be relied upon for screening as their presence is not guaranteed for the life of the building. 5. 5.1 para 1, there is approximately a 1km difference in the distances between the ILS and the DME, therefore they both cannot be at 5.19km. 6. With reference to what has this assumption been made, please include reference such as CAP670 or ICAO safeguarding areas. 7. 5.1 para 2, Localiser 'backcourse' profiles have not been used for a considerable number of years for ILS approaches so there is no probability of use. I have a concern that the material being used to conduct these assessments is potentially out of date. 8. Text relating to figure 9. Again, when carrying out technical safeguarding trees should not be considered as screening. 9. Text relating to figure 10. Disturbance of the propagated ILS beam is more complex than just the angle of reflection to the flight path. 10. 5.2 para 3, this paragraph is incorrect, the primary radar at Exeter is not blended to provide complete cover of the area as the paragraph suggests. Exeter has primary and secondary radars that have different functions and different coverage patterns, both are used to provide the controller with different information. 11. 5.2 para 4, RAG (range azimuth gating) or software patches are not an option on a Plessey Watchman radar and in any case in Class G airspace using RAG as a way of gating out unwanted signals is not appropriate. That said it is moving target returns that are more of a concern in this case such as wind turbines. With the radar and at this range the concern is 'ground clutter' - reflections form ground targets. Buildings, being uniform and often constructed from more reflective materials, contribute to the ground clutter which when in high concentration can swamp low amplitude moving targets which could be for example a small aircraft. If the radar cannot see it than neither can the controller. 12. Text relating to figure 12, again trees cannot be relied upon for nav aid screening in technical safeguarding assessments as they are not permanent. 13. Text relating to figure 9, Is the McDonalds a new development? Why is it commented that it will provide screening if it is a source of reflection in itself?

Currently we have Zero tolerance for ILS disturbance budget consumption and the safeguarding report does not appear to be robust enough for us to be sure that the safeguarding process has been appropriately applied in this case.

Operational Safeguarding Assessment. It is mentioned within the operational section of the Aviation Safeguarding Assessment about bird management and the developer being aware. However due to aircraft in this location being in a critical phase of flight and the height of the local topography, bird management and preventing the risk of birdstrike to aircraft is of paramount importance. The food outlet with associated litter and waste and the

page 186 balancing pond are potential bird attractants and as such a robust Wildlife Hazard Management Plan(WHMP) would need to be supplied with details of how the risks are going to be managed. Further details and what is required in a WHMP can be found in the attached Airport Operators Association(AOA) Advice note 3 Wildlife Hazards around Aerodromes.

It is also stated within the operational section of the Aviation Safeguarding Assessment that the use of cranes during construction up to 100m above ground level are unlikely to have any impact on Instrument Flight Procedures(IFPs). However the most restrictive procedure within the supplied Technical Analysis of the IFPs by Cyrrus shows a maximum height before any impact on the procedure is approx. 27m. Any cranes would still require to conform to the principles of shielding as described above and in CAP168 if operating when the airport is open and operational. AOA Advice note 4 Cranes and other Construction issues is attached with further information.

Accordingly, Exeter Airport object to the proposal on the grounds of aviation safety and operational impacts.

EDDC Landscape Architect - Chris Hariades

Comment Date: Thu 03 Oct 2019 1 INTRODUCTION

The report is an update in response to the receipt of amended information submitted by the applicant, received 13 September 2019. 2 REVIEW OF SUBMITTED DRAWINGS & OTHER SUPPORTING INFORMATION The revised site layout and landscape proposals are generally acceptable. However the following minor amendments are required to the site layout plans plan (dwg. no. 160377-PLN12N, 13Q, 14J, 15H) and proposed surface finishes plan dwg. no. 160377-PLNG23G to reflect the soft landscape plan, dwg. no. SY17-184-LPP-19-05 and indicated on the attached over-marked plan (figure 1) below: The paths indicated to the back of the parking bays to the northern edge of the McDonalds car park should be shown as planting. An additional maintenance access gate should be provided to serve the small field portion to the west of the site entrance. The surface finishes plan and other layout plans should be amended to reflect the above points in order to match the soft landscape plan. The tree survey has been updated to reflect the amended site layout but the following items require further consideration: a) A new water main is indicated on the drainage layout drawing, no 4043/100 rev P3 coming through the existing tree line on the western boundary. The arboricultural impact assessment does not consider the potential impact of this on RPAs. A method statement should be provided to cover this to ensure that the alignment of the pipe and associated excavation works do not adversely impact tree RPAs. b) The drainage layout drawing also shows a proposed storm water drain following the western site boundary. It is unclear whether this would impact adjacent tree RPAs. The arboricultural mpact of the proposed drain should be assessed by the arboricultural consultant and if necessary the drainage line should be amended to

page 187 avoid any impact.

Plan here (see scanned document)

An amended lighting lux levels plan should be provided to reflect the revised site layout.

The above information could be provided by condition should the application be approved.

3 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Conditions of Approval Should the application be approved the following conditions should apply:

1) No development work shall commence on site until the following information has been submitted to the LPA and approved: a) A full set of hard landscape details covering earthworks, walls, retaining structures, fencing, pavings and edgings, site furniture and signage. b) Details of existing and proposed levels and any abrupt changes in slope, retaining structures or earth-banks. c) Details of locations, heights and specifications of proposed external lighting. d) An amended lighting lux level contours plan and endorsement from ecologist confirming that the proposed lighting scheme complies with Institute of Lighting Engineers (ILP)/ Bat Conservancy Council guidance note GN08. e) Samples of the proposed locally sourced stone for building plinths and specification for laying, jointing and mortar. f) Samples of timber cladding to building elevations. g) An arboricultural method statement covering the proposed new water main and storm water drainage run to the western site boundary. h) Plant schedule indicating form, size and density of proposed tree, shrub and herbaceous planting. i) Specification for soil quality, cultivation, planting, seeding, mulching and means of plant support and protection during establishment period. j) The works shall be carried out in accordance with an approved soil resources plan which should include: o a plan showing topsoil and subsoil types, and the areas to be stripped and left in- situ. o methods for stripping, stockpiling, re-spreading and ameliorating the soils. o location of soil stockpiles and content (e.g. Topsoil type A, subsoil type B). o schedules of volumes for each material. o expected after-use for each soil whether topsoil or subsoil to be used on site, used or sold off site, or subsoil to be retained for landscape areas or used as structural fill. o identification of person responsible for supervising soil management. k) A construction management plan indicating the location of proposed site compound, offices, welfare facilities and storage areas, and construction access routes which should seek to minimise disturbance to areas outside of the red line application area. l) Site maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with an approved 10 year Landscape and ecological management plan including both the red and blue line application areas and covering:

page 188 o Extent, ownership and responsibilities for management and maintenance. o Construction of proposed Devon hedgebanks. o Inspection and management regimes for existing and proposed trees and hedgerows. o Management and maintenance of grass areas. o Management and enhancement of biodiversity value. o Management and maintenance of any boundary structures, drainage swales and other infrastructure/ facilities.

2) Following completion of the development the following information should be submitted: a) Within 3 months of completion of the development a post completion statement of compliance should be provided in respect of lighting outputs in accordance with ILP guidance note GN08. Any areas found to be non-compliant to be rectified as agreed with the LPA. b) Monitoring of bat activity should be undertaken during the first summer following occupation of the buildings and annually for two years thereafter in order to assess whether there are any changes in bat activity following completion of the development. Reports on the findings shall be submitted annually to the LPA by 31 October following the summer survey period for that year. 3) Any planting or areas of grass/ meadow that dies or fails to make satisfactory growth within five years following completion of planting shall be replaced with plants of similar size and form to the satisfaction of the LPA.

Previous comments: 16 Apr 2019

1 INTRODUCTION

The report is an update in response to the receipt of amended information submitted by the applicant.

1.1 Landscape and conservation designations

There are no landscape or conservation designations covering the site or its immediate environs.

The East Devon AONB is situated 2.7km to the south of the application site at its closest point. The closest point of the AONB to the site is approximately 9km to the north.

The nearest listed buildings are the grade 2 Streete Raleigh House 700m west and Street Raleigh Farm 1km west. Neither of these properties is likely to have views to the site due to intervening vegetation and buildings.

1.2 Landscape character and sensitivity

The site falls within National Character Area 148: Devon Redlands and within the Pebblebed Heath and Farmland Character Area of the Devon Landscape Character Assessment, although it has many of the characteristics of the Clyst Lowland

page 189 Farmlands character area, the boundary of which lies 250 metres to the north.

The site is covered by two landscape character types. A small portion towards the north-eastern boundary falls within LCT 1A - Pebble bed heaths. The remainder of the site is within LCT 3B - Lower rolling farmed and settled slopes. Overall the site has the characteristics of the latter, key characteristics of which relevant to the site are:

- Gently rolling landform, sloping up from valley floor - Variable size fields with wide, low boundaries and irregular pattern - Pastoral land use, often with wooded appearance - Many hedgerow trees, copses and streamside tree rows - Settled, with varied building ages, styles and settlement size - Enclosed and sheltered landscape with wider views often restricted by vegetation.

Relevant LCT3B Management Guidelines are:

Boundaries: encouraging appropriate management of low wide hedges at a height of 1-1.5m/ 3-5 feet, to maintain bushy, mixed species character.

Woodland management: conserve by promoting management to favour:

(a) the development of a varied age structure

(b) long-lived locally indigenous species

(c) linkage to the hedgerow and stream-side network to provide strong ecological corridors.

Transport network: Encouraging low-key signage for directions to recreational attractions.

The proposals are likely to have a high adverse landscape and visual effect on the site and its immediate environs but due to surrounding landform, tree cover and hedgerows the impact of the development on the wider landscape is likely to be limited and will be most apparent for users of the A30.

1.3 Summary site description and context

The site comprises un-grazed rough grassland currently divided into two parcels by an established hedgerow and adjacent ditch. The area of ownership covers the whole of the two field parcels, totalling 4.15Ha. The redline application boundary only covers part of the two fields totalling 2.15Ha.

Additional works to be undertaken as part of the scheme proposals but outside of the drawn red-line boundary comprise an attenuation pond area situated in the southernmost corner of the site and connecting surface water drainage and new bus stops/ layby on the B3174 in the vicinity of the proposed site entrance, together with a widening of the existing carriageway and introduction of traffic islands and short sections of footway.

page 190

The north-eastern boundary of the application site abuts the B3174 London Road and is separated from the road verge by a ditch and low scrub vegetation.

The southeast boundary of the site abuts the A30 carriageway and east bound slip- road leading off it and is defined by a timber post and rail fence. Vegetation to the highway verge adjacent to this boundary comprises low scrub with a small block of native trees and understory planting to the northern end and a further small copse at the southernmost end.

The northwestern boundary of the application area is open with rough grassland continuing to an established, mature hedgerow with large oaks and other specimen trees approximately 25m further west.

There are two existing access ways into the site off the B3174; a smaller gated entrance closer to the A30 interchange and a wider entrance constructed under a previous planning consent further to the west.

The site is situated on high ground at an altitude of approximately 125m AOD and slopes gently to the west. Land to the east continues to rise to 165m AOD. The A30 runs alongside the south-eastern boundary at a slightly elevated level.

A mature hedgerow trimmed to approximately two meters height forms a division across the application site with a smaller portion of field to the north and larger portion to the south. A mature oak (Arboricultural report ref T1) is situated adjacent to an opening in this hedge connecting between the two fields). This hedgerow continues west of the opening to meet the western ownership boundary. Surrounding land use is a mix of arable and pasture bounded by hedgerows interspersed with blocks of woodland with scattered dwellings and farms. Surrounding roads, including the A30 corridor, have a strongly rural character. There is no public access within the site. The B3174 provides access adjacent to the northeastern boundary and the A30 to the southeast boundary. Public rights of way within the vicinity are limited and the nearest to the site is Whimple footpath 13, approximately 450 metres to the north.

Views from the site are limited by surrounding or nearby trees and woodland, although distant hills of the Blackdowns AONB are visible to the northwest. To the southeast, traffic on the A30 is clearly visible in both directions while on the far side of the A30 the roofs of large industrial units can be seen. To the north there are views from the site of the B3174 and Daisy Mount Cottage opposite with extensive woodland beyond.

The Daisy Mount A30 interchange comprises a flyover with slip-roads and roundabouts below, all of which are screened from the site by existing roadside vegetation.

Visual receptors are:

- Residents of Daisy Cottage which faces directly towards the site from across the

page 191 B3174. - Motorists traveling along the A30 in either direction and including the slip-roads to both sides, who have open elevated views over the site over a distance of some 200 metres. - Motorists and cyclists traveling along the B3174. - Residents of properties known as Keepers Cottage which lie off the B3174 approximately 130 meters to the west. The site is subjected to a high level of traffic noise from the A30.

2 REVIEW OF SUBMITTED INFORMATION

2.1 Comments on the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)

The assessment of landscape sensitivity and anticipated landscape effects within the LVIA is restricted to generalised considerations of the effect on the Devon Landscape Character Area and two East Devon Landscape Character Types which cover the site. The assessment should also consider the effects on specific landscape elements within and adjacent to the site including trees, hedgerow, rough neutral grassland and existing roads, particularly in relation to the London Road frontage.

At para 15.2 the LVIA notes the loss of acid grassland whereas the Ecological Assessment describes the existing grassland as neutral.

Para 15.3 notes that the proposals include planting of 79 large trees, however, the selected trees shown on the Soft Landscape Plan, revision C, are either small or medium size and according to the accompanying specification will be maintained at less than 8m high.

Para 15.8 notes the loss of two large oak trees arising from the proposals. The arboricultural information provided indicates the loss of just one of the existing site oaks and this should be checked and clarified.

Para 15.13 states the proposal contains primary mitigation through selection of optimal native species and recreation of important landscape features. This statement is subjective and erroneous as most of the tree species proposed are ornamental and the only landscape feature being recreated is a length of Devon hedgebank, while the proposed planting is highly constrained by airport safeguarding requirements.

It should also be noted that in the latest version of the Soft Landscape Plan, revision C, which was submitted after the LVIA was received, the proposed tree planting has been amended with larger tree species being replaced with smaller ones and a management note added requiring all planted trees to be maintained at less than 8m height. This is less than the height of some of the proposed buildings and structures and as a result the mitigation benefits of the proposed planting scheme will be reduced and the adverse landscape and visual impacts of the scheme are likely to be greater than those stated in the LVIA.

Para 15.13 also notes as part of the proposed mitigation that proposed buildings

page 192 should respond to local vernacular. This is clearly not the case as the proposed buildings and structures show no vernacular detailing and the LVIA should be amended to reflect the submitted scheme proposals.

Para 16.5 states that some of the built proposal and associated signage would be visible from certain locations in the immediate surroundings, however, it is likely that lighting effects of the development could extend over a much wider area.

At para 16.6 the assessment states that utility lighting should be limited and not adversely affect dark skies although there is no attempt to evaluate the likely landscape or visual impact of the lighting as proposed. In the summary of effects upon visual amenity, p51, the assessment ignores the impact on the London Road frontage in relation to viewpoints 5, 6 and especially 7 which will include widening of the carriageway to three lanes, construction of new junction and associated footways and loss of existing roadside vegetation. Part 4 of the assessment provides approximate visualisations of the proposed building massing and trees for each of the selected viewpoints. These show the proposed trees at close to mature height with large dense canopies that in many instances obscure much of the proposed buildings. As noted above the latest soft landscape plan shows much smaller tree species than the visualisations suggest and requires that all trees will be maintained at less than 8m height. To be meaningful the visualisations should show the proposed development at completion and after 15 years based on the actual tree species and management regime proposed.

While it is noted that the building forms and tree locations depicted in the visualisations are approximate, some of the perspective effects are highly questionable. For example in view 2 the petrol station canopy appears to be lower than the roadside hedge to London Road and in view 4, taken from the existing field gate on London Road, the canopy appears to be at or lower than the level of the A30.

2.2 Review of submitted drawings & other supporting information

2.2.1 Tree survey and arboricultural report (no change from previous)

All the trees within the blue line ownership boundary have been covered by a BS5837: 2012 tree survey and constraints plan. Existing trees are confined predominantly to the western boundary hedgerow comprising mostly oak with single ash and pine.

A further two mature oaks trees, T1(category B) and T2 (category A), are situated within the hedgerow dividing the site, of which tree T1 falls within the application site. The classification of tree T1 as category B is questionable and, given its landscape contribution and anticipated life in excess of 40 years, could be considered category A.

T1 is identified for removal due to its location interfering with the proposed layout, together with tree T5, category U. Regardless of whether it should be reclassified as category A, tree T1 is a significant tree worthy of retention. Tree protection fencing is proposed to the site boundary of tree group G1 adjacent to

page 193 the A30 slip road in the northeast corner of the site. Further tree protection compliant with BS5837: 2012 is required to protect hedgerow H1 and tree T2 and the line of trees and hedgerow H2 on the western ownership boundary during construction works.

2.2.2 Ecological Assessment

An Ecological Assessment is provided with the application covering all the land within the blue ownership boundary. The Assessment describes the fields as semi-improved neutral grassland/ rush pasture with damp species-poor grassland sward and identifies five sections of hedgerow within the blue ownership boundary all of which, except for the southernmost hedge adjacent to Laurel Copse, have been assessed as Important.

The Assessment identifies use of the site by several species of bat for foraging and commuting together with a nearby bat roost. Recommendations to help mitigate impact of the development on bats include development of a lighting strategy based on the Bat Conservation Trust's guidelines and use of a grass seed mix/ wildflower plugs that encourages flying insects.

The Assessment makes recommendations for a new Devon hedgebank to mitigate for the loss of 115m of existing hedgerow and provides a detail for this based on recommendations of the Devon Hedge Group. A planting mix for an elm rich (Ulmus glabra) hedgerow to be planted on top is also specified although the proposed mix given in table 17 doesn't include any Elm but does include Hazel, Holly, Elder Ash and Oak. It may prove difficult obtaining Ulmus glabra planting stock due to its susceptibility to Dutch Elm disease. It is not possible to plant Ash - due to current legal restrictions imposed to control the spread of Chalara die-back and it is not best practice to use elder in new hedge mixes due to its vigour and open habit which outcompetes other species and results in gappy hedgelines. The proposed hedge mix should be amended accordingly. It is also worth considering transplanting the existing hedge in sections inter-planted with suitable transplant mix on new hedgebank sections.

The proposed new hedgebank details do not cover future management requirements and this should be provided. In relation to airport safeguarding the Assessment makes recommendations for, inter alia, trees to be less than 20 metres high and no berry producing species to limit attractiveness to bird species of concern. This advice conflicts with corresponding guidance given in the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan and the Soft Landscape Plan.

No indication is given in the assessment of bird population numbers for each species recorded during field survey. This is important in relation to airport restrictions in order to establish a baseline for future monitoring.

2.2.3 Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) - It is understood that the amended WHMP has now been approved by Exeter Airport and should therefore be the definitive document in terms of airport safeguarding constraints for the proposed development.

page 194

In respect of new tree planting, the WHMP notes dense canopy species such as Oak and Pine should be avoided (ref p. 25- Tree planting) but gives no limits on tree size except adjacent to SUDS features where ultimate tree height for new planting should be limited to 10m (ref p.26 - Soft landscaping around SUDS).

In relation to grass areas, section 4.5.2 of the WHMP notes that short grass can attract numerous birds but that meadow grass, despite attracting flying insects, small mammals and reptiles does not attract bird species of concern.

These considerations are not reflected in the Soft Landscape Plan which proposes that all trees will be maintained at less than 8m high and that all grass will be kept close mown.

The conflicting advice on airport safeguarding between the WHMP, Ecological Assessment and Soft Landscape Plan should be checked and resolved.

2.2.4 Sustainability Statement (unchanged from previous) - A sustainability statement submitted with the application notes that planting will be designed to provide an enhancement to both ecological and aesthetic value of the site; reduce the need for artificial cooling; attenuate sound and capture rainwater run-off. It seems unlikely that the limited planting scheme proposed could achieve these aims and no evidence is provided to demonstrate that it does.

2.2.5 Layout, architectural and landscape proposals a) Site layout The site layout is highly standardised and entails the unnecessary loss of a mature oak tree. The straight access road along the length of the western boundary is out of keeping with local landscape character and is visually intrusive.

No indication is provided of the proposed boundary treatments to the southern and western application boundaries which abut open fields or of how the remainder of the fields beyond will be accessed and managed once the works are completed and this should be clarified. The location and plan shape of the proposed Devon hedgebank to the B3174 roadside boundary appears arbitrary and out of character. The hedge could be better integrated in to the overall scheme design age with a rough grass verge to the roadside and indigenous shrub planting behind.

The need for a three metre high acoustic barrier to the rear of the HGV/ coach parking area as proposed is questionable and a denser buffer of native tree and hedgerow planting between the parking area and the B3174 could achieve the same and provide better visual screening also. If an acoustic barrier is deemed necessary a justification should be provided for this.

There is an excessive amount of footway provided within the scheme and the footways to the west side of the main access road and rear of the HGV parking bays seem unnecessary.

page 195

There seems little consideration given to the amenity of the outdoor sitting areas and more planting is required to soften them and screen them from adjacent roads/ parking areas. No indication is given to fencing around the proposed play area despite its position next to a road. The planting bed to the northern edge of the McDonalds car park is unfeasibly narrow and omitting the adjacent path would enable the planting width to increase, allowing a better screen of planting to establish.

The revised layout omits signage previously shown around the perimeter of the site, however perimeter signage is still shown on the soft landscape plan and the applicant should confirm the intention regarding signage. b) Building design

The buildings comprise a single storey filling station and shop in the north east corner of the site aligned with its rear facing the A30 with a canopied forecourt in front of the shop and a separate double storey McDonalds set at right angles to it approximately 50 metres to the south. The proposed filling station and shop unit is 4.2m high with a mono-pitch natural finish aluminium roof. The front (northwest) elevation is predominantly glazed. The southern end of the rear elevation is also glazed with the remainder of the building clad in aluminium panels finished in silver with an iron grey coloured plinth.

The proposed McDonalds building is flat roofed with an overall height of 8.9 metres, and elevations clad in a combination of grey and white finished aluminium panels with timber effect and natural stone tile contrast panelling and large glazing elements. A lack of screen planting to the rear elevation will result in the building being a prominent feature when seen from the A30.

The proposed finishes for both buildings are highly urban. Changing the cladding to timber and providing extensive green roofs would reduce the landscape and visual impact and help towards mitigating the loss of rough grass habitat. c) Planting proposals

The planting scheme comprises limited ornamental planting within the centre of the site with amenity grass mix and limited scattered trees and clumps of native hedgerow plants to the eastern and northern boundaries and a line of ornamental trees to the western application boundary. Tree selection mostly comprises ornamental, small growing species out of character with the surrounding rural landscape.

The design of the London Road frontage is very suburban in character comprising mown grass with scattered small ornamental trees and clumps of native shrubs. The proposed Devon hedgebank could be better integrated into the overall design and there is potential to retain the northern margin of the existing grassland which would provide some biodiversity benefit and add visual interest. The proposed planting provides inadequate screening of the development to the northern, eastern and western site boundaries.

page 196

Proposed use of small ornamental tree species is inappropriate around the perimeter of the site where larger native/ semi-native species should be provided.

Proposed grass areas comprise basic amenity sward with a management regime specifically designed to prevent wildflowers contrary to recommendations in the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan and the Ecological Assessment. The proposed planting strip to the northern edge of the McDonalds car park is unfeasibly narrow and should be widened to a minimum 1.2m width. Planting should comprise a suitable hedge clipped to 1.2m height and a post and wire fence should be provided to protect the hedge from shortcutting by pedestrians.

Further planting should be provided within the car park and around the two outdoor seating areas to give better separation from adjacent roads. It is noted that the layout shown on the Soft Landscape Plan to the east of the Mc Donalds building differs 02form that shown on the revised Site Layout Plan and this inconsistency should be resolved.

d) Lighting strategy

A lighting design and lux level plan has been provided, accompanied by a statement from the lighting consultant that the lighting proposals meet ILP Guidance note GN08 Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK. Confirmation should be provided that the lighting design also meets the Bat Conservation Trust guidance as noted in the Ecological Assessment.

The submitted information does not constitute a lighting strategy which should include, amongst other things, consideration of habitat buffers and acceptable lux limits together with proposals for post-completion bat and lighting monitoring, prepared with input from the ecological consultant.

2.2.7 Drainage scheme

Details for the design and construction of the proposed attenuation pond are not included in the application and should be provided.

The location of the storm sewer is too close to the existing western boundary hedge- line and in particular manhole S35 should be repositioned to give five metre root protection zone from the adjacent hedge line as recommended in the Ecological Assessment.

No indication is given in the drainage layout of where overflow form the attenuation pond discharges to and further details should be provided.

2.2.8 Management and maintenance

Apart from notes on the maintenance of new planting areas within the red line application area there are no management and maintenance details for the wider site and the maintenance/ enhancement of ecological value. No details are provided for the management of the proposed Devon hedgebank and

page 197 this should be confirmed. The maintenance requirement that all trees should be kept below 8m in height should be re-considered to allow trees to develop to their full height.

3 CONCLUSIONS

The proposed scheme appears to be based on standardised site layout and building types with the result that the scheme is overly urban in character and does not reflect existing site conditions, local landscape character or building vernacular.

This is compounded by the application of airport safeguarding constraints on the proposed planting scheme which limits mitigation opportunities for appropriate screening of the development.

The proposed development would result in a net loss of habitat including loss of approximately 1.9Ha of unimproved grassland, 115m of species rich hedgerow and removal of a good quality mature oak. Although the hedgerow loss would be mitigated to some extent by creation of a new Devon hedgebank, this will take many years to mature and its wildlife value will be limited by its location between the highway and the floodlit parking area with no connection to open countryside. The proposed specification for all grass areas to be close mown amenity grassland will provide no wildlife benefit resulting in a net reduction in flying insects which in turn may impact bat foraging and commuting activity.

The design of the site access road suggests the developer would like to develop the outlying areas of the site in the future, which would result in the loss of most of the remaining unimproved grassland habitat within the blue line area.

As noted above there are also a number of issues with the submitted information relating to landscape, ecology and green infrastructure which need to be addressed.

Although there are a number of shortcomings identified with the submitted LVIA there is a broad agreement that the proposed scheme would result in very high adverse landscape and visual effects within the immediate vicinity of the site reducing to moderate adverse within the wider landscape context, with the exception of night time lighting effects which were not assessed in the LVIA and which may be more widely apparent.

4 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Acceptability of proposals

For the above reasons on the basis of the details submitted the scheme should be considered in conflict with Local Plan policies, in particular:

- Strategy 3 Sustainable development - Conserving and enhancing the environment

- Strategy 7 - Development in the countryside

- D1 parts 1 and 3 Respecting key characteristics and special qualities of the area

page 198 and not adversely effecting trees worthy of retention

- D2 part 2 Incorporating features of landscape or nature conservation value.

- Strategy 46 - Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs - Development will need to be undertaken in a manner that is sympathetic to, and helps conserve and enhance the quality and local distinctiveness of, the natural and historic landscape character of East Devon, in particular in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Development will only be permitted where it:

1. conserves and enhances the landscape character of the area;

2. does not undermine landscape quality;

As such the scheme is unacceptable in terms of landscape design and visual impact.

Natural England

Comment Date: 01 Oct 2019 Our Ref: 295202 Your Ref: 18/1222/MFUL

Thank you for your consultation.

Natural England has previously commented on this proposal.

The advice provided in our previous responses applies equally to this amendment although we made no objection to the original proposal.

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

Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment then, in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England should be consulted again. Before sending us the amended consultation, please assess whether the changes proposed will materially affect any of the advice we have previously offered. If they are unlikely to do so, please do not re-consult us.

Previous comments: 18 Sep 2018

Thank you for your consultation.

Natural England has previously commented on this proposal and made comments to the authority in our letter dated 26 June 2018.

The advice provided in our previous response applies equally to this amendment although we made no objection to the original proposal.

page 199 The proposed amendments to the original application are unlikely to have significantly different impacts on the natural environment than the original proposal.

Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment then, in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England should be consulted again. Before sending us the amended consultation, please assess whether the changes proposed will materially affect any of the advice we have previously offered. If they are unlikely to do so, please do not re-consult us.

Natural England has no comments to make on this application.

Natural England has not assessed this application for impacts on protected species. Natural England has published Standing Advice which you can use to assess impacts on protected species or you may wish to consult your own ecology services for advice.

Natural England and the Forestry Commission have also published standing advice on ancient woodland and veteran trees which you can use to assess any impacts on ancient woodland.

The lack of comment from Natural England does not imply that there are no impacts on the natural environment, but only that the application is not likely to result in significant impacts on statutory designated nature conservation sites or landscapes. It is for the local planning authority to determine whether or not this application is consistent with national and local policies on the natural environment. Other bodies and individuals may be able to provide information and advice on the environmental value of this site and the impacts of the proposal to assist the decision making process. We advise LPAs to obtain specialist ecological or other environmental advice when determining the environmental impacts of development.

We recommend referring to our SSSI Impact Risk Zones (available on Magic and as a downloadable dataset) prior to consultation with Natural England. Further guidance on when to consult Natural England on planning and development proposals is available on gov.uk at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-planning-authorities-get- environmental-advice

Environmental Health

Comment Date: 01 Nov 2019

I have reviewed the various EH comments which have been made over the past year as various ammendments and updated reports have been submitted. I have consolidated them in order for them to be easily interpreted :

I have considered this application and accept the conclusions in the noise impact assessments carried out by KC environmental Ltd that the predicted levels shall comply with BS4142, the WHO guidelines for sleep disturbance and BS8233, and that vehicle movements will not impact on local residents. I have also considered the

page 200 details of the kitchen extraction system which will ensure that emissions are properly treated before being emitted to atmosphere. I have considered the lighting report submitted by GW lighting consultancy and the design meets the requirements not to cause light pollution in this rural area. The installation and selling of petrol will be regulated by the Petroleum Officer and the company must apply for a Part B permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations from the Environmental Health department to capture petrol vapour whilst dispensing, therefore all our concerns in relation to the selling of fuel will be covered by both of these requirements. I would recommend that a Construction Environment Management Plan is attached to any permission granted which will ensure that nearby residents are not unreasonably impacted upon during the construction works.

In order to ensure that the various mitigation schemes are implemented and maintained I recommend that the following conditions are included on any approval. Some of the requirements within the conditions have already been met in submitted documents:

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

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

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

page 201 Conservation

Comment Date: Wed 04 Jul 2018 See listing description and Appeal decision relating to Keepers Cottage, Exeter Road, Whimple (Ref: APP/U1105/Y/173184165).

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

The principle of a roadside service area has already been agreed and supported by EDDC. The proposal site is set some considerable distance from the nearest listed building, Strete Ralegh House, and there is no intervisibility between the two.

Following a recent appeal decision at Keepers Cottage to the north west of the site, the Inspector regarded the former kennels to the main house, Strete Ralegh, not to be curtilage listed, but a non-designated heritage asset. Permission was thereby given to extend the kennels to create a dwelling. The proposals should therefore be mindful of this aswell as other neighbouring residential properties and sufficient consideration given to the impact of the service station on the setting of the kennels. However, it is considered that an appropriate landscaping scheme (comments from Landscape Architect) would be sufficient, along with consideration of other implications arising from a service station/food outlet, for example, lighting, noise levels, odours/fumes etc (comments from Environmental Health).

PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATION - PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE

DCC Flood Risk SuDS Consultation

Comment Date: 23 Sep 2019 Recommendation:

Our objection is withdrawn and we have no in-principle objections to the above planning application at this stage, assuming that the following pre-commencement planning conditions are imposed on any approved permission:

No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development site for the full period of its construction has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system must satisfactorily address both the rates and volumes, and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site.

Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area.

page 202 Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: A plan needs to be demonstrated prior to the commencement of any works to ensure that surface water can be managed suitably without increasing flood risk downstream, negatively affecting water quality downstream or negatively impacting on surrounding areas and infrastructure. Advice: Refer to Devon County Council's Sustainable Drainage Guidance.

No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the full details of the adoption and maintenance arrangements for the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority.

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

Observations: The applicant submitted additional information Land At Straightway Head Junction, Devon, Flood Risk Assessment, Final Report v2 dated September 2019. The report explains that the proposed surface water drainage strategy will comprise an attenuation basin and a swale which will provide treatment of the runoff as well as storage of flows. The runoff will discharge at restricted greenfield rates into the existing drain at the site. The strategy also incorporates long term storage requirements as the proposal is to discharge at Qbar.

Previous comments: 13 Feb 2019

Our objection is withdrawn and we have no in-principle objections to the above planning application at this stage, assuming that the following pre-commencement planning conditions are imposed on any approved permission:

- No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a programme of percolation tests has been carried out in accordance with BRE Digest 365 Soakaway Design (2016), and the results approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. A representative number of tests should be conducted to provide adequate coverage of the site, with particular focus placed on the locations of the proposed infiltration devices/permeable surfaces. Reason: To ensure that surface water from the development is discharged as high up the drainage hierarchy as is feasible.

Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: This data is required prior to the commencement of any works as it will affect the permanent surface water drainage management plan, which needs to be confirmed before development takes place.

page 203 - No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. The design of this permanent surface water drainage management system will be in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in the Land At Straightway Head Junction, Flood Risk Assessment, May 2018, dated 24th May 2018.

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

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

- No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development site for the full period of its construction has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system must satisfactorily address both the rates and volumes, and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site. Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area.

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

- No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the full details of the adoption and maintenance arrangements for the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development's permanent surface water drainage management systems will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development. Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: These details need to be submitted prior to commencement of any works to ensure that suitable plans are in place for the maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage management plan, for the reason above.

page 204 Observations: Following my previous consultation response FRM/ED/1222/2018 dated 28/06/2018 the applicant has provided additional information in relation to the surface water drainage aspects of the above planning application, in an e-mail dated 29/01/2019, for which I am grateful.

- Email dated 21/01/2019 from Michael Birch to Peter Thomas Land At Straightway Head Junction The applicant has put forward a suitable surface water drainage strategy which utilises an attenuation basin and restricts flow to greenfield rate. Consequently, the proposal will provide a betterment to the surface water runoff in the area. The applicant has taken into consideration exceedance flow routing and long term storage design requirements. We would request on site infiltration testing to BRE 365 Digest to provide evidence that infiltration is not viable, in line with the surface water management hierarchy.

Previous comments: 28 Jun 2018

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

Observations:

The Flood Risk Assessment states that the proposed impermeable area is 1.3 ha and that discharge will be restricted to Qbar of 9.9 l/s. However, the greenfield runoff calculations in Appendix C state that the area is 1 ha with a Q bar of 5.1 l/s. In line with Devon County Council's SuDS Guidance (2017) the greenfield runoff calculations should be undertaken using the proposed impermeable area. The micro drainage calculations should be updated to reflect this.

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

The applicant should also note that in accordance with the SuDS Management Train, surface water should be managed at source in the first instance. The applicant will therefore be required to explore the use of a variety of above-ground source control components across the whole site to avoid managing all of the surface water from the proposed development at one concentrated point (e.g. a single attenuation pond).

Examples of these source control components could include permeable paving

page 205 (which could be underdrained), formalised tree pits or other bioretention features such as rain gardens, as well as green roofs, swales and filter drains. Where infiltration is not used, long term storage must be provided to store the additional volume of runoff caused by any increases in impermeable area, which is in addition to the attenuation storage required to address the greenfield runoff rates. Long term storage should therefore be included within the surface water drainage management plan to ensure that each element is appropriately sized, and this should discharge at a rate not exceeding 2 litres/second/hectare.

An ordinary watercourse runs through this site, so if any temporary or permanent works need to take place within this watercourse to facilitate the proposed development (such as an access culvert or bridge), Land Drainage Consent must be obtained from Devon County Council's Flood and Coastal Risk Management Team prior to any works commencing. Details of this procedure can be found at: https://new.devon.gov.uk/floodriskmanagement/land-drainage-consent/.

South West Water

Comment Date: Thu 21 Jun 2018 Dear Sirs

Location: Land South of Lily Cottage Exeter Road Whimple EX5 2PS Your ref: 18/1222/MFUL Our ref: MPP200618 EX5 2PS

Proposal: Application for the development of a new roadside service area to include a petrol filling station comprising sales building, canopy over, car and caravan parking, fuel pumps, HGV fuel pumps, 2 no. underground storage tanks and ancillary arrangements, new A3/A5 use building and drive-thru, HGV and coach parking, new access arrangements and landscaping and drainage

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

Asset Protection Please find enclosed a plan showing the approximate location of a public water main in the vicinity. Please note that no development will be permitted within 3.5 metres of the water main, and ground cover should not be substantially altered.

Should the development encroach on the 3.5 metre easement, the water main will need to be diverted at the expense of the applicant. The applicant/agent is advised to contact the Developer Services Planning Team to discuss the matter further.

If further assistance is required to establish the exact location of the water main, the applicant/agent should call our Services helpline on 0344 346 2020.

I trust this clarifies the water and drainage material planning considerations for your LPA, however if you have any questions or queries, please do not hesitate to contact

page 206 me either via e-mail: [email protected] or direct line: 01392 443983.

Please quote reference number MPP200618 EX5 2PS in all communications and correspondence.

EDDC Trees

Comment Date: 11 Jun 2019 Support comments of EDDC Landscape Architect.

The oaks growing within the centre of the site are considered BS5837:2012 Category A2,3.

Further comments: 21 Jan 2019

The Oak identified as T1 within the submitted arboricultural report is proposed for removal. This is a visually significant hedgerow oak, characteristic of the East Devon countryside. There is sufficient space to accommodate this tree within the design of this site and purchase of land appropriate to accommodate the desired level of commercial development. This tree is over a meter in diameter and taken many many decades to achieve this stature, given the constraints of the airport flight paths it cannot be replaced and it is thus considered irreplaceable.

The oak tree is subject of tree preservation order 18/0090/TPO and the loss of this tree to facilitate the proposed development, is contrary to our local planning policies D1, D2 and D3 and the proposed scheme be refused.

Contaminated Land Officer

Comment Date: Tue 03 Jul 2018 I have considered the application and do not anticipate any contaminated land concerns. Should any contamination be encountered during oversite works the applicant should contact the contaminated land officer at EDDC in order to agree appropriate remediation measures. I therefore recommend that the following condition is applied to any approval:

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

page 207 Environment Agency

Comment Date: 26 Jun 2018 Thank you for consulting us on this planning application.

Environment Agency position The development will be acceptable provided that a condition is included within any permission granted to secure an assessment of risks to controlled waters from the development of this site.

The suggested wording for this condition and associated advice is set out below.

Condition No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until a remediation strategy that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:

1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: all previous uses potential contaminants associated with those uses a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

3. The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reasons: To ensure the protection of controlled waters.

Advice to applicant - Pollution Prevention We refer the applicant to the advice contained within our Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs), in particular PPG5 - Works and maintenance in or near water, PPG6 - Working at construction and demolition sites and PPG13 - Vehicle washing and cleaning. These can be viewed via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/pollution-prevention-guidance-ppg

Materials and chemicals likely to cause pollution should be stored in appropriate containers and adhere to Pollution Prevention Guide 26 for the storage of drums and

page 208 intermediate bulk containers.

Any facilities, above ground, for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.

Appropriate procedures, training and equipment should be provided for the site to adequately control and respond to any emergencies including the clean up of spillages, to prevent environmental pollution from the site operations. We advise that polluting materials and chemicals are stored in an area with sealed drainage.

We also advise that the use or disposal of any waste should comply with the relevant waste guidance and regulations.

Other Representations:

6 letters of objection have been received at the time of writing this report raising concerns which can be summarised as follows:

• Development should support the local area by selling local produce. • Increase in noise and traffic from 24 hour use would be detrimental to residential amenity of homes and gardens. • Will lead to an increase in litter. • Will lead to an increase in plastic usage. • Services are not needed and will lead to an increase in car use. • Will lead to an increase in pollution. • Will have a negative impact on the businesses in villages and towns. • The local roads cannot cope with the additional traffic. • Increase in surface water and risk of flooding.

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies

Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D2 (Landscape Requirements)

D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

E11 (Large Stores and Retail Related Uses in Town Centre Areas)

page 209

E15 (Retail Development in Rural Areas outside Villages)

EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features)

EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset)

EN14 (Control of Pollution)

EN21 (River and Coastal Flooding)

EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development)

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

TC11 (Roadside Service Facilities)

TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones)

Government Planning Documents National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Practice Guidance

Site Location and Description

The site comprises un-grazed rough grassland currently divided into two parcels by an established hedgerow and adjacent ditch. The area of ownership covers the whole of the two field parcels, totalling 4.15Ha. The redline application boundary only covers part of the two fields totalling 2.15Ha.

The north-eastern boundary of the application site abuts the B3174 London Road and is separated from the road verge by a ditch and low scrub vegetation. The southeast boundary of the site abuts the A30 carriageway and east bound slip-road leading off it and is defined by a timber post and rail fence. Vegetation to the highway verge adjacent to this boundary comprises low scrub with a small block of native trees and understory planting to the northern end and a further small copse at the southernmost end. The north western boundary of the application area is open with rough grassland continuing to an established, mature hedgerow with large oaks and other specimen trees approximately 25m further west.

There are two existing accesses into the site off the B3174; a smaller gated entrance closer to the A30 interchange and a wider entrance constructed under a previous planning consent further to the west.

A mature hedgerow trimmed to approximately two meters height forms a division across the application site with a smaller portion of field to the north and larger portion to the south. Two mature oak trees which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order are situated adjacent to an opening in this hedge connecting between the two fields.

page 210 This hedgerow continues west of the opening to meet the western ownership boundary.

Surrounding land use is a mix of arable and pasture bounded by hedgerows interspersed with blocks of woodland with scattered dwellings and farms. Surrounding roads, including the A30 corridor, have a strongly rural character. To the north of the site are residential properties Lily Cottage, and to the North West is Keepers Cottage. On this boundary are some former kennels which have been recently granted planning permission to be converted to a dwelling.

There is no public access within the site. The B3174 provides access adjacent to the north eastern boundary and the A30 to the southeast boundary. Public rights of way within the vicinity are limited and the nearest to the site is Whimple footpath 13, approximately 450 metres to the north.

The site is located within the open countryside and is not the subject of any national or local landscape designations.

Planning History

The site has a number of previously approved planning permissions for a roadside service area dating back to 1997:

97/P0944- Outline planning permission - Construction of Roadside Services Area: extension of Period for Submission of Reserved Matters.

04/P1441- Renewal of Permission for Road- Side Service Area with Variations On Condition 1 of 02/P1527

07/1228/MRES- Reserved matters application for a roadside service area

11/0063/VAR- Variation of conditions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8 to planning permission 07/1228/MRES (construction of roadside service area)

The approved reserved matters scheme (07/1228/MRES) was for a comprehensive roadside service facility and included the following development:

• A Petrol Filling Station comprising a fuel forecourt with segregated HGV fuel pumps and an HGV wash station; • A Gateway Public Facility comprising restaurants, shops, cafés and tourist information with a floor area of approximately 3,000 sq. m; • A Hotel, 50 beds with a floor area of approximately 2,500 sq. m. • A total of 263 car parking spaces (plus 100 over-spill spaces) and 18 lorry and coach spaces. The site clearly has a long planning history related to it, which includes planning permission for a larger trunk road service area (TRSA), which dates back to 1994. More recently permission was granted in 2008 for a TRSA (planning reference:

page 211 07/1228/MRES), with variations to conditions in 2011 (reference 11/0063/VAR). Following this it is understood this permission was implemented by constructing the vehicular access to the site. The applicant has indicated that there is a record of correspondence with the LPA which confirms that the access road works to serve the development does constitute a lawful commencement of the approved scheme, and there is therefore a lawful implementation of planning permission 11/0063/VAR.

Officer are of the opinion that the works to the access have represented a meaningful commencement of these works and that as there were no associated landscaping works, there was no need to discharge any landscaping condition prior to carrying out these works. In addition, as the landscaping works do not go to the heart of the consent, the lack of submission of these details prior to carrying out the works is highly unlikely to mean that the consent can no longer be relied upon.

Proposed Development:

This application seeks planning permission for construction of a roadside services area incorporating:

• A petrol filling station with 5no pumps and HGV fuel pumps located beneath a canopy, 2 no underground storage tanks, three jet wash units, a car vacuum and an airline/ water bay; • A two storey A3/A5 use building with accompanying drive through and associated outdoor play area. The applicant has stated that McDonalds is the intended operator. • A forecourt shop/sales building measuring 500 sqm located in the centre of the site comprising a sales area, a hot food and coffee outlet. The sales building would sell groceries (such as chilled dairy), tinned and packaged products, snacks and drinks, and household products. • A total of 103 car parking spaces, including 81 light vehicle spaces, 4 disabled spaces, 10 motorcycle spaces, 8 HGV/coach spaces and two electric vehicle charging points.

ANALYSIS

The main issues to consider in determining this application are:

• whether the principle of roadside development is acceptable on this site; • whether the proposal would meet the road safety function of a road-side service area having due regard for the advice from Highways England; • the design, size and scale of the proposal and the impact it would have on the rural character and appearance of the area; • the residential amenities of the occupiers of surrounding properties; • retail impact; • facilities for low emission vehicles; • aviation safety; • flood risk and surface water management;

page 212 • ecological impact; • arboricultural impact; • contamination, • soil and agriculture; • heritage impact

Principle

The site is located within the countryside where under the provisions of Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) of the Local Plan policies of restraint apply. Strategy 7 states that development in the countryside will only be permitted where it is in accordance with a specific Local or Neighbourhood Plan policy that explicitly permits such development and where it would not harm the distinctive landscape, amenity and environmental qualities within which it is located’.

The principle of a roadside service facility is supported by Policy TC11 (Roadside Service Facilities) of the East Devon Local Plan. This policy states that any proposal for a roadside service facility along a trunk road and motorway will only be granted planning permission if it meets the following criteria in full:

1. It offers a range of essential services appropriate to the route it serves. 2. It is appropriately spaced in relation to other roadside service facilities. 3. Access to the trunk road or motorway including any connection to the local road network, and the internal circulation is satisfactory. 4. It is sited, designed and landscaped to minimise impact on the character and appearance of the landscape. 5. It does not cause a material loss of amenity to nearby residents. 6. It should be capable of serving traffic travelling in both directions on the route. 7. The design of new or improved accesses or other necessary trunk road works should be sufficient to accommodate anticipated traffic flows up to 15 years after the opening of the development. 8. Proposals for roadside facilities along trunk roads that are the subject of major improvements will not be granted planning permission unless they will be compatible with the future highway design. New roadside service facilities along other routes constituting the high quality road network should be located on sites within the identified Built-up Area Boundaries, and meet criteria 1, 2, 3 and 5 above. Upgrading of existing facilities on this network will need to be compatible with criteria 1, 2, 3, and 5 above.

The proposal will be assessed against each of these criteria as follows but it should be noted that the policy does not require an assessment of any climate change impacts, with the purpose of a service area being to offer suitable resting places for drivers to benefit their health and safety:

1. It offers a range of essential services appropriate to the route it serves.

The Highways Agency have undertaken a review of the relevant documents supporting the planning application to ensure compliance with the current policies of the Secretary of State as set out in DfT Circular 02/2013 “The Strategic Road Network

page 213 and the Delivery of Sustainable Development” and the NPPF and raise no objections to the proposal.

Paragraph 104 (e) of the NPPF states that planning policies should provide for any large scale transport facilities that need to be located in the area and identifies the primary function of roadside services should be to support the safety and welfare of the road user. Such service areas perform an important road safety function by providing opportunities for the travelling public to stop and take a break in the course of their journey.

Annex B of Circular 02/2013 sets out the policy on the provision, standards and eligibility for signage of roadside facilities on the Strategic Road Network (SRN). Table B1 sets out the minimum requirements for signing from the SRN, and for an all- purpose trunk road service area which includes the following:

• Open minimum 12 hours per day between 8am and 8pm every day except Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year’s Day • Free Parking for up to 2 hours minimum for all vehicles permitted to use the road served by the facility (the level of which is stated within Schedule 1 of Annex B) • Free toilets/hand washing facilities with no need to make a purchase • Fuel • Hot drinks and hot food available 8am to 8pm for consumption on the premises • Access to a cash operated telephone.

Following the submission of revised site plans which now show a public telephone and a suitable abnormal load bay the Highways Agency has advised that the proposal would meet the specification of Circular 02/2013 for signing from the A30. It is considered that the proposed roadside service area would provide all of the above facilities and exceed the required minimum parking standards as set out in the DfT Circular.

Government policy states that it is for the private sector to promote and operate service areas that meet the needs of the travelling public. The proposed facility would provide a range of facilities including car and HGV fuel forecourts, a service station shop, a restaurant with drive-thru, car, HGV, coach, caravan and motorcycling parking.

At pre-application stage, Highways England raised concerns about the inclusion of a drive-thru facility as part of the development on the basis that such a facility would not support the safety function of a service area which is to ensure drivers stop and take a break from their vehicle and consequently, driving. These concerns were on the basis that such facilities are designed to offer a convenient alternative for people to stay in their cars and continue to drive and can generate trips specifically to visit the ‘drive thru’ thereby generating localised trips by those wishing to use the rest area for reasons other than its intended purpose.

It is understood that following discussions between the applicant and Highways England there is agreement that drive-thru facilities in roadside service facilities has

page 214 become the norm and there is nothing specific contained within policy that would prevent operators of existing or new facilities from proposing this kind of provision.

The Applicant’s Highway Consultant has advised that there are over 60 coffee/ food drive-thru facilities at motorway and trunk road service areas in England. In the absence of any objections from Highways England to the inclusion of a drive-thru facility, it isn’t considered that an objection could be sustained to this element of the proposal. The provision of a drive-thru would meet the government’s objective to encourage greater choice in the provision of service facilities for all road users.

2. It is appropriately spaced in relation to other roadside service facilities.

The need for a service area on this site was identified by the Highway Agency at the time the new A30 was under construction and the site is considered to be well placed to provide such a facility.

TRSA’s perform an important road safety function by providing opportunities for the travelling public to stop and take a break in the course of their journey. The government’s advice is that motorists should stop and take a break of 15 minutes every two hours. The proposed facility would provide this opportunity and promote road safety by closing the existing gap in the provision of roadside facilities along this section of A30.

In their consultation response, Highways England have advised that there is a need for a comprehensive service area facility on the A30/ A303 in Devon and that they support the principle of the proposal for a Trunk Road Service Area (TRSA) at this location.

In respect of the DfT Circular 02/2013 “The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development”, Annex B sections B7 & B8 set out the considerations in respect of the location of Trunk Road Service Areas.

B7. Speed limits on the strategic road network vary and therefore, applying the same principles, the maximum distance between signed services on trunk roads should be the equivalent of 30 minutes driving time. This distance can also be shorter, also subject to compliance with design requirements set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.

B8. The distances set out above are considered appropriate for to all parts of the strategic road network and to be in the interests and for the benefit of all road users regardless of traffic flows or route choice. In determining applications for new or improved sites, local planning authorities should not need to consider the merits of the spacing of sites beyond conformity with the maximum and minimum spacing criteria established for safety reasons. Nor should they seek to prevent competition between operators; rather they should determine applications on their specific planning merits.

The site is considered to be well located in terms of its distance from other Trunk Road Service Areas. The nearest services to the application site are at the motorway services at junction 30 of the M5 motorway. From the motorway services there are no

page 215 other road side service facilities on the A30 or A303 until the Ilminster services on the A303 which is approximately 31 miles away from Exeter.

The Dft Circular makes it clear that the maximum distance between signed services on trunk roads should be the equivalent of 30 minutes driving time and that the distance can be shorter. The Circular also states that LPA’s should not need to consider the merits of the spacing of sites beyond conformity with the maximum and minimum spacing criteria established for safety reasons.

Having regard for the advice in the Circular, the support from Highways England and the lack of provision of alternative roadside service facilities between Exeter and Ilminster coupled with the extant planning permission for a comprehensive roadside services on the site, it isn’t considered that an objection could be reasonably sustained on the grounds of that the proposal isn’t appropriately spaced in relation to other roadside service facilities. The site is considered to be well located in terms of providing an additional roadside service facility to perform the required road safety function by providing opportunities for the travelling public to stop and take a break in the course of their journey.

3. Access to the trunk road or motorway including any connection to the local road network, and the internal circulation is satisfactory.

7. The design of new or improved accesses or other necessary trunk road works should be sufficient to accommodate anticipated traffic flows up to 15 years after the opening of the development.

The application is accompanied by a detailed Transport Assessment prepared by a qualified Highway Consultant which provides a thorough assessment of the relevant planning policy, traffic data, trip generation and an assessment of the impact on the highway network.

Highways England have advised that they are satisfied that the amended proposals are unlikely to result in a material impact on the operation of the A30 Trunk Road in terms of trip generation. Owing to the reduced size and scale of the proposed services, it should be noted that the trip generation would be significantly less than the extant scheme. The role and function of roadside services are to serve motorists on the adjacent strategic highway and the location of this site, at its junction with the local highway network would allow easy accessibility without the need to travel significant distances from the trunk road.

Concerns that were raised in terms of the operational impact on the Strategic Road Network and with the detailed landscaping and boundary treatment plan to ensure the provision of adequate screening of potential headlight glare from parking or manoeuvring vehicles and the protection of the Highways England soft estate have been addressed through the submission of amended plans. The treatment of surface water drainage for the site is covered within the foul water drainage report with an attenuation pond to be located in the western corner of the site. Highways England have advised that it is unlikely that the drainage proposals will adversely impact on the trunk road, however the applicant should be aware that DfT Circular 02/2013 The

page 216 Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development does not permit the discharge of surface water from new developments into the trunk road drainage system. The circular states that in order to ensure the integrity of the highway drainage systems, no water runoff that may arise due to any change of use will be accepted into highway drainage systems, and there shall be no new connections into those systems from third party development and drainage systems.

It is proposed to close the existing vehicular access and to provide a new priority type junction off the B3174 road. The main access road within the site would provide separate entrance/ exit points for the fuel forecourts and A3/ A5 restaurant. Traffic circulation for each element of the development would be in a clockwise direction reducing the number of potential traffic conflicts within the site. A network of footways, walkways and crossing points would be provided within the site to provide safe pedestrian routes between the shop, restaurant and parking areas.

No concerns have been raised from the County Highway Authority regarding the layout and internal traffic circulation.

Notwithstanding the reduction in size and scale of the roadside services which remains extant, it is proposed to carry out the previously approved highway improvement works which were previously considered to be acceptable by the CHA and were to be secured through a legal agreement.

Previous highway and public transport improvement and works include:

• A new priority junction access to the services with a central pedestrian crossing island and ghost island right turn lane. • A central pedestrian crossing island east of the site access junction providing access to a new footway and bus stop. • A new westbound bus lay-by adjacent to the site entrance. • A new central island adjacent to the new bus lay-by on the approach to the right turn lane to discourage overtaking at this junction. • To widen and maintain a two lane approach to the A30 Roundabout in order to improve capacity. • Widening and extending the flare on the roundabout approach in order to increase waiting capacity. Subject to a condition requiring the highway improvement works to be undertaken prior to first use of the services, the County Highway Authority is satisfied that the proposal is adequate and acceptable from a highway safety perspective. The off-site highway works would be secured through a legal agreement between the CHA and the applicant. The proposal is considered to comply with the provisions of policies TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) and TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development) of the Local Plan.

page 217 4. It is sited, designed and landscaped to minimise impact on the character and appearance of the landscape.

The site is located in the countryside in a distinctly rural setting. No national or local landscape designations apply.

The Council’s Landscape Architect has advised that the proposal is likely to have a high adverse landscape and visual effect on the site and its immediate environs but due to surrounding landform, tree cover and hedgerows, the impact of the development on the wider landscape is likely to be limited and would be most apparent for users of the A30.

Whilst the wider landscape impact will be minimal, concerns have been raised about the proposed scheme being based on a standardised site layout and building types with the result that the scheme would be overly urban in character, not reflecting the existing site conditions, local landscape character or building vernacular. This is compounded by the application of airport safeguarding constraints and those of Highways England on the proposed planting scheme which limits mitigation opportunities for appropriate screening of the development.

Notwithstanding the extant planning permission for a substantially larger scale development on the site which would have a greater visual impact and which allowed for the removal of the mature Oak trees in the site, officers have worked with the applicant to arrive at a proposal which is less standardised and urban in terms of its design and layout in an attempt to minimise its impact on the visual amenity of the site and the rural landscape character and appearance of the area.

In this respect, the layout has been amended to retain both of the mature Oak trees in the middle of the site. The main access route into the site has been adjusted to accommodate the two trees and to create a curved alignment more in keeping with local character which would help to reduce views into the site from the B3174. In addition a Devon hedge has been incorporated into the scheme which would be positioned along the sites northern roadside boundary on either side of the site access which would help to soften the impact of the development.

In landscape terms the height and massing of the buildings, in particular the proposed two storey drive through building would mean they would appear quite visible and prominent within the landscape. Along its boundary with the A30 the site would also be very prominent because of the difference in levels between the site and the slip road and because the site has an open character. The raised level of the A30 over the Daisy Mount junction at this point means that views will be afforded down into the site and the prominence of the site means that the proposed roadside services would have an impact, albeit localised, on the rural character and appearance of the area. The site’s open and exposed location to the north and west where limited mature vegetation and the gradually falling ground levels make this a prominent site combined with views from the A30. Notwithstanding the changes to the site layout, this is therefore a site where any development would be prominent regardless of its design.

The buildings comprise a single storey filling station and shop in the north east corner of the site aligned with its rear facing the A30 with a canopied forecourt in front of the

page 218 shop and a separate two storey drive through set a right angles to it approximately 50 metres to the south.

The proposed filling station and shop unit would be 4.2 metres high with a mono-pitch roof design. Originally the building was proposed to have been clad in aluminium panels finished in silver with an iron grey coloured plinth. Following concerns about the inappropriate urban finish for the building amended plans have been received which now show that the front (North West) elevation would be predominantly glazed with some composite timber effect cladding strips. The rear elevation would be finished in Kingspan or similar composite cladding panels over a low level stone clad plinth with small sections of timber effect cladding strips. Officers have expressed a preference for natural materials to be used for the exterior of the building which would be more appropriate for the rural character and appearance of the area and the local vernacular. Concerns have been raised by the applicants about the cost of using natural materials and how this might impact upon the viability and deliverability of the scheme. It is therefore considered necessary and reasonable to impose a condition which requires the submission of a schedule and samples of external materials where consideration can be given to the use of composite materials or natural materials for the exterior walls of the building.

The proposed drive through building would be flat roofed with an overall height of 8.9 metres and elevations clad in a combination of grey and white finished aluminium panels with timber effect and natural stone tile contrast panelling and large glazing elements. It is accepted that a lack of screen planting to the rear elevation would result in this building being a prominent feature when seen from the A30 and that this aspect of the proposal would have its most harmful visual impact which has been recognised within the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. Despite requests from officers to re-positon and amend the design of this building, reduce its height and scale and for further consideration to be given to introducing natural materials to the walls of the building to soften its impact, the building has not been amended and it is understood that the operator of the building would resist any of the suggested changes. On balance, whilst the drive through building would have its greatest impact on the visual amenity of the site and a localised landscape impact, it isn’t considered that the impact would be so harmful as to refuse planning permission. A condition will however be imposed requiring the submission of a schedule of materials and samples to ensure that the colour and finishes of the building are appropriate for its context.

On balance, subject to the imposition of a detailed landscaping scheme which has been submitted with the application, it is considered that the proposed roadside services scheme has been sited, designed and landscaped to minimise impact on the character and appearance of the landscape given the constraints imposed by Highways England the Airport. Furthermore, there are a number of clear benefits arising from this scheme over the extant planning permission which includes the retention of the two mature oak trees and a reduced scale of development on the site which would result in an overall development which has less of an urbanising impact on the rural landscape character and appearance of the area and less of an overall localised impact when viewed from public vantage points outside of the site.

As stated above, the historic consent is considered to have been implemented and provides the applicant with a fall-back position which, whilst arguably of a better overall

page 219 design with greater landscaping (due to less constraint from an aircraft safety perspective at that time), is of a much greater scale and therefore having a greater visual impact. Whilst officers are giving weight to the previous consent and its implementation, this should be tempered by the fact that it is probably unlikely, for viability reasons, that that proposal would ever be implemented in its current form.

It is considered that if the proposal went to appeal, whilst an Inspector could conclude that the lawful consent carried little weight as it is not likely to be built out, the Inspector would give some weight to the planning history for the site and the visual impact from that proposal. On this basis officers have given weight to the site history.

5. It does not cause a material loss of amenity to nearby residents.

It is inevitable that such a large scale development of this site would have an impact on the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential properties in terms of noise and disturbance from activities and lighting associated with the operation of the roadside services. The nearest residential dwellings to the site are 1 and 2 Lily Cottage to the north, Keepers Lodge and Keepers Cottage to the north west and the former Kennels building to the north west which benefits from a planning permission to be converted into a dwelling.

Policy D1 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that developments do not adversely affect the residential amenity of nearby properties. Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the Local Plan states that permission will not be granted for development which would result in unacceptable levels, either to residents or the wider environment in terms of: 1. Pollution of the atmosphere by gas or particulates, including smell, fumes, dust, grit, smoke and soot. 2. Pollution of surface or underground waters including: a) Rivers, other watercourses, water bodies and wetlands. b) Water gathering grounds including water catchment areas, aquifers and groundwater protection areas. c) Harbours, estuaries or the sea. 3. Noise and/or vibration. 4. Light intrusion, where light overspill from street lights or floodlights on to areas not intended to be lit, particularly in areas of open countryside and areas of nature conservation value. 5. Fly nuisance. 6. Pollution of sites of wildlife value, especially European designated sites or species. 7. Odour.

The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has been consulted on the application and accepts the conclusions in the noise impact assessments carried out by KC Environmental Ltd that the predicted levels shall comply with BS4142, the WHO guidelines for sleep disturbance and BS8233, and that vehicle movements will not impact on local residents. Details of the kitchen extraction system have been considered which will ensure that emissions are properly treated before being emitted to atmosphere. As a result of this, and given the benefits to driver safety from the provision of a 24hr facility, the proposal is not likely to have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the nearest residents, particular given consent granted previously for a much larger and more intensive service station on the site.

page 220

The lighting report submitted by GW lighting consultancy and the design meets the requirements not to cause light pollution in this rural area and the lux levels plan demonstrates that there would no light spill from the proposed lighting of the development that would affect the amenities of surrounding properties. Whilst lighting from a 24 hour facility will be noticeable from the surrounding road network, the previously granted proposal was for a greater scale of development and also for a 24 hour use. It is also relevant that by its very nature, such facilities are likely to be located within the countryside and as such a level of impact is to be expected.

The EHO has advised that the installation and selling of petrol would be regulated by the Petroleum Officer and the company must apply for a Part B permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations from the Environmental Health department to capture petrol vapour whilst dispensing, therefore all concerns in relation to the selling of fuel would be covered by both of these requirements.

Whilst it is accepted that a roadside services scheme on this site would have a degree of impact on the amenities of the occupiers of surrounding properties given the nature of its use and its operating hours, subject to conditions requiring the submission of a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) to ensure that nearby residents are not unreasonably impacted upon during construction, a finalised lighting strategy and lux levels lighting plan and a condition which controls the noise levels of ventilation, refrigeration and air conditioning units or ducting systems, it is not considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on residential amenity to sustain an objection, particularly when compared to the previous approved and commenced scheme, and even given its 24hr opening hours.

The proposal is considered to be acceptable and complies with the provisions of policies D1 and EN14 of the Local Plan.

6. It should be capable of serving traffic travelling in both directions on the route.

The junction off which the roadside services area would be accessed provides four slip roads to and from the A30 therefore allowing full access to the proposed development for both the eastbound and westbound traffic. The proposal would be capable of serving traffic travelling in both directions on the A30 route.

8. Proposals for roadside facilities along trunk roads that are the subject of major improvements will not be granted planning permission unless they will be compatible with the future highway design. New roadside service facilities along other routes constituting the high quality road network should be located on sites within the identified Built-up Area Boundaries, and meet criteria 1, 2, 3 and 5 above. Upgrading of existing facilities on this network will need to be compatible with criteria 1, 2, 3, and 5 above.

This isn’t considered to be applicable to this proposal.

In light of the above, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle in accordance with Local Plan Policy TC11.

page 221 Retail Impact

The Dft Circular states that the scope and scale of retail activities at roadside facilities is a matter for consideration by the relevant Local Planning Authority in line with the National Planning Policy Framework and local planning policies. However, Local Planning Authorities should have regard to the primary function of roadside facilities which is to support the safety and welfare of the road user.

The pre-amble to policy TC11 states that any retail facilities for convenience shopping, other than for fuel and associated motoring products, will need to be compatible with the shopping policies of the Local Plan.

Policy E11 (Large Stores and Retail Related Uses in Area Centres) is the relevant shopping policy within the Local Plan which states that large retail developments over 500 sqm that are proposed on sites outside of a defined Town Centre Shopping Area will be required to demonstrate that it would not have an unacceptable impact on centres within the catchment of the proposed development. This proposal includes a shop within the petrol filling station which would provide a sales area for convenience goods as well as a food and a coffee counter that would not exceed 500 sqm. On this basis, as the shop area would not exceed the threshold of 500 sqm, it isn’t considered to be necessary to undertake a retail impact assessment of the proposal notwithstanding its location outside of a defined Town Centre Shopping Area.

Facilities for Low Emission Vehicles The Dft Circular states that operators of roadside facilities are encouraged to provide refuelling facilities for low emission vehicles, including recharging facilities for plug-in vehicles and other arrangements that meet the needs of emergent low carbon and alternative fuel technologies as appropriate, such as gas refuelling stations.

This is consistent with policy TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development) of the Local Plan which requires all small scale and large scale major developments to include charging points for electric cars.

The proposal incorporates two electric vehicle charging bays within the scheme with scope for this to be expanded as demand rises.

Aviation Safety and Aerodrome Safeguarding

Policy TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones) of the Local Plan states that planning permission will not be granted for developments in the vicinity of an airport (or that could impact on safe operation of aeroplanes) that would compromise air safety by creating physical obstructions that could interfere with flight paths or navigational aids.

There has been a considerable amount of discussion between the applicants and Exeter Airport who originally raised an objection to the proposal on the grounds of aviation safety and the operational impacts from the roadside services due to aircraft in this location being in a critical phase of flight and because of the height of the local topography.

page 222 Concerns were originally raised with regards to the inefficiencies with the submitted Aviation Safeguarding Assessment report, the impacts of additional landscaping and tree planting and impacts from bird management and preventing the risk of bird strike to aircraft. To address these concerns the applicants submitted an amended aviation safeguarding assessment and Wildlife Hazard Management Plan which has further been considered by the Airfield Operations Duty Manager who has advised that the amendments no longer conflict with safeguarding criteria providing that their guidance relating to heights, landscape and wildlife management and crane operations etc. are adhered to at all times.

Subject to a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with Wildlife Hazard Management Plan which is a robust mitigation action plan and covers all works within the project through all phases from the start of activity on site for construction, to beyond practical completion and the in-use phase of the site, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of aviation safeguarding. The WHMP contains an overarching Wildlife Hazard Strategy for the site and a detailed plan of action to address each of the roadside services features and activities identified as likely to give rise to elevated wildlife hazards for Exeter Airport.

Flood Risk and Surface Water

The site does not fall within an area at risk from flooding but as it exceeds 1 ha, the application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment and a surface water drainage management plan.

An objection was initially received from the County Council’s Flood Risk Management Team on the grounds that insufficient information had been submitted to demonstrate that all aspects of the proposed surface water drainage management system have been considered.

The applicant submitted an additional Flood Risk report with an illustrative surface water drainage scheme which proposes to attenuate surface water generated at the site within an attenuation basin. The surface water would be discharged from the attenuation basin to the existing drain via a swale. Surface run off from the development would be restricted to greenfield runoff rates. The Flood Risk Team are happy to this illustrative approach in principle and have advised that the proposal would provide a betterment to the surface water runoff in the area and that the applicant has taken into consideration exceedance flow routing and long term storage design requirements.

The Flood Risk Management Team have removed their objection and now support the application subject to the imposition of a number of pre-commencement conditions requiring the submission of a programme of percolation tests, and the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system during construction and for the development.

The Environment Agency have advised that the development would be acceptable provided that a condition is included within any permission granted to secure an assessment of risks to controlled waters from the development of this site.

page 223 Subject to the imposition of these conditions, it is considered that the proposal would comply with the provisions of policies EN21 (River and Coastal Flooding) and EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the Local Plan.

Ecological Impact and Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment

Under the provisions of policy EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the Local Plan, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, there is a legal duty to assess the impacts of the proposed development on ecology and biodiversity.

The application is accompanied by an Ecological Assessment which describes the site as semi-improved neutral grassland/ rush pasture with damp species- poor grassland sward and identifies five sections of hedgerow within the applicant’s ownership, all of which, except for the southernmost hedge adjacent to Laurel Copse have been assessed as important.

The works are proposed adjacent two unconfirmed wildlife sites - The Ride- and Straightwayhead. These are comprised of secondary woodland and neutral grassland at the Ride and secondary woodland at Straightwayhead. DEFRA shows that both of these sites are comprised of priority habitat. Within these designations important bat roosts are recorded.

The ecological report identifies the use of the site by several species of bat for foraging and commuting but did not find direct evidence of bats roosting within or in close proximity to the development footprint. Recommendations to help mitigate the impact of development on bats include the submission of a lighting strategy to minimise the impacts of introducing lighting into the environment as well as the use of a grass seed mix/ wildflower planting that encourages flying insects. Given the fact that there would be a landscape buffer between the development and the north western trees and hedgerow and sufficient space between the site and the boundary, it is considered that there would remain a ‘dark corridor’ for foraging and commuting bats which would be unaffected by the development.

The ecology report concludes that there would be no impact on breeding birds which are legally protected but recommends that site clearance should avoid the breeding season to avoid any impacts. Mitigation measures for house sparrows includes the provision of one sparrow terrace per building within the development.

The proposal now includes the retention of a mature oak tree and the planting of a Devon bank and hedgerow and numerous trees within the site which would enhance biodiversity and be of benefit to ecology.

The ecology report concludes that development of the site would have no impact on great crested newts, water voles and otters or badgers or other legally protected species.

Subject to a condition requiring the submission of a lighting strategy, detailed landscaping proposals and a landscape and ecological management plan, it is not

page 224 considered that the proposed development would impact on legally protected species and that the proposal complies with policy EN5 of the Local Plan.

As the application proposes major development within the 10km buffer zone for the Pebblebed Heaths, an Appropriate Assessment is required to establish whether the proposal will lead to any likely significant effects.

In this instance, the Appropriate Assessment attached to this report, confirms that the nature of the proposal is such that it will not itself be generating any impacts on the Pebblebed Heaths. As such there is no mitigation required and the proposal is acceptable from a Habitat Regulations perspective.

Arboricultural Impact

A number of trees within the site are the subject of tree a preservation order 18/0090/TPO. In contrast to the extant scheme which allowed for the loss of oak trees within the site, the layout of the proposed roadside services has been amended to allow the retention of a mature Oak tree (T1 within the submitted arboricultural report) which is a visually significant hedgerow oak, characteristic of the East Devon countryside. The retention of this Oak tree is considered to be a positive design aspect of the scheme which would make a more attractive entrance into this commercial development. With the exception of an Oak tree (T5 U category) on the site’s western boundary (identified as being in poor condition) the scheme has been designed so as to retain all trees within the site which will be of benefit to the rural landscape character and appearance of the area and would help to reduce the urbanising impact of the proposal. Subject to a condition requiring the development being carried out in accordance with the tree protection measures within the report, it is considered that the proposal complies with the provisions of policy D3 (Trees and Development Sites) of the Local Plan.

Contaminated Land

The Council’s Contaminated Land Officer has considered the application and does not anticipate any contaminated land concerns. Should any contamination be encountered during oversite works, a condition is recommended that requires the submission of a method and procedure for addressing contamination with the contaminated land officer at EDDC in order to agree appropriate remediation measures. The proposal is considered to comply with the provisions of policy EN16 (Contaminated Land) of the Local Plan.

Soil and Agriculture

Policy EN13 (Development on High Quality Agricultural Land) of the Local Plan aims to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a) from development and this is supported in the NPPF. The land is grade 3 although the site has an extant planning permission. On this basis, an alternative development proposal on the site would not prevent the loss of this agricultural land which was assessed previously and considered to be acceptable when balanced against all the other planning considerations.

page 225 However, the soils on the site could be recovered and handled correctly to minimise the loss of soil resource and the NPPF also requires that decisions should protect and enhance soils. It is therefore recommended that any permission forthcoming should require a scheme of soil recovery and handling.

Heritage Impact

In accordance with the NPPF, policies EN8 (Significant of Heritage Assets and their Setting) and EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) of the Local Plan requires an assessment of the harm or loss of significance to designated and non-designated heritage assets.

The Council’s Conservation Officer has advised that the site is set some considerable distance from the nearest listed building, Strete Ralegh House (grade II) and that there is no intervisibility between the two such that there would be no harm to its setting.

Following a recent appeal decision (ref APP/U1105/Y/173184165) for the kennels to the north west of the site, the Inspector regarded the former kennels to the main house, Strete Ralegh, not to be curtilage listed, but a non-designated heritage asset. Permission was thereby given to extend the kennels and for its conversion to create a dwelling.

Paragraph 197 of the NPPF states that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

In this case, it is considered that the significance of the functional former kennels has been diminished by the planning permission that has been granted to extend and convert the building into a dwelling. The reduced scale of the roadside services proposal when compared to the extant planning permission coupled would have a far lesser impact on the setting of the building. This coupled with the landscaped buffer, the retention of trees and vegetation in the site would ensure that the proposal does not cause harm to the setting of the kennels building.

On balance, the proposal is considered to comply with the provisions of policies EN8 (Significant of Heritage Assets and their Setting) and EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) of the Local Plan and NPPF.

CONCLUSION

This proposal is for a policy compliant roadside services development on a site where the need has long been accepted and where the principle of development has been established through the grant of outline planning permissions since 1994 and the implementation of a reserved matters permission ref 07/1228/MRES. Indeed works to implement the reserved matters permission have been implemented through the construction of a vehicular access on the site such that the planning permission is considered to be extant and capable of implementation.

page 226 Whilst the weight that should be attributed to this ‘fall-back’ position is questionable given the length of time the planning permission has been kept alive with no further development on the site, coupled with concerns about whether the previously consented scheme is commercially viable, it is accepted that there is an extant planning permission for a substantially larger scheme on the site which would have a far greater impact than the proposed roadside services which is the subject of this application and to which an Inspector would give weight to.

The proposal has the support of Highways England who have advised that there is a need for a comprehensive service area facility on the A30/A3030 in Devon and that they support the principle of the proposal of a Trunk Road Service Area at this location. Furthermore, Highways England have advised that the roadside services scheme is in compliance with the current policies of the Secretary of State as set out in the DfT Circular 02/2013 ‘The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development’ and those contained within the NPPF.

Detailed concerns raised by technical consultees which include Exeter Airport, Highways England, the Devon County Council Flood Risk Management Team have also been addressed in conjunction with officers and consultees such that it is considered subject to conditions there would be no significant impacts in terms of Aerodrome safeguarding, aviation and highway safety, flood risk and surface water management, ecology and biodiversity, residential amenity and impact on trees.

In landscape terms, the height and massing of the buildings, in particular the two storey drive through building would appear quiet visible and prominent in localised views from the A30 and the slip road. The prominence that this development would have is inevitable with any roadside services proposal on this site due to its open and exposed location to the north and west where limited mature vegetation and the gradually falling ground levels make this a prominent site combined within views from the A30. Notwithstanding the localised impact, it is considered that the proposed roadside services scheme has been sited, designed and landscaped to minimise its impact on the character and appearance of the landscape when considered against the constraints imposed by Highways England the Airport with regards to the type and amount of landscaping and planting that would be acceptable in highway and aviation safety terms.

Furthermore, there are a number of clear benefits arising from this scheme over the extant planning permission which includes the retention of the two mature oak trees and a reduced scale of development on the site which would result in an overall development which has less of an urbanising impact on the rural landscape character and appearance of the area and less of an overall localised impact when viewed from public vantage points outside of the site.

In conclusion, the proposed design and layout of the development would create a landmark roadside services scheme alongside the A30 that would meet an established need and perform an important road safety function by providing opportunities for the travelling public to stop and take a break by closing the existing gap in the provision of roadside facilities along this section of the A30. The site is considered to be well located in terms of providing an additional roadside service facility to perform the required road safety function which, when coupled with job creation during

page 227 construction, longer term employment opportunities within the petrol filling station, shop and the drive through building and the contribution to the local economy that would be derived from this scheme are considered to be significant social and economic benefits that outweigh the limited and localised visual impact and landscape harm.

On balance, having regard to all of the above considerations and the schemes compliance with the DfT Circular, the NPPF and in particular policy TC11 (Roadside Service Facilities) of the East Devon Local Plan, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and is therefore recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to the report be adopted; and 2. The application be approved subject to the following conditions.

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

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

MATERIALS:

3. Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development above foundation level shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - To ensure that the materials are considered at an early stage and are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

4. Notwithstanding the submitted proposed surface finishes plan (ref 160377- PLNG23H received on the 11th November 2019), no hard surfacing or hard landscaping of the site shall commence until details of a schedule of materials and finishes for all hard surfacing, earth works, walls, retaining structures, fencing, paving and edgings, site furniture and signage have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - To ensure that the materials are considered at an early stage and are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

page 228

HIGHWAYS:

5. Prior to commencement of any part of the site the Planning Authority shall have received and approved in writing a Construction Management Plan (CMP) including:

(a) the timetable of the works; (b) daily hours of construction; (c) any road closure; (d) hours during which delivery and construction traffic will travel to and from the site, with such vehicular movements being restricted to between 8:00am and 6pm Mondays to Fridays inc; 9.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays, and no such vehicular movements taking place on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays unless agreed by the planning Authority in advance; (e) the number and sizes of vehicles visiting the site in connection with the development and the frequency of their visits; (f) the compound/location where all building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste will be stored during the demolition and construction phases; (g) areas on-site where delivery vehicles and construction traffic will load or unload building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste with confirmation that no construction traffic or delivery vehicles will park on the County highway for loading or unloading purposes, unless prior written agreement has been given by the Local Planning Authority; (h) hours during which no construction traffic will be present at the site; (i) the means of enclosure of the site during construction works; and (j) details of proposals to promote car sharing amongst construction staff in order to limit construction staff vehicles parking off-site (k) details of wheel washing facilities and obligations (l) The proposed route of all construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes. (m) Details of the amount and location of construction worker parking. (n) Photographic evidence of the condition of adjacent public highway prior to commencement of any work. (Reason: A pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that adequate facilities are available for construction and other traffic attracted to the site in accordance with Policy TC7 - Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

6. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into use until the off-site highway works, site access, turning areas and parking spaces have been provided in accordance with the details shown on drawing no 160377- PLNG13 R received on the 11th November 2019. (Reason: To ensure adequate the provision of an adequate access and parking facilities for the development in the interests of highway safety in accordance with the provisions of policies TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) and TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

page 229 AVIATION SAFETY:

7. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the wildlife hazard management strategy and mitigation action plan contained within the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan prepared by Aviaire dated Feb 2019 (ref Final V4 received on the 6th March 2019). The Wildlife Hazard Management Plan shall thereafter be adhered to throughout the lifetime of the development. (Reason: In the interests of aviation safety in accordance with the provisions of policy TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

LANDSCAPING:

8. Notwithstanding the submitted details, no landscaping shall commence on site until a specification for soil quality, depth, cultivation, planting, seeding, mulching and means of plant support and protection during establishment period has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with the landscaping and planting details shown on drawing no SY17-184-LPP-19-05 REV B received on the 21st August 2019. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of the development unless any alternative phasing of the landscaping is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the landscaping shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or other plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - in the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and D2 - Landscape Requirements of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

9. Notwithstanding the submitted details, no landscaping shall commence on site until the following information has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: a) A full set of hard landscape details covering earthworks, walls, retaining structures, fencing, pavings and edgings, site furniture and signage. b) Details of existing and proposed levels and any abrupt changes in slope, retaining structures or earth-banks. c) Specification for soil quality, depth, cultivation, planting, seeding, mulching and means of plant support and protection during establishment period.

(Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area in accordance with the provisions of policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and D2 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

SOIL RESOURCES:

page 230 10. No development shall commence until a soil resources plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The soil resources plan shall cover the following points:

• A plan showing topsoil and subsoil types, and the areas to be stripped and left in-situ. • Methods for stripping, stockpiling, re-spreading and ameliorating the soils. • Location of soil stockpiles and content (e.g. Topsoil type A, subsoil type B). • Schedules of volumes for each material. • Expected after-use for each soil whether topsoil or subsoil to be used on site, used or sold off site, or subsoil to be retained for landscape areas or used as structural fill. • Identification of person responsible for supervising soil management.

(Reason - To ensure that the high quality soil resources at the site are conserved and re-used having regard to the site being identified as 'best and most versatile' land to accord with policy EN13 (Development on High Quality Agricultural Land) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and government policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. These details are required prior to the commencement of development as the soil resource will be affected from the start of operations on the site).

LEMP:

11. No development above foundation level shall take place until a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) detailing long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance for both the red and blue line application areas has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The LEMP shall cover the following:

• Extent, ownership and responsibilities for management and maintenance. • Construction of proposed Devon hedgebanks. • Inspection and management regimes for existing and proposed trees and hedgerows. • Management and maintenance of grass areas. • Management and enhancement of biodiversity value. • Management and maintenance of any boundary structures, drainage swales and other infrastructure/ facilities.

The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - To ensure that the impacts of the development on ecology/ protected species and the landscape is suitably mitigated for and to comply with policies EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features), D2 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.The LEMP is required prior to commencement as some mitigation will be needed at the start of the development).

page 231

ECOLOGY:

12. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations and mitigation measures contained within the Ecological Assessment prepared by the Ecology Practice dated June 2018 received on the 6th March 2019. (Reason: In the interests of ecology and biodiversity in accordance with the provisions of policy EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

LIGHTING:

13. Notwithstanding the submitted lighting strategy prepared by GW Lighting Consultancy (ref GWLC 1/3/19 received on the 6th March 2019) and the lighting layout and lux plan (ref DM81 received on the 6th March 2019), no external lighting shall be installed until a lighting strategy and lighting lux level contours plan that complies with the requirement of ILP/ Bat Conservancy Council guidance note GN08 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s Landscape Architect, Exeter Airport and Highways England. For the avoidance of doubt, the lamps used shall not be capable of reflecting light laterally, upwards or off the ground surface in such a way that light pollution is caused. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, aviation safety, ecology and biodiversity and to avoid light pollution in accordance with the provisions of policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features), EN14 (Control of Pollution) and TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH:

14. No development shall commence until details of a Construction and Environment Management Plan have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include at least the following matters: Air Quality, Dust, Water Quality, Lighting, Noise and Vibration, Pollution Prevention and Control, and Monitoring Arrangements. Construction working hours shall be 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. There shall be no burning on site. There shall be no high frequency audible reversing alarms used on the site. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason: To protect the amenities of existing and future residents in the vicinity of the site from noise, air, water and light pollution. A pre- commencement condition is necessary to ensure that the impacts of development are considered at an early stage in the interests of residential amenity in accordance with the provisions of policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

page 232

15. Any plant (including ventilation, refrigeration and air conditioning units) or ducting system to be used in pursuance of this permission shall be so installed prior to the first use of the premises and be so retained and operated that the noise generated at the boundary of the nearest neighbouring property shall not exceed Noise Rating Curve 25, as defined in BS8233:2014 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings Code of Practice and the Chartered Institute of Building Service Engineers Environmental Design Guide. Details of the scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first use of the premises. (Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents from noise in the interests of residential amenity in accordance with the provisions of policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

16. The 3 metre high acoustic fence shall be installed in accordance with the details shown on drawing no 160377-PLNG13 R received on the 11th November 2019 prior to first use of the HGV and coach parking area hereby approved. The acoustic fence shall thereafter remain in place in perpetuity. (Reason: To protect the occupiers of residential properties from noise in accordance with the provisions of policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

FLOOD RISK:

17. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development site for the full period of its construction has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system must satisfactorily address both the rates and volumes, and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site. The development shall thereafter shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area. Reason for being a pre- commencement condition: A plan needs to be demonstrated prior to the commencement of any works to ensure that surface water can be managed suitably without increasing flood risk downstream, negatively affecting water quality downstream or negatively impacting on surrounding areas and infrastructure in accordance with the provisions of policy EN22 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

18. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the full details of the adoption and maintenance arrangements for the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. The

page 233 development shall thereafter shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason: To ensure that the development's permanent surface water drainage management systems will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development. Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: These details need to be submitted prior to commencement of any works to ensure that suitable plans are in place for the maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage management plan, for the reason above in accordance with the provisions of policy EN22 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

TREES:

19. Notwithstanding the submitted details and prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved including all preparatory work, a scheme for the protection of the retained trees, in accordance with BS 5837:2012, including a tree protection plan(s) (TPP) and an arboricultural method statement (AMS) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Specific issues to be dealt with in the TPP and AMS include: • Location and installation of services/ utilities/ drainage and an arboricultural method statement covering the proposed new water main and storm water drainage run to the western site boundary • Details of construction within the RPA or that may impact on the retained trees. • A full specification for the installation of boundary treatment works. • A full specification for the construction of any roads, parking areas and driveways, including details of the no-dig specification and extent of the areas of the roads, parking areas and driveways to be constructed using a no-dig specification. Details shall include relevant sections through them. • Detailed levels and cross-sections to show that the raised levels of surfacing, where the installation of no-dig surfacing within Root Protection Areas is proposed, demonstrating that they can be accommodated where they meet with any adjacent building damp proof courses. • A specification for protective fencing to safeguard trees during both demolition and construction phases and a plan indicating the alignment of the protective fencing. • Tree protection during construction indicated on a TPP and construction and construction activities clearly identified as prohibited in this area. • Details of site access, temporary parking, on site welfare facilities, loading, unloading and storage of equipment, materials, fuels and waste as well concrete mixing and use of fires • Boundary treatments within the RPA • Methodology and detailed assessment of root pruning • Arboricultural supervision and inspection by a suitably qualified tree specialist • Reporting of inspection and supervision

page 234 • Methods to improve the rooting environment for retained and proposed trees and landscaping

The development thereafter shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details or any variation as may subsequently be agreed in writing by the LPA. (Reason: Required prior to commencement of development to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the trees to be retained will not be damaged during demolition or construction and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality, in accordance with Policy D3 – Trees and Development Sites of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and pursuant to section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY:

20. No development shall commence until a remediation strategy that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:

1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: all previous uses potential contaminants associated with those uses a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

3. The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

(Reasons: To ensure the protection of controlled waters and that any contamination existing and exposed during the development is identified and remediated in accordance with the provisions of policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) and EN16 (Contaminated Land) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013- 2031).

RETAILING:

page 235

21. Retailing within the petrol filling station shall be limited to the area marked as ‘sales area’ on the floor plan (ref 160377-PLNG21D received on the 15th August 2019) hereby approved. Any such sales within this area shall be limited to convenience goods for sale to motorists including confectionary, snacks, magazines, flowers, books and other entertainment or related products as well as motoring accessories. There shall be no sale of any other products other than with the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: To prevent the development from becoming a retail destination which would be harmful to sustainable development objectives in accordance with the provisions of policies E11 (Large Stores and Retail Related Uses in Area Centres) and TC11 (Roadside Service Facilities) of the East Devon Local Plan).

22. The class A1 retail floor space contained within the petrol filling station building, marked on the floor plan (ref 160377-PLNG21D received on the 15th August 2019) and the A3/A5 drive through building hereby approved shall only be operated as part of and in conjunction with the wider comprehensive roadside services area. (Reason: In order to regulate the sales area and prevent intensification of the retail use and to ensure that the development provides essential services and an integrated roadside services facility for drivers to meet the road safety function of a roadside services area in accordance with the policies contained within the DfT Circular 02/2013 ‘The Strategic Road Network and Delivery of Sustainable Development’ and the provisions of policies E11 (Large Stores and Retailed Related Uses in Area Centre) and TC11 (Roadside Service Facilities) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

PHASING PLAN:

23. No development shall commence until a fully detailed phasing scheme has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall include details of the phasing of the different elements of the scheme including the order in which they are to be constructed and brought into use and time periods for doing so. The development shall thereafter only be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. (Reason: To ensure that the development provides essential services and an integrated roadside services facility for drivers to meet the road safety function of a roadside services area in accordance with the policies contained within the DfT Circular 02/2013 ‘The Strategic Road Network and Delivery of Sustainable Development’ and the provisions of policy TC11 (Roadside Service Facilities) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

ELECTRIC VEHICLE POINTS:

24. Prior to first use of the site, the electric vehicle charging points hereby approved shall be provided in accordance with the details shown on drawing no 160377- PLNG13R received on the 11th November 2019). The charging points shall thereafter be retained in perpetuity.

page 236 (Reason: In the interests of promoting sustainable travel opportunities in accordance with policy TC9 (parking Provision in New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

POST COMPLETION STATEMENT:

25. Within 3 months of first use of the site, a post completion statement of compliance shall be submitted to and approved in writing covering the following:

• Lighting outputs in accordance with the Institute of Lighting Engineers/ Bat Conservation Council guidance note 08/18 Bats and artificial Lighting in the UK. Any areas found to be non-compliant to be rectified as agreed with the Local Planning Authority. • Monitoring of bat activity should be undertaken during the first summer following occupation of the buildings and annually for two years thereafter in order to assess whether there are any changes in bat activity following completion of the development. Reports on the findings shall be submitted annually to the LPA by 31 October following the summer survey period for that year. • Any planting or areas of grass/ meadow that dies or fails to make satisfactory growth within five years following completion of planting shall be replaced with plants of similar size and form to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

(Reason: In the interests of ecology and biodiversity in accordance with the provisions of policy EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

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

Environment Agency:

Advice to applicant - Pollution Prevention We refer the applicant to the advice contained within our Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs), in particular PPG5 - Works and maintenance in or near water, PPG6 - Working at construction and demolition sites and PPG13 - Vehicle washing and cleaning. These can be viewed via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/pollution-prevention-guidance-ppg

Materials and chemicals likely to cause pollution should be stored in appropriate containers and adhere to Pollution Prevention Guide 26 for the storage of drums and intermediate bulk containers.

page 237

Any facilities, above ground, for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.

Appropriate procedures, training and equipment should be provided for the site to adequately control and respond to any emergencies including the clean up of spillages, to prevent environmental pollution from the site operations. We advise that polluting materials and chemicals are stored in an area with sealed drainage.

We also advise that the use or disposal of any waste should comply with the relevant waste guidance and regulations.

South West Water:

Advise that there is a public water main in the vicinity. Should the development encroach on the 3.5 metre easement, the water main will need to be diverted at the expense of the applicant. The applicant/agent is advised to contact the Developer Services Planning Team to discuss the matter further.

If further assistance is required to establish the exact location of the water main, the applicant/agent should call their Services helpline on 0344 346 2020.

Please quote reference number MPP200618 EX5 2PS in all communications and correspondence.

Plans relating to this application:

WILDLIFE General 06.03.19 HAZARD Correspondence MGT PLAN : FEB 2019 V4 (AMENDED )

JUNE 2018 Ecological Assessment 06.03.19

160377- Proposed Elevation 11.03.19 PLNG19C (AMENDED )

page 238 160377- Proposed Elevation 11.03.19 PLNG20C (AMENDED )

Final report v 2.0 Flood Risk Assessment 09.09.19 (amended)

SY17-184-LPP- Landscaping 21.08.19 19-05

AMENDED Noise Impact 15.08.19 Assessment

160377- Proposed Elevation 15.08.19 PLNG16E (amended)

160377- Proposed Elevation 15.08.19 PLNG17G (amended)

160377- Proposed Elevation 15.08.19 PLNG18G (amended)

160377- Layout 15.08.19 PLNG21D (amended)

160377- Other Plans 15.08.19 PLNG24C : proposed co-ordinate drawing (amended)

160377- Other Plans 15.08.19 PLNG25C : proposed tracking (amended)

160377- Layout 15.08.19 PLNG26a : auto canopy (amended)

page 239 160377-PLNG27 Layout 05.06.18 : HGV CANOPY

160377- Layout 29.05.18 PLNG22b : PROPOSE D MCDONAL DS INTERNAL

OUDOOR Specifications or 30.08.18 CLIMB 2017 technical data REVISION (ADDITION AL)

160377- Layout 11.11.19 PLNG14K

160377-PLNG15I Layout 11.11.19

160377- Other Plans 11.11.19 PLNG23H (surface finishes)

160377- Layout 11.11.19 PLNG13R

160377- Layout 11.11.19 PLNG12O

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

page 240

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

Appropriate Assessment

Part A: The proposal Application reference no. and 18/1222/MFUL– Land South Of Lily Cottage, Exeter Road address: Whimple

Brief description of proposal: • Application for the development of a new roadside service (Bullet point list of key area to include a petrol filling station comprising sales proposals) building, canopy over, car and caravan parking, fuel pumps, HGV fuel pumps, 2 no. underground storage tanks and ancillary arrangements, new A3/A5 use building and drive- thru, HGV and coach parking, new access arrangements and landscaping and drainage

European site name(s) and East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SPA, East Devon pebblebed status: Heaths SSSI, East Devon pebblebed Heaths SAC, East Devon AONB.

List of interest features:

East Devon Heaths:

The East Devon Heaths are located about 6 km north-east of Exmouth in south-west England. Lying on the acidic Bunter Pebblebeds, these areas form the largest blocks of lowland heath in Devon. The dry heaths on the higher ground are dominated by Heather Calluna vulgaris, with frequent areas of Bell Heather Erica cinerea, Western Gorse Ulex gallii, Bristle Bent Agrostis vinealis and Purple Moor- grass Molinia caerulea. There has been some invasion by Pine Pinus spp. and Birch Betula pendula, and Bracken Pteridium aquilinum has become locally abundant. In the shallow valleys, wet heaths and mires are dominated by Cross-leaved Heath Erica tetralix, Purple Moor-grass, Heather, Dwarf Gorse Ulex minor and Sphagnum mosses. Characteristic species here include Meadow Thistle Cirsium dissectum, Lesser Butterfly-orchid Platanthera bifolia, Common Sedge Carex nigra, and in the boggiest places, Common Cottongrass Eriophorum angustifolium, Bog Asphodel Narthecium ossifragum and sundews Drosera spp. Patches of willow Salix spp. scrub have developed in some places. These heaths support breeding Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus and Dartford Warbler Sylvia undata (which are both dependent upon continuity of open heath with fringing scrub) in numbers of European importance.

This site qualifies under Article 4.1 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance of the following species listed on Annex I of the Directive:

page 241

During the breeding season;

Dartford Warbler Sylvia undata, 128 pairs representing at least 8.0% of the breeding population in Great Britain (Count, as at 1994)

Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus, 83 pairs representing at least 2.4% of the breeding population in Great Britain (Count, as at 1992)

What potential hazards are likely to affect the interest features (refer to the risk factors listed below)?

Sensitive Potential hazard Outline exposure to hazard and likely impact if known interest feature

SPA habitat Loss of habitat as a The proposal is located 2.8 km from the Pebblebed Heaths result of the and would not result in the loss of any habitat as a result of development. the development. Disturbance from the development As a roadside services area, the proposal is designed to operations (noise, perform a road safety function by providing a rest area for fumes, traffic and drivers already travelling along the trunk road. As such, the people using the proposal would not lead to additional recreation pressures heaths) including from people or traffic or from construction impacts given the construction distance of the site from the SPA and the nature of the use. impacts.

SPA Physical damage to There will be no physical damage to SPA habitats and habitats SPA habitats/ communities because of the 2.8 km distance from the & communities communities Pebblebed Heaths.

Are there other proposals in the area which may give rise to ‘in combination’ effects?

List other proposals which have been considered

There are existing planning consents for housing and holiday accommodation close to the SPA, in East Devon, Exeter and Teignbridge.

The EDDC Local Plan allocates in the region of 17,100 houses in East Devon. The Teignbridge Local Plan allocates in the region of 12,500 houses in the District. The Exeter Core Strategy aims to allocate 12,000 houses in Exeter and East Devon.

page 242

The emerging greater Exeter Strategic Plan will be likely to allocate a greater number of dwellings for each authority.

Outline potential cumulative or ‘in combination’ effects.

There are no other developments proposed close to the site that could result in in-combination effects.

11. Mitigation Measures

Describe the mitigation measures that are proposed as part of the submitted application.

No mitigation measures are proposed as the proposal would have no significant effects on the European protected site give the nature of the intended use and the 2.8 km distance from the Pebblebed Heaths. Natural England’s N/A Response

Are the proposed N/A measures sufficient?

Part C: Conclusion

12. Conclusion: Is the proposal likely to There will be no likely significant effects alone or in combination on the have a significant effect Pebblebed Heaths given the nature of the intended use and the 2.8 km ‘alone’ or ‘in distance from the SPA. combination’ on a European site?

page 243 Agenda Item 12

Ward Yarty

Reference 19/2700/FUL

Applicant Mr Michael Summerhayes

Location Land Adjacent Sunnyside Birchill

Proposal Construction of building for the storage of forestry equipment and machinery

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 244

Committee Date: 18th May 2020

Yarty Target Date: (Chardstock) 19/2700/FUL 09.03.2020

Applicant: Mr Michael Summerhayes

Location: Land Adjacent Sunnyside Birchill

Proposal: Construction of building for the storage of forestry equipment and machinery

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is before the Committee as the recommendation differs from the views of the Ward Member.

The proposed storage building is to provide improved storage arrangements for equipment and machinery for a local tree management company, the owner of which lives near the site. The site is a small agricultural field in the settlement of Birchill which is located amongst a small group of dwellings and accessed via a private lane, along which runs a public footpath. It is in a countryside location within the Blackdowns AONB. The storage building would be set back from the lane in a corner of the field, adjacent to a dwelling known as Sunnyside.

Objections from the Parish Council, Ward Member and several neighbours raise concerns about the impact of the proposal on the character of the area, neighbouring amenity, wildlife, landscape, surface water drainage and the condition and safety of the footpath, which runs over an unbound surface. There are also concerns that waste associated with tree management would be processed on the site with resultant noise and smell impacts and fire risk.

Strategy 7 of the Local Plan resists development in the countryside unless specific policy support for it exists. Policy E5 (Small Scale Economic Development in Rural areas) supports economic development where it is small scale, provides local jobs near where people live and reduces out-commuting, subject to a number of other provisos. The proposal is considered to be small scale and likely to reduce out-commuting because the application site is closer to the company owner’s home than his current storage facility and also because he has no security of tenure at that facility, so potentially he may have to relocate his store to another location in future, which could be further away. In addition, through supporting a local business, the proposal potentially makes jobs available to local people.

19/2700/FUL page 245

The private lane already serves 9 dwellings and a farm and it is considered that with conditional controls in place to prevent sales at and deliveries to the site, traffic movements to and from the application site would be unlikely to significantly add to existing traffic movements or to impact on highway safety or the amenity of the footpath. Vehicles leaving the site would be slowed due to having to turn and are unlikely to be travelling at speed, so it is considered that their inter-visibility with pedestrian traffic on the footpath is adequate for safety.

With conditions imposed to limit the use of the site to the storage and to prohibit waste processing/waste storage, in addition to conditions controlling external materials of the building, light pollution, drainage, wildlife protection and the protection and enhancement of the landscape, it is considered that the proposal would not have unduly harmful impacts on neighbouring amenity, wildlife or the character and appearance of the area of the AONB.

Overall it is considered that the economic and sustainability benefits of reducing out-commuting and supporting a small scale business outweigh any other considerations such that overall the proposal represents sustainable development.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council 31.1.20 Council's recommendation of refusal remains unaltered especially as the new application proposes a building with a footprint some 90% larger then the previous proposal. Council also questions the veracity of the answers provided in the application as no details have been given in relation to the surface water soak-away, nor the issue of trade waste disposal which will inevitably arise when the site is used as a commercial base for chipping, burning and other activities relating to tree surgery, that have already been notified to Council.

Council also wishes to query the definition of forestry in relation to the classification of agricultural use as this appears to be a commercial tree surgery operation and Council is somewhat concerned that this is a rather tenuous interpretation of Forestry, being "the science of planting and taking care of large areas of trees" as opposed to the selective maintenance of individual trees in multiple locations for multiple clients.

Council reiterates its earlier comments regarding potential for noise and nuisance from fumes, increased traffic volumes due to staff and materials movement and the issues of pedestrian safety on the adjacent public footpath.

Further comments 19.3.20:

Clerk To Chardstock Parish Council Council does NOT support this application as amended.

19/2700/FUL page 246

Yarty - Cllr Paul Hayward

31.1.20 In accordance with the guidance laid down in the LGA "Probity in Planning" advice, and as a current member of the Development Management Committee (DMC), I must state that I will only be in a position to take a final decision after having heard all the relevant arguments and having taken into account all relevant material and planning considerations if this application ultimately comes before the DMC for their decision.

However, at this point in time, and upon review of the papers associated with the application, and the comments made by the parish council and residents nearby, I would recommend refusal on the grounds that the harm to the landscape, the enjoyment of land nearby and the potential commercialisation of this piece of land far outweighs the benefits of permitting this development to proceed. Like the parish council, I too have reservations as to whether the current commercial activities of the applicant fall under the specific definition of forestry and thus allow this application to be considered under the grounds of agricultural use; this area of land previously having been a garden to a neighbouring property.

Further comments 26.3.20:

I feel unable to support this application at the present time, given the location of the site within the AONB, the nature of the commercial activities proposed and the significant local opposition to the proposals from residents and parish councillors alike. I would ask that the decision for this application be referred to the DMC for their consideration and decision.

In accordance with the guidance laid down in the LGA "Probity in Planning" advice, and as a current member of the Development Management Committee (DMC), I must state that I will only be in a position to take a final decision after having heard all the relevant arguments and having taken into account all relevant material and planning considerations if this application ultimately comes before the DMC for their decision.

Technical Consultations

Devon County Highway Authority

Observations: Due to the current Covid-19 pandemic conditions the County Highway Authority (CHA) has not been able to visit the site and the following comments are made from a desktop review and digital information available to it.

The junction of the C134 Birchill Road/Unnamed Access Track would appear from Google Street View to be suitable for the proposed development and the traffic it would attract.

It would appear from Google Aerial View that the existing access to the development site is adequate for the proposed development and the traffic it would attract.

19/2700/FUL page 247

It is noted from the Agents letter dated 11/03/2020 that the applicant is suggesting conditions as discussed with the Planning Officer to limit the amount of traffic attracted to the site to merely the storage of forestry equipment and machinery. The CHA agrees with these proposed conditions.

Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, RECOMMENDS THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN ANY GRANT OF PERMISSION

1. Use for Storage of forestry equipment and machinery only - as opposed to general B8 business use.

2. Restricting any sales from site.

Officer authorised to sign on behalf of the County Council

EDDC Trees 19.2.20:

I have no objection in principle to this development however I do have the following observations - - there is a TPO'd tree on site and the removal of the old shed will require a AMS and then TPP during construction. -to enhance the agricultural use of the site, it would be good to see an enhancement of the hedges around the boundary with native species and a few hedge row trees to off set the landscape implication

Further comments 17.3.20:

As previously noted the submission of a TPP and AMS will be required to address the tree and shrub species growing in the adjacent northern and western boundarys. The restoration of these boundaries with new shrub and tree planting will be needed to secure suitably robust screening between the proposed building and the neighbouring property to the east.

Blackdown Hills AONB Project Partnership 6.2.20:

Construction of building for the storage of forestry equipment and machinery, land adjacent Sunnyside, Birchill

Thank you for requesting comments from the Blackdown Hills AONB Partnership on this application.

The AONB Partnership supports its local planning authorities in the application of their development management policy framework in order to ensure that any development in the AONB conserves and enhances the natural beauty and special qualities of this nationally designated landscape. This is supported by the Blackdown Hills AONB

19/2700/FUL page 248

Management Plan 2019-24 which contains the following policy of particular relevance to development proposals:

Planning and development PD2 All necessary development affecting the AONB will conserve and enhance natural beauty and special qualities by: Respecting landscape character, settlement patterns and local character of the built environment, Being sensitively sited and of appropriate scale, Reinforcing local distinctiveness, and Seeking to protect and enhance natural features and biodiversity

Applications for commercial development in the AONB do require careful consideration to ensure that they contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area and are not detrimental to the AONB's special qualities. Particular considerations for this proposal in relation to conserving and enhancing the AONB include: o Clarity on intended use of proposed building and use of application site; the description refers to forestry equipment but the business seems to be tree surgery. There is reference to the plot being deemed agricultural, but local representations refer to chipping taking place on site, and the business website refers to chipping and logs supply. o Access to the site over a track which is a public footpath could cause conflict with people using the footpath and their enjoyment of the AONB

In order to conserve and enhance natural beauty and the special qualities of the area, if the planning authority is minded to approve this application the AONB Partnership would like to see conditions attached that would ensure the retention and management of trees and hedges around and within the site. In addition, external lighting should be carefully controlled alongside steps to minimise light spill from internal lighting, such as through the rooflights. Given the proximity to both residential properties and the public footpath, it is anticipated that the use of the building and the site should be appropriately controlled, thus also helping to conserve local character.

Further comments 31.3.20:

Thank you for advising the Blackdown Hills AONB Partnership of amended plans/additional information in respect of this application.

To add to our original observations, the reduction in site area is noted as helping to better define and control use of the site, and in this regard the suggested conditions are welcomed.

Other Representations 7 representation have been received raising the following issues:

- The proposal would detract from the rural, undeveloped and open character of the site, would fail to conserve the natural beauty of the AONB and would be at odds with the area, where development is only sporadic;

19/2700/FUL page 249

- Compared to the existing agricultural use of the site, a commercial use would be more intensive and intrusive and thus inappropriate, as it would impact on the undeveloped quiet rural character of the area and the Blackdowns AONB; - The proposal development would be more appropriate on an industrial estate (sites are available); - There is no justification for this new building in the countryside, which is significantly larger than the current shed and greenhouse, would have a greater visual impact than these buildings and would be visible from the lane, particularly as some vegetative screening has been removed; - The building and the extensive use of concrete would be out of keeping with the rural nature of the area and the traditional thatched and stone dwellings around it; - The building would be obtrusive to nearby dwellings, would block light reaching an adjacent property and impact on its privacy; - The proposal would generate a need to travel to and from the site and would be unsustainable; - Any increase in traffic on the lane (which could include employees and increase over the estimated 10 movements a week) would represent a significant increase and would damage the surface of the unmade public footpath and cause an increase in noise (including early in the mornings), which would be unacceptable in this area; - the forecast traffic movements are unrealistic and could not be controlled by condition; - Noise pollution and nuisance would be caused to neighbouring dwellings, including through the use of a chipper and chainsaws (which has already occurred); - Burning at the site would pose a fire risk (there have already been fires on site which pose a risk to nearby thatched buildings); - Air pollution and nuisance would be caused by burning of waste materials which would impact on local amenity; - There are no toilet facilities proposed and the proposed use of the building would therefore be unsanitary; - Due to the impermeable surfaces introduced, underlying clay at the site and the land gradient the proposal would cause flooding and drainage problems, with surface water flowing towards neighbouring properties and the lane, further damaging it; - Due to the increased traffic on the lane, the proposal would impact on the safety of the users of a popular public right of way, particularly as the visibility from the site onto the footpath is obscured and the path is unlit; - Wildlife would be harmed; - Some hardstanding has already been placed near the site entrance without permission; - The suggested conditions referred to in the additional information will not be enforceable.

The following concerns raised do not relate to material planning considerations for this proposal, for the reasons given in brackets: - Vegetation clearance has already taken place (this does not constitute development for which planning permission is required); - Fencing has been erected and the access and gates widened with various impacts (the fencing and widened gate are permitted development in this case and impacts arising from these works cannot be considered through this application);

19/2700/FUL page 250

- Uses have taken place at the site previously/and are currently taking place (where these are not part of the proposal they cannot be considered through this planning application); - There is potential for damage to a privately owned access lane (this is a civil rather than a planning matter); - Alteration of the view from private property (a view from private property is not a planning consideration); - No information is provided on what is to happen to the land within the field adjacent to the site (this land and its use are not part of the proposed development so this was not required). - The planning notice was not erected in an appropriate place as it was on the opposite side of the lane to the site (the notice was on public display near the site as required and included a plan indicating the location of the site).

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date 19/1715/FUL Erection of equipment store and Withdrawn 2.10.2019 hardstanding to replace existing shed and greenhouse.

14/1597/FUL Construction of a dwelling Refuse 30.09.2014 (Appeal dismissed)

99/P0386 Erection Of Cottage Refused 15.4.1999

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 (LP)

Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside)

Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs)

EN5 Wildlife Habitats and Features

EN14 (Control of Pollution)

EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D2 (Landscape Requirements)

D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development)

TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways)

19/2700/FUL page 251

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

E5 (Small Scale Economic Development in Rural Areas)

Chardstock Neighbourhood Plan (Made) (NP)

CPNP 01 Sustainable development

CPNP03 Protecting the built environment

CPNP 04 Protecting the natural environment

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

National Planning Practice Guidance

Other Documents

The Blackdown Hills AONB Management Plan 2019-2024

Site Location and Description

The application area has been reduced in size since the application was first submitted so that it does not cover the whole of the field.

The site is a rectangular area at the eastern end of a small field (rather than the whole field, as previously shown) and is understood to have previously been part of a garden. Its former residential use having ceased, it is considered to have reverted to agricultural use, given that land no longer within another use class reverts to agricultural/forestry use by default.

The land within the site slopes down to the east, is currently laid to grass and contains a greenhouse. The site lies immediately west of the dwelling known as Sunnyside and immediately east of the garden of the dwelling known as Mardale, although Mardale itself lies further away from the site at the western end of its large garden.

The site is located on the northern side of a shared access lane and has a double gated access opening on to it. The lane has an unbound surface and a public footpath runs over it. Further dwellings lie south of the lane. Within the small field to the immediate west of the site lies a small shed and a tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order. A hedge along the southern boundary of the field partially screens the application site from the lane. A post and wire fence encloses the small field within which the site is located. At the date of the site visit a caravan was also present within the site.

19/2700/FUL page 252

The wider context of the site is a small cluster of dwellings and a farm complex to the southeast, with agricultural land beyond.

The site is outside of any Built-Up Area Boundary and is in the countryside in planning terms. It lies within the Blackdowns AONB.

Proposal

The proposal is for the construction of a building for the storage of forestry equipment and machinery. The proposed building measures 4m to the ridge, 3m to eaves with a footprint of 5.46m by 14.4m. The walls will be steel cladded with a fibre cement roof.

Comments have been made that the proposal is not within a forestry/woodland but the submitted planning statement makes clear that the applicant’s business is Axe Tree Services and that the proposed storage use relates to the operation of that business, rather than the storage of equipment for maintaining the land within the site.

The application has been assessed on the basis that the existing land use is agricultural and that the proposal is for the erection of a building (and adjacent hardstanding) for a small scale commercial use, i.e. storage relating to a tree management business. It is noted that the proposed use is for storage rather than a workshop use or for processing forestry, woodland or other materials or waste arising in connection with the work undertaken by the business.

The removal of the shed and existing materials at the site do not require planning permission and are not within the scope of the application.

A planning statement, additional supporting information and an ecological assessment are provided in support of the application.

The application follows the withdrawal of a previous application for a similar proposal, albeit with a slightly smaller building of a slightly different design.

ANALYSIS

The main issues arising include the principle of the proposal and economic impact, travel, amenity, highway safety, public rights of way, impact on wildlife and visual impact.

Principle and economic impact

Although the site is in the countryside where development is restricted, LP Policy E5 and Chardstock Neighbourhood Plan Policy 01 supports small scale economic development in rural areas (excluding retail), which provides jobs for local people, in certain circumstances.

Where such proposals are on a greenfield site (i.e. it is not previously developed land, as in this case) it is supported in principle by Policy E5 of the Local Plan where it is well related in scale and form and in sustainability terms to the village and surrounding areas. The preamble to the policy explains that small scale economic development in

19/2700/FUL page 253

rural areas is needed to reduce out commuting and that this will provide sustainable employment growth and provide premises close to where people live. The agent indicates that the business could provide work for the applicant and up to 3 other employees. From the applicant’s address in it is apparent that he lives approximately 2 miles from the site by road, and this is considered to be local to the site in terms of Policies E5 and 01 given the lack of any definition of ‘local’ in relation to these policies. At least 1 local job would therefore be supported by the proposal and several other jobs would potentially be available to local people.

The application explains that the proposed building would support the business through providing secure, adequate, under-cover storage and security of tenure, which are not provided by the premises he currently uses, which is rented. The applicant’s business and the proposed storage building are considered to be small scale and through providing a better storage facility for the business, the proposal would support economic development in the local rural area. If permitted, a condition tying the building to the specific use applied for (i.e. storage of tree/forestry management equipment and machinery only) would ensure that permitted development rights, which might otherwise allow changes to alternative uses (which may not contribute to the local economy) do not apply.

The further requirements of Policy E5 relating to travel, visual impact, highway capacity and safety, amenity and wildlife are addressed under separate headings below.

Travel

The applicant currently travels to a site 3 miles from his home to a rented storage facility, used in connection with his tree management business. He has no security of tenure at that site and if that facility ceases to be available there is a risk that he would need to relocate his equipment to another facility further away. He lives 2 miles (by road) from the application site and relocating his store there would reduce his current out commuting, given that this site is closer to his home. Relocation to a site in his ownership would also eliminate the risk that the applicant may have to use a storage facility which is further away, in future, thus the proposal reduces the risk of the increased out-commuting in future.

The locations of the work sites where tree work is carried out by the business are likely to vary in their distance from the existing storage facility. It is unlikely to be economical for the business to take on work at sites far away from any store facility used by the business, due to the higher travel costs that would arise. Given the variability in the location of work sites and the economic constraint on the location of worksites, it is not considered that the proposed location of the store would be less sustainable than that of the existing store, in relation to travel between the storage facility and work sites.

Taking all the points above into account it is considered that the proposal would be sustainably located in relation to the applicant’s home/business and would reduce the need to travel and that the proposal accords with the requirements of LP Policy E5 and NP CPNP01 and LP Policy TC2 in relation to travel.

Amenity

19/2700/FUL page 254

The proposed storage use is considered unlikely to generate any overlooking of neighbouring dwellings that could not in any case arise from the site when used in connection with its existing agricultural use.

Noise could potentially arise from comings and goings or equipment being taken in or out of the building (and loading unloading of vehicles), however the proposed storage use is likely to be sporadic, short lived and similar in nature to the noise generated in connection with the occupation of nearby dwellings.

The supporting statement indicates that equipment would be maintained at the site and whilst certain maintenance activities would have a negligible impact on local amenity, regular or prolonged operation of powered equipment would be likely to be disturbing and to alter the generally peaceful rural character of the area. In response to the Local Planning Authority’s query regarding whether powered equipment would be run at the site, the agent has confirmed that this would only be likely to occur for a few minutes on rare occasions. It is considered unreasonable to prevent powered equipment being run at the site for occasional maintenance, as this would be unlikely to give rise to an unacceptable noise impact and it is important to note that the proposal is for a storage building rather than a workshop (where powered machinery could be used frequently and for long periods). The use of the building for storage could be secured through the imposition of a planning condition and the carrying out of occasional maintenance ancillary to the storage of equipment would be unlikely to breach such a condition. If the maintenance use were to evolve beyond storage to a mixed use or another use, however, this would be a breach of the condition/require planning permission and potentially enforcement action could be taken against it.

Whilst not part of the proposal, objectors raise concerns about waste storage and processing of forestry materials at the site e.g. chipping, burning vegetation/wood or producing logs, and the impacts that would arise from this e.g. noise, smell and fire risk. To ensure unassessed impacts from these activities could not arise, it is recommended that in the case that permission is granted, conditions be imposed to prevent the processing of wood, bark or vegetation at the site (including cutting, chopping, shredding and burning). The applicant has indicated he is agreeable to this approach.

An objector also raises a concern that the building would impact on the light reaching Sunnyside, the neighbouring dwelling, but due to the orientation, location (approximately 12m away) and scale of the proposed building (3m to eaves and 4m to ridge) relative to that dwelling, it is not considered that a significant impact on natural light reaching it (or its garden) would be likely to occur.

Taking the above points into account together with controls which can be imposed on any permission granted, it is not considered that unacceptable amenity impacts would be likely to arise from the proposal and that it would accord with LP strategy 46 and policies D1, E5 and EN14 and NP CPNP03.

Highway Issues

19/2700/FUL page 255

LP TC7 and NP CPNP01 require that the traffic generated by development is not detrimental to local highway infrastructure.

The agent indicates that there would be around 10 journeys to and from the site each week. Further details have been sought on the work pattern that would cause 10 journeys to arise, given that a daily collection and drop off of equipment from/to the site each weekday would generate a total of 20 journeys in a week. Information has also been sought on whether employees would also make journeys to the site.

In response, the agent has confirmed that 10 journeys a week is an anticipated average figure and that the actual number of journeys would differ from week to week, depending on the work being undertaken and the equipment needed e.g. for some jobs, equipment would not need to be returned to the store at the end of each workday. It has also been explained that much of the time, the site would just be accessed by the applicant, but on occasion another employee may also visit the site in a separate vehicle. It is acknowledged that precise information on the number of vehicle movements likely to be generated by this proposal has not been provided and that, given the nature of the applicant’s business, this is difficult to accurately predict. It would similarly be difficult to control journeys to and from the site through a planning condition. Given the nature of the proposal, however, i.e. as a store for use by a small business which conducts its main work away from the site, with a small number of employees and without the need for customers to visit the site or deliveries to it, it is considered that traffic movements associated with it are unlikely to represent a significant increase on existing traffic movements on the lane and its access onto the public highway, noting that this is currently used by vehicles associated with 9 dwellings and a farm.

A condition could be imposed to prevent sales from the site or deliveries to it, to ensure traffic associated with the site is limited. The Highway Authority’s comments agree with this view and the recommended conditions. It is therefore considered unlikely that the traffic movements to and from the site would harm the safety of the existing access onto the highway network or significantly add to traffic flows on that network and that as such that the proposal accords with the policies listed above.

Public Rights of Way

Traffic entering and leaving the site from the highway would travel over a length of public footpath (Chardstock 46) running along the aforementioned lane and objectors raise a concern regarding the potential impacts of this on the safety and condition of the footpath. LP Policy TC4 seeks to retain public footpaths, bridleways and cycleways and to protect their attractiveness and convenience. Devon County Council’s Rights of Way officer has been consulted on the proposal however no comment had been received, although Devon County as Highway Authority have not raised a concern on this ground.

The proposal could impact on the views from the footpath or convenience of its use e.g. through users having to be extra vigilant or having to give way to traffic, but as there is already a field gate, the footpath is already crossed with vigilance required.

19/2700/FUL page 256

The impact on the attractiveness of the path due to the visual impact of the proposal is likely to be relatively minor, given that the site is in an area of scattered residential development and that limited views of the site and the proposed building would be available due to existing vegetative screening. Landscaping to improve the appearance of the site is however considered reasonable to mitigate for this minor impact and is discussed in detail under ‘Visual Impact’ below.

With regard to the convenience and safety of the footpath, the lane over which the footpath runs is used by vehicular traffic accessing 9 nearby dwellings and a farm to the southeast, and as discussed under ‘Highways Issues’ above, it is not considered that the traffic associated with the proposal represents a significant increase on the existing level of traffic. It is therefore not considered that path users would be unduly inconvenienced by traffic using the lane or that the level of traffic would make the path less attractive. Vehicles moving from the application onto the lane are likely to be moving slowly, given the degree of turn necessary and the unsurfaced nature of the lane, and considering the relative speed of footpath users and vehicles, it is considered that there would be reasonable inter-visibility them that the safety of the footpath would not be compromised. Overall therefore it is not considered that the proposal would adversely impact the public footpath.

The potential impact of surface water run-off from the site on the public footpath surface is discussed under ‘other issues’ below.

Impact on wildlife

The Ecological Assessment report has been criticised by an objector on the grounds that its assessment of risks to badgers, a protected species, was inadequate. The objector states that there are two setts near the site rather than one (as stated in the report) and that the post and wire fencing erected around the edges of the site prior to the assessment could restrict badger movements onto the site. The objector claims that that the effect of this is that the assessment’s conclusion that the wider site has negligible value for badger foraging is flawed. The erection of the fencing was carried out as ‘Permitted Development’.

It is accepted that the application site could have played a role for badger foraging before the fencing was erected, particularly given the proximity of the a sett (or setts), however whether it did or not is not known with certainty. The possibility that the fencing restricts badger foraging does not weigh against the proposal as the fencing is not part of it. If the fencing does not restrict badger foraging, the fact that the assessment found negligible evidence of badger foraging in the site area indicates that the proposed development on the site would have a negligible impact on foraging. If the fencing does restrict badger foraging, however, then as its presence is now a fact, the fencing would tend to negate any further impact on badger foraging that could result from the proposal. Due to this, it is not considered that reliance on the assessment’s conclusion would lead to an oversight of the impact of the development on badger foraging.

The assessment identifies and maps sett entrances and recommends various mitigation in relation to badgers, including that the proposed development be located at least 20m away from the surveyed sett area and the summary and conclusions

19/2700/FUL page 257

section of the assessment indicates that location of the building relative to the sett would not contravene the Badger Act 1992. The further mitigation described in the report in relation to badgers is considered adequate irrespective of whether there is one sett or two, as the whole of the visible sett or setts area near the site has been surveyed and mapped and taken into account in the assessment.

The report also proposes mitigation with regard to other wildlife including bats, hedgehogs, breeding birds, great crested newts and reptiles. It is recommended that if permission is granted, a condition should require this mitigation to be carried out, as far as it relates to the proposed development (i.e. noting that the removal of the shed and any other equipment and materials from outside of the site area are not part of the development subject to this application). With conditions imposed as recommended above, it is considered that the proposal would accord with LP Policy EN5 and NP CPNP04.

Visual Impact

As pointed out by objectors, the proposed building would be visible from the lane although it would be partly screened from some viewpoints by the existing hedge along the southern edge of the field within which the site is located. It is acknowledged that the building would be larger than the existing greenhouse (which it would replace) and the shed at the site and that in conjunction with the proposed hardstanding, its erection would cause the site to appear more developed, however the building would be set back from the lane and it is relatively small scale.

It would also be experienced in the context of other scattered development nearby so the effect of it making the site appear developed is considered to be minor. The building would not have a domestic appearance, having instead a simple, utilitarian appearance similar to that of a small scale agricultural building. As a result it is not considered that the proposal would harm the AONB.

Whilst it would be located near the dwelling known as Sunnyside, it is not considered that it would appear particularly at odds with it due to its small scale and the fact that it would also be seen in the context of a small field, where it would not be unusual to see a small scale building of agricultural character. Due to its height and position, it is not considered that the building would be overbearing or overwhelming to the dwelling, as an objector suggests. A condition could be imposed to ensure that the appearance of the building is simple and visually recessive.

The Tree Officer and AONB Partnership recommend that tree and hedge vegetation around the site be retained, enhanced and managed and it is considered that this would be suitable mitigation for the slightly more developed appearance of the site which would result from the proposal. It is recommended that a condition be imposed to require necessary tree and hedge protection and the retention, enhancement and management of tree and hedge boundary vegetation, taking account of the relevant recommendations within the Ecological Assessment.

Although the tree officers suggest that measures be required to protect the TPO tree during the demolition of the shed and measures to protect tree and hedge vegetation at the western boundary of the field during construction works, it is not considered

19/2700/FUL page 258

reasonable to require these measures as the demolition of the shed does not require planning permission due to its small scale (and its demolition is not part of the application) and the western boundary is some distance away from the application site.

With controls on external materials and a requirement for a landscaping retention, enhancement and management scheme, it is considered that the visual impact of the development would be suitably mitigated so that it would be acceptable and in accordance with the requirements of LP Strategy 46 and policies D1, E5 and NP CPNP 03.

Other issues

Objectors have raised concerns regarding surface water drainage and it is noted that the proposal would introduce an area of impermeable roof and potentially an area of impermeable surfacing around the building which could generate run off. An objector also indicates that underlying clay would make drainage within the site difficult. It is considered that the attenuation of surface water flow should nevertheless be possible even if this is the case and that it is only reasonable to require that surface water drainage from the development be no worse than that which would arise from the site in its current state, with whatever underlying soil is present. To ensure that surface water flowing off proposed impermeable surfaces does not unduly impact on neighbouring land and the surface of the adjacent public footpath it is recommended that a condition be imposed to require details of surface water drainage measures in relation to those surfaces, in the case that permission is granted.

As indicated by the AONB team, the use of external and internal lighting at the site has the potential to harm the character of this rural area and the AONB. It is recommended that a scheme for the minimisation of light pollution be required if the application is approved, to ensure that the proposal accords with LP strategy 46 and policies E5 and EN14 and CPNP03.

Policy E5 requires on site renewable energy be produced in order for small scale business development in rural areas to be considered acceptable. However in this case it is considered that the development has a limited visual impact and that this could be compromised by the addition of renewable technologies to the building or within the site. Policy E5 also requires that buildings meet sustainable construction, although it does not stipulate the standard to be achieved. The proposed building would make use of natural light entering via rooflights and it is therefore considered that the building is sustainable with regard to reducing the energy demand for lighting. Given the proposed use of the building as a store for machinery, it is in any case considered that the energy demand associated with the building is likely to be low.

An objector indicates that the use of the building would be unsanitary as no toilet facilities are present, however it is not considered that such a facility would be necessary within the building as it is unlikely to be occupied by people for much of the time. In the event that the operator considers facilities are needed, portable or other facilities could be installed and it is not considered that a condition is necessary to address this issue.

19/2700/FUL page 259

CONCLUSION

Strategy 7 of the Local Plan resists development in the countryside unless specific policy support for it exists. Policy E5 of the Local Plan supports economic development where it is small scale, provides local jobs near where people live and reduces out-commuting, subject to a number of other provisos. Policy 01 of the Neighbourhood Plan also supports local businesses in rural areas. The proposal is considered to be small scale and likely to reduce out-commuting whilst supporting a local business. As such the principle of development is considered to be acceptable.

The access already serves 9 dwellings and a farm and it is considered that with conditional controls in place to prevent sales at and deliveries to the site, traffic movements to and from the application site would be unlikely to significantly add to existing traffic movements or to impact on highway safety or the amenity of the adjoining public footpath.

With conditions imposed to limit the use of the site to the storage and to prohibit waste processing/waste storage, in addition to conditions controlling external materials of the building, light pollution, drainage, wildlife protection and the protection and enhancement of the landscape, it is considered that the proposal would not have unduly harmful impacts on neighbouring amenity, wildlife or the character and appearance of the area of the AONB.

Overall it is considered that the economic and sustainability benefits of reducing out- commuting and supporting a small scale business outweigh any other matters such that overall the proposal represents sustainable development which should be approved.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

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

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

3. The site and the building hereby permitted shall be used for storage of tree/forestry management equipment and machinery only and there shall be no storage of wastes generated by tree/forest management (e.g. bark, vegetation, chipped wood or logs) at the site. In addition, there shall be no processing of waste or timber associated with tree/forest management at the site (e.g. chipping, cutting, chopping, shredding or burning) and no sales shall take place from the site or deliveries to it (excepting deliveries relating to the construction of the development hereby permitted). Any external storage of equipment and

19/2700/FUL page 260

machinery shall accord with a scheme for external storage which shall have first been submitted to an approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. That scheme shall set out how the visual impact of external storage will be minimised or mitigated. (Reason - In the interest of neighbouring amenity, the conservation of the character of the area including the AONB and the preserving the amenity of the right of way, in accordance with Strategy 46 Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs and policies E5 (Small Scale Economic Development in Rural Areas), EN14 - Control of Pollution, D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and TC4 - Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways of the East Devon Local Plan and policy CPNP03 - Protecting the built environment of the Chardstock Neighbourhood Plan.)

4. The works to prepare the site for construction and the construction works to erect the building hereby permitted, together with the use of the site shall adhere to the recommendations of the Ecological Assessment produced by South West Ecology dated 2nd April 2019 with regard to protection of wildlife and habitats. (Reason: In the interests of the protected wildlife and the protection of wildlife habitats and features in accordance with Policies EN5 Wildlife Habitats and Features and E5 - Small Scale Economic Development in Rural Areas of the East Devon Local Plan and Policy CPNP 04 - Protecting the natural environment of the Chardstock Neighbourhood Plan.)

5. Prior to the erection of the building hereby permitted, details of arrangements for the drainage of surface water from its roof, shall have been submitted and approved in writing the Local Planning Authority. In addition, prior to the installation of the hard-surfacing illustrated on plan 02, details of the surfacing to be used and, if this surface is impermeable, details of arrangements to ensure drainage of water from that surface takes place within the site, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: To prevent the discharge of surface water from the site onto the neighbouring land or public right of way and in accordance with policies EN22 Surface Run- Off Implications of New Development and TC4 - Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways of the East Devon Local Plan.)

6. The roof of the building shall not be installed until a scheme for the minimisation of light pollution from rooflights has first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall consider measures such as limiting the periods of illumination of internal lighting and light shielding to prevent direct glare through rooflights. In addition, no external lighting shall be installed until a scheme for the minimisation of light pollution and light spill outside of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Both schemes shall take account of the recommendations of the Ecological Assessment produced by South West Ecology dated 2nd April 2019 with regard to lighting. (Reason: In the interests of neighbouring residential amenity, the preservation of the character and appearance of the rural area and the AONB and the protection of wildlife interests in accordance with Strategy 46 - Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs and Policies EN5 Wildlife Habitats and Features, EN14 - Control of Pollution, E5 - Small Scale Economic Development in Rural Areas and D1 - Design and Local

19/2700/FUL page 261

Distinctiveness of the East Devon Local Plan and policies CPNP03 - Protecting the built environment and CPNP 04 - Protecting the natural environment of the Chardstock Neighbourhood Plan.)

7. There shall be no construction of the building hereby permitted above slab level until a schedule of the external materials to be used on the building and samples of those materials have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved by them in writing. (Reason: In the interests of the conserving the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Strategy 46 - Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs and policies E5 - Small Scale Economic Development in Rural Areas and D1 Design and Local Distinctiveness of the East Devon Local Plan and Policy CPNP03 - Protecting the built environment of the Chardstock Neighbourhood Plan.)

8. Prior to the construction of the building hereby permitted above slab level a Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement relating to the protection of tree and hedge vegetation to the north of the application site, together with a scheme for the retention, enhancement and management of tree and hedge vegetation around the boundary of the land owned by the applicant (which for avoidance of doubt is taken to be the land within the blue and red lines on plan 05) shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The scheme for the retention, enhancement and management of tree and hedge vegetation shall include new tree and hedge planting and shall demonstrate that it has taken account of the relevant recommendations of the Ecological Assessment produced by South West Ecology dated 2nd April 2019. Any new planting of trees or hedge along the eastern boundary of the site, and the management thereof, shall ensure that any impact on the daylight reaching the dwelling known as Sunnyside, including its garden, is minimal. (Reason: To enhance the landscaping around the site to mitigate for the slightly more developed appearance of the site which would arise due to the development, in accordance with Strategy 46 - Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs, and policies D2 - Landscape Requirements, E5 - Small Scale Economic Development in Rural Areas, TC4 - Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways of the East Devon Local Plan and policies CPNP03 - Protecting the built environment and CPNP 04 - Protecting the natural environment of the Chardstock Neighbourhood Plan)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

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

The applicant’s attention is drawn to the recommended precautions and the requirements of wildlife protection law set out in the Ecological Assessment produced by South West Ecology dated 2nd April 2019, in relation to protected species and habitats and the land outside of the application site within the applicant’s ownership.

19/2700/FUL page 262

Plans relating to this application:

02 rev B Proposed Site Plan 19.12.19

03 rev A : floor/roof Proposed Combined Plans 19.12.19

04 rev A Proposed Elevation 19.12.19

01 rev A (amended) Location Plan 27.02.20

05 (amended) Existing Site Plan 12.03.20

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

19/2700/FUL page 263