Public Document Pack North Council Brynsworthy Environment Centre EX31 3NP

K. Miles Chief Executive.

SITE INSPECTION (VIRTUAL) PLANNING COMMITTEE

A meeting of the Site Inspection (Virtual) Planning Committee will be held as a Virtual – Online meeting on WEDNESDAY, 21ST APRIL, 2021 at 10.00 am.

Members of the Committee Councillor Ley (Chair)

Councillors Chesters, Crabb, Davies, Fowler, Gubb, Leaver, Jenkins, Mack, Mackie, Prowse, D. Spear, L. Spear, Tucker and Yabsley

AGENDA

1. Virtual meetings procedure - briefing and etiquette Chair to report.

2. Apologies for absence

3. Declaration of Interests (Please complete the form provided at the meeting or telephone the Corporate and Community Services Team to prepare a form for your signature before the meeting. Items must be re-declared when the item is called, and Councillors must leave the room if necessary)

4. To agree the agenda between Part 'A' and Part 'B' (Confidential Restricted Information)

PART A

5. 60823: Former Yelland Power Station, Lower Yelland, Barnstaple, Devon EX31 3EZ (Pages 5 - 270) Hybrid planning application: (A) Full application for the access, scale & layout of site including raising of the ground levels, site access works & highway infrastructure to site, together with purpose built bat building. (B) Outline application for 250 dwellings (Use Class C3(a)), Space of up to 3000sqm employment (Use Class E(g)(i) and E(g)(ii) was Use Class B1). Retail Space of up to 250sqm gross floorspace (Use Class E(a) was Use Class A1); Space for the Sale of food and drink of up to 2000sqm Gross floorspace (Use Class E(b) Was Use Class A3); Service and Community Space of up to 500sqm Gross floorspace (Use Class E(d) E(e), E(f) and F1(a), F1(b), F1(e), and F2(b)was Use Class D1 and D2); (C) all the associated infrastructure including removal of any contamination, roads, footpaths, cycleway, drainage (including

attenuation works), flood defence works, landscaping & appearance, public open space, utilities & vehicle parking & including demolition of buildings (amended scheme & supporting documents) (Amended description).

6. 71708: Land at Litchardon Cross, Newton Tracey, EX31 3QE. (Pages 271 - 352) Installation of solar farm and associated infrastructure (amended plans and additional details).

PART B (CONFIDENTIAL RESTRICTED INFORMATION) Nil.

If you have any enquiries about this agenda, please contact Corporate and Community Services, telephone 01271 388253

NOTE: Pursuant to Part 3, Annexe 1, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, Members should note that:

"If a Member:

(a) Arrives at a meeting during the consideration of an item; or (b) Leaves a meeting at any time during the consideration of an item;

They shall not:

(i) propose or second any motion or amendment; or (ii) cast a vote

13.04.21

2

North Devon Council protocol on recording/filming at Council meetings

The Council is committed to openness and transparency in its decision-making. Recording is permitted at Council meetings that are open to the public. The Council understands that some members of the public attending its meetings may not wish to be recorded. The Chairman of the meeting will make sure any request not to be recorded is respected.

The rules that the Council will apply are:

1. The recording must be overt (clearly visible to anyone at the meeting) and must not disrupt proceedings. The Council will put signs up at any meeting where we know recording is taking place and a reminder will be issued at the commencement of virtual meetings.

2. The Chairman of the meeting has absolute discretion to stop or suspend recording if, in their opinion, continuing to do so would prejudice proceedings at the meeting or if the person recording is in breach of these rules.

3. We will ask for recording to stop if the meeting goes into ‘part B’ where the public is excluded for confidentiality reasons. In such a case, the person filming should leave the room ensuring all recording equipment is switched off. In a virtual meeting the public will be excluded from the meeting while in Part B.

4. Any member of the public has the right not to be recorded. We ensure that agendas for, and signage at, Council meetings make it clear that recording can take place – anyone not wishing to be recorded must advise the Chairman at the earliest opportunity. Public contributions to virtual meetings will be recorded, unless, at the Chair’s discretion, recording is deemed in appropriate in accordance with point 2 above.

5. The recording should not be edited in a way that could lead to misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the proceedings or in a way that ridicules or shows a lack of respect for those in the recording. The Council would expect any recording in breach of these rules to be removed from public view.

Notes for guidance:

Please contact either our Corporate and Community Services team or our Communications team in advance of the meeting you wish to record at so we can make all the necessary arrangements for you on the day.

For more information contact the Corporate and Community Services team on 01271 388253 or email [email protected] or the Communications Team on 01271 388278, email [email protected].

3

Meeting Etiquette Reminder for Members

Members are reminded to:  Join the meeting at least 10-15 minutes prior to the commencement to ensure that the meeting starts on time.  Behave as you would in a formal committee setting.  Address Councillors and officers by their full names.  Do not have Members of your household in the same room.  Be aware of what is in screen shot.  Mute your microphone when you are not talking.  Switch off video if you are not speaking.  Only speak when invited to do so by the Chair.  Speak clearly (if you are not using video then please state your name)  If you’re referring to a specific page, mention the page number.  Switch off your video and microphone after you have spoken.  The only person on video will be the Chair and the one other person speaking.

Virtual attendance by members of the public

If members of the public wish to attend virtually, please contact Corporate and Community services on 01271 388253 or [email protected] by 12pm on the Monday preceding the meeting.

4

Agenda Item 5

Application Report Strategic Development & Planning Place Services North Devon Council House, Commercial Road, Barnstaple, EX31 1DG

Application No: 60823 Application Expiry: 30 April 2021 Application Type: Full application Ext Of Time 30 April 2021 Expiry: Publicity Expiry: 16 July 2020 Parish/Ward: Fremington / Location: Former Yelland Power Station Lower Yelland Yelland Barnstaple Devon EX31 3EZ Proposal: Hybrid planning application: (A) Full application for the access, scale & layout of site including raising of the ground levels, site access works & highway infrastructure to site, together with purpose built bat building. (B) Outline application for 250 dwellings (Use Class C3(a)), Space of up to 3000sqm employment (Use Class E(g)(i) and E(g)(ii) was Use Class B1). Retail Space of up to 250sqm gross floorspace (Use Class E(a) was Use Class A1); Space for the Sale of food and drink of up to 2000sqm Gross floorspace (Use Class E(b) Was Use Class A3); Service and Community Space of up to 500sqm Gross floorspace (Use Class E(d) E(e), E(f) and F1(a), F1(b), F1(e), and F2(b)was Use Class D1 and D2); (C) all the associated infrastructure including removal of any contamination, roads, footpaths, cycleway, drainage (including attenuation works), flood defence works, landscaping & appearance, public open space, utilities & vehicle parking & including demolition of buildings (amended scheme & supporting documents) (Amended description)

Agent: Woodward Smith Chartered Architects Applicant: Yelland Quay Ltd Planning Case Officer: Ms J. Watkins Departure: Y EIA Development: Y EIA Conclusion: An environment statement has been submitted.

Reason for Report to Committee: Major application with significant public interest

Page 5 Agenda Item 5

Site Description

This allocated site is located approximately 4km west of Barnstaple Town Centre within Yelland.

The site is accessed by vehicles via the B3233 along a private access road approximately 650m in length, and approximately 6m wide. This road forms the minor arm of a simple priority junction with the B3233. This access also serves a range of industrial units described within the planning history section of the report.

On the B3233, footways and street lighting are present for a length of 600m to the west. To the east, footways and street lighting are present all the way to Bickington and beyond to Barnstaple. A section of virtual footway is present along the northern boundary of the road to the west of the site access. This virtual footway links into the footway present 600m further to the west. There are no existing formal pedestrian crossings on the B3233 in the vicinity of the site.

There is an adopted pedestrian / cycleway approximately 2.5m wide alongside the eastern side of the access road, which links to the Tarka Trail immediately south of the site. The South West Coast Path extends along the northern site boundary and connects to the Tarka Trail both east and west of the site. The Tarka Trail provides a high quality, fully surfaced and traffic free walking and cycling route between Barnstaple and .

The surrounding area comprises open agricultural fields to the east and south, the existing residential dwellings associated with Yelland are further away to the south and south east adjacent to the main road. The River Taw and mudflats and saltmarsh grassland lie on the shoreline boundaries of the site. East Yelland Marsh lies to the east and Instow Barton Marsh to the west. To the south there is existing commercial and industrial premises forming Estuary Business Park, Flogas, Certas Energy and Sandbanks Industrial Park. There are a range of designations set out in the constraints part of the report below.

The Site extends to approximately 38.5 hectares (ha) of land in total and consists of an area of open space (ash beds) within the eastern section of the Site (approximately 26.8 ha) and a previously developed area (approximately 11.7 ha) in the western section of the Site where the former power station was located.

The current use of the site is for import and export of materials using the jetty as well as a concrete plant associated with a construction and groundworks business. Industrial buildings and the electric transformer site lie to the south west of the site. The majority of the site is ‘brownfield’ or previously developed land.

The site was formerly used as a power station (as set out in the planning history section of the report). As part of the works of decommissioning the ash beds associated with the former Power Station were capped. These are located on the eastern side of the development site.

Recommendation Approved

Page 6 Agenda Item 5

Legal Agreement Required:- Yes

Planning History

Reference Proposal Decision & Date NI 336 Proposed electricity generating station DC 28.9.49 NI 705 Proposed extension to East Yelland Generating DC 15.0.50 Station

NI 814 Proposed sewage disposal plan CC 26.0.50 NI 3999 Proposed raising height of chimneys DC 11.02.60 NI 7546 Proposed extension to offices UC 30.09.64 NI 11394 Proposed apprentices training building UC 28.05.68 NI 17284 Proposed extension to power station chimneys CC 23.01.73 83/1075/27/3 Proposed strengthening of existing tidal defence CC 06.09.83 banks 85/1607/27/3 Proposed disposal of refractory brickwork and CC 10.03.86 bagged asbestos into former circulating water pump Conditions house and old ash tip required the tipping operation to cease within 2 years, the pumphouse to be sealed and capped and only materials stripped from the

Page 7 Agenda Item 5

Reference Proposal Decision & Date power station to be disposed of

86/715/27/4 Proposed change of use from general industrial use R 03.06.86 to commercial vehicle maintenance and repair 86/1642/27/1 Outline Application: Proposed demolition of existing R 07.10.86 buildings and removal of toxic materials and construction of hotel and holiday villas together with leisure facilities for sailing, golf, tennis and the creation of wildlife conservation area

8223 Outline Application: Proposed recreational village W 05.09.97 inc. dwellings, craft workshops, studios, shops, pub & restaurant plus water features amenity areas & nature reserve by Daniel Homes and Taylor Woodrow Homes 24672 County Matter Application: Proposed restoration and Conditional capping of ash beds to prevent risk to public health planning permission Subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement granted by DCC relating to the dedication of land for an off-site 8 March 1999 footpath/cycle path and for the future management of the nature conservation interests

29924 Application to the Secretary of State for Energy W under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the 09.09.03 erection of a power station

Page 8 Agenda Item 5

Reference Proposal Decision & Date 29959 Proposed erection of horticultural development W utilising greenhouses for fruit development 24.11.03 (amended site plan) 44587 County Matters Application in respect of completion DCC - CC of capping of ash beds 24.01.08 47291 County Matters Application in respect of completion NDC of capping of ash beds - discharge of Condition 9 Recommend (plan for the restoration, management & aftercare of Approval site) & Condition 10 (Japanese Knotweed control) 25.09.08 attached to Planning Permission 02/44587/2007

Jetty and Adjacent Land

Reference Proposal Decision & Date NI 1832 * Proposed sand and gravel extraction in Taw & R Torridge Estuary NI 4027 * Proposed sand and gravel extraction in Taw & R Torridge Estuary 14.03.60 NI 8759 * Proposed sand and gravel extraction in Taw & CC Torridge Estuary 17.03.66 25649 Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for an W existing use in respect of use of jetty for the mooring 03.07.01 of ships and other vessels (amended description) 26209 County Matter Application in respect of proposed use DCC - CC of existing jetty and construction of storage facility for 27.01.99 the export & import of minerals 36809 County Matters Application in respect of alteration of DCC - CC Condition no. 1 of Approval 02/27/26209/98 to allow 22.04.04 an additional five years for the commencement of storage facility for export and import of minerals 33982 County Matter Application variation of Condition 16 DCC - R of Planning Approval 02/27/24672/97 to expressly 03.12.02 permit the exportation of the resulting processed material 37228 County Matter Application in respect of variation of DCC - CC Condition 1 of Planning Approval no. 02/27/24672/97 05.08.04 to extend permission for a further three years 42289 County Matters Application in respect of variation of DCC - CC Condition 2 to amend location of storage facilities on 21.07.06 the site 44588 County Matters Application in respect of enlargement DCC - CC & continuation of use of transfer station 14.02.08 48472 Siting of mobile concrete batching plant & ancillary W portacabin control office 17.06.09

Page 9 Agenda Item 5

Reference Proposal Decision & Date 49098 County Matter Retrospective Application in respect of DCC - CC operation of mobile concrete batching plant with 11.12.09` control office building 47967 Application Under Reg 3 Of The T & C P General Regulations 1992 Notification By Devon County Council In Respect Of Construction Of Footway/Cycleway

Former Petrol Filling Station/Car Showroom

Reference Proposal Decision & Date NI 13410 Proposed advertisement sign (5 Years) CC 14.4.70 NI 2559 Proposed bus shelter UC 3.7.56 NI 3076 Proposed re-siting of petrol pumps CC 20.1.58 NI 4635 Proposed car sales site UC 8.3.61 NI 5949 Proposed reconstruction of filling station CC 25.2.63 NI 8777 Outline Application proposed oil distribution depot R 22.4.66 74/78/27/3 Proposed canopy CC 30.10.74 81/588/27/5 Proposed illuminated fascia sign for canopy CC 9.6.81 3495 Proposed erection of dwelling and dependant R 29.3.88 relatives flat Appeal Allowed 25.1.89 4474 Proposed storage extension to garage CC 20.5.88 12072 Proposed erection of dwelling R 10.7.90 30712 Outline Application in respect of erection of 3 no. R 6.6.02 dwellings together with formation of new accesses Appeal Allowed to Yelland Road (amended plans & description) 6.7.01 32019 Outline Application in respect of erection of 6 no. Finally disposed dwellings together with formation of new access of 25.11.11 40349 Variation of condition 3 of decision APP/X1118/ CC 3.8.05 A/01/1080654 in relation to planning application 30712 to extend time scale for a further 3 years 58356 Retrospective Application For Change Of Use Of CC – 13.05.20 Land To Allow For Car Sales Business & Siting Of Portable Building (Amended Plans) (Amended temporary until Description) 30/06/25

Leading to the site using the same access is the

 Yelland Sewerage Works  Sandbanks Business Park - comprises 2 blocks of industrial units (64305) with one used as a Café (66207)  Global House - B8 Storage and Distribution – (62076)  Certas Energy site (oil tanks 61202)  Flogas UK and CPL Distribution – Storage and Distribution (40570)  Estuary Business Park – small units

Page 10 Agenda Item 5

To the west is the Electricity substation.

On the site is the concrete works and commercial landing jetty.

Constraints/Planning Policy

Constraints Distance (Metres) Adopted Existing Strategic Footpath/Cycleway: Tarka Trail Within constraint Adopted Existing Strategic Footpath/Cycleway: South Within constraint West Coast Path North Area of Special Advert Control Within constraint Burrington Radar Safeguard Area Within constraint Chivenor Safeguard Zone Within constraint Critical Drainage Area Within constraint Historic Landfill Site: East Yelland Power Station Within constraint Historic Landfill Site: Old Pump House - Asbestos Within constraint Land is potentially contaminated with: Miscellaneous Within constraint Power Facilities/ Electricity production & distribution/ Tanks/Cement/Lime/Plaster/Railways Landscape Character is: 3A Upper Farmed & Wooded Within constraint Valley Slopes Landscape Character is: 4A Estuaries Within constraint Devon Character Area is: Taw Torridge estuary Within constraint Minerals and Waste Consultation Zone: Waste Within constraint Consultation Zone Public Right of Way: Footpath 227FP64/70 Within constraint Public Right of Way: Footpath 235FP9 Within constraint Site of Special Scientific Interest: Taw-Torridge Estuary Within constraint Tree Preservation Order: 327 - G1, The Former Power Within constraint Station Site, Yelland Order 2000 Within Adopted Coast and Estuary Zone Within constraint Fremington Development Boundary ST07 Within Adopted Mineral Conservation Area Within constraint Within Adopted Mixed Use Allocation: FRE02(1) Yelland Within constraint Quay Within Adopted Unesco Biosphere Buffer (ST14) Within constraint Within Braunton Burrows Zone of Influence Within constraint Within Flood Zone 2 Within constraint Within Flood Zone 3 Within constraint Within Surface Water 1 in 100 Within constraint Within Surface Water 1 in 1000 Within constraint Within Surface Water 1 in 30 Within constraint SSSI Impact Risk Consultation Area Within constraint

Page 11 Agenda Item 5

Planning Policy

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan

This previously developed site has long been allocated for redevelopment. Following the decision of the Electricity Board to close the station the site was allocated under Policy BE5 of the Barnstaple Local Plan for industrial purposes that will benefit directly from situating immediately adjacent to a riverfront and which cannot be reasonably accommodated elsewhere.

Policy FR7 of the superseded North Devon Local Plan (December 2000) specifically identifies Yelland Quay for industrial or quasi-industrial uses that require a coastal location or for tourism and recreational uses subject to safeguarding landscape, nature conservation and water environment interests. Policy FR4 required the retention of a storage and distribution area and jetty. The Policy was supported by a Development Brief adopted September 2000 as the Council identified a need to address public concerns over the future of Yelland Quay. The now superseded North Devon Local Plan (July 2006) under proposal FRE4 (Redevelopment of Yelland Quay) sought to encourage:

A) An Industrial or Quasi Industrial Use that requires a Coastal Location; B) Recreational Uses; or C) Energy Generation and Ancillary Economic or Community Uses

As set out in the planning history section of this report the policy did not result in any successful applications to regenerate the site. The review of the Local Plan in 2013/14 arrived at the following vision: the re-development of Yelland Quay to deliver infrastructure requiring a waterside location, water-compatible employment uses utilising the existing jetty and quay with supporting employment uses on land outside the flood zone to provide supporting services and facilitate local supply chains (Ref North Devon and Torridge Local Plan Publication Draft June 2014 Policy FRE: Fremington and Yelland Spatial Vision and Development Strategy).

All the relevant policies in the emerging drafts of the current Local Plan can be accessed through the Local Plan examination library with relevant document numbers identified in this report.

The Local Plan had significant aspirations to increase the amount of employment land within North Devon. The publication draft (document SUB1 in June 2014) and pre- consultation draft (EB/CONS/3 in 2013) both had a two paragraph policy for Yelland Quay (FRE02). Para 1 related to the application site, with para 2 for land south of the Tarka Trail. Originally employment land and a football pitch were planned south of the trail alongside the access road. Para 2 included provision of a public car park for use by those accessing to the trail.

After publication, consultation occurred on some main changes proposed (SUB2 in March 2015) prior to submission for examination. This included deleting para 2 as employment land was no longer proposed (as overprovision). It also introduced the concept for enabling development.

Page 12 Agenda Item 5

It was recognised that the site was likely to remain unviable if proposed for economic development alone as it had for the last 15-20 years, unless enabling development was accepted. At the time of policy preparation it remained one of the largest derelict and vacant brownfield sites in northern Devon. (The Fremington Army Camp appeal decision (53147) dated 2/7/13 provided a solution for that site).

The policy was redrafted to provide a more proactive or flexible strategy to make some form of redevelopment viable. The supporting text was amended to facilitate a small amount of (residential/commercial) development as a means by which to add value and to help make the site viable; although flood risk, contamination and other constraints would still need to be avoided. The expectation at this point was a small amount of enabling development but it depended on the level of development required to make redevelopment viable i.e. sufficient enabling development to make the scheme viable.

During the plan consultation process, application 60823 (submitted 17/03/16) identified the scale of development that would be needed to make the site viable.

At the first set of Examination hearings (Nov 2016), the enabling development was discussed given the objections to the policy, including those from Natural and RSPB relating to bird roosts.

Concern was raised that the current policy wording as submitted in June 2016 for ‘water compatible economic development’ was unsound due to concerns regarding deliverability, notwithstanding that paragraph 10.194 ‘will allow limited enabling development sufficient only to deliver a viable comprehensive regeneration of Yelland Quay incorporating water compatible economic uses‘.

This is further supported by paragraph 120 of the NPPF which encourages allocated land to be reviewed where it is considered there is no reasonable prospect of an application coming forward for the use allocated in the Plan, where reallocating the land for a more deliverable use can help to address identified needs.

Clarification was required by the Inspector about the upper case policy to set out precisely what was meant by ‘enabling development’ in order to facilitate a deliverable development on this large previously developed site and clarifying the proposed components of any mixed use redevelopment. At the close of the initial Hearing Sessions in December 2016, the Council was guided by the Inspector to produce a set of main modifications (PMM/92 to PMM/94) for public consultation during July to September 2017.

The Inspector wanted the policy to say how many homes were proposed as part of the redevelopment, which linked back to the work that had to be undertaken on the overall housing numbers and 5 year land supply. By having a number this could then be included in the supply and the housing trajectory, rather than acceptance in principle for an unspecified number.

The Inspector required the policy to be redrafted as a main modification (published in 2017). At the examination, the Inspector indicated the range of things she wanted included or deleted which resulted in modification (PMM/93 & 94).

Page 13 Agenda Item 5

At the same time, text was added with RSPB’s agreement as a commitment to commission the study on high tide roosts in the estuary. This was added to para 10.193A under PMM/94 in MMD01. Following an extensive round of public consultation on the main modifications to the Local Plan, the Inspector re-opened the Hearing Sessions in January 2018 where the Yelland Quay allocation (FRE02) was further discussed.

The 250 proposed houses was an indicative capacity. Matt Steart (as agent) had advised the Inspector that this is the scale of development likely to be needed to make redevelopment viable. A smaller number would still be acceptable if it made the scheme viable.

In September 2018, the Inspector issued her report on the examination of the North Devon & Torridge Local Plan which concluded at paragraph 186 that ‘with the recommended Main Modifications set out in the Appendix the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan satisfies the requirements of Section 20(5) of the 2004 Act and meets the criteria for soundness in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012’.

Paragraph 94 concluded ‘the Modifications to the allocated sites include a change to the vision for the land at Yelland Quay [MM27]. This former power station site is now proposed for a redevelopment which includes some 250 dwellings [MM28] in order to enable costly remedial action to be undertaken in its regeneration. Natural England is satisfied that such development can take place without harm to the nature conservation interests of the Taw-Torridge estuary SSSI and bird species of international importance’. File Ref: PINS/X1118/429/4

Therefore, Policy FRE02 within the adopted Local Plan has been given due consideration by the Inspector following extensive consultation with conclusion that the allocation is ‘Sound’ and it is in general conformity with Government policy.

This resulted in the adopted Vision for Yelland Quay contained in the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan and which states:

Redevelopment of this large previously developed site will contribute to its economic regeneration whilst safeguarding the long term future of the existing jetty and wharf. The development will deliver a high quality, mixed-use scheme incorporating new community facilities, residential and economic development that maximises opportunities associated with its waterside location. Development will complement the site's estuary landscape setting, whilst protecting sensitive ecological areas from development and enhancing the network of green infrastructure including formal and informal recreation facilities. The development will serve the existing community, whilst creating a distinctive sense of place and quality of life.

The specific policy for the site and the explanatory text is set out in full below:

Policy FRE02: Yelland Quay A site of about 30 hectares north of the Tarka Trail at Yelland Quay, as identified on Policies Map 4, is allocated for a high quality, mixed-use development that will deliver the following site specific development principles:

Page 14 Agenda Item 5

(a) redevelopment in a comprehensive manner in accordance with an agreed master plan; (b) approximately 250 dwellings the size and tenure of which will be reflective of local needs; (c) approximately 6,000 square metres of economic development and community facilities, compatible with its waterside location including business development, tourism and leisure uses; (d) buildings and structures will be sited and designed in accordance with an agreed 'Design Code' to address their visual impact on the open landscape setting of the estuary and to avoid any harm to the protected biodiversity value of the Site of Special Scientific Interest and other designated habitats in the locality; (e) retention of the existing jetty and wharf and provision of associated operational land, including a safeguarded vehicular access to it; (f) provision of adequate flood alleviation measures with design and distribution of uses to minimise and mitigate against any risks from flooding; (g) assessment and remediation, prior to commencement of redevelopment, of any site contamination arising from historic uses; (h) contributions to and enhancement of the green infrastructure network within and adjoining the site including the provision of a new football pitch with associated facilities and provision of informal open space on the site of the former ash beds; (i) provision of a net gain in biodiversity through enhancement of existing habitats; (j) contributions towards a wider study on the potential impact of increased recreational pressure on the SSSI and nesting birds in the estuary; (k) provision of a public car park for users of the Tarka Trail; (l) improvements to the existing road junction with the B3233; (m) improved pedestrian and cycle links through and around the site and from the B3233 to the Tarka Trail; (n) appropriate traffic management measures where vehicular traffic crosses the Tarka Trail to reduce conflict with, and improve safety for, pedestrians and cyclists using the Tarka Trail; (o) provision of a 10 metre landscape buffer along the developable site frontage alongside the Tarka Trail; and (p) opportunities for the generation of renewable energy.

The North Devon and Torridge Local Plan states:

10.197 Yelland Quay is a prominent previously developed site, the redevelopment of which will deliver economic and physical regeneration that will be master planned in accordance with the following design principles: a) delivering high quality design through an agreed 'Design Code'; b) promoting safe and healthy communities; c) providing a net gain in biodiversity; d) safeguarding existing minerals and waste infrastructure; and e) incorporating the development into the existing community.

10.198 The site is located to the north of the Tarka Trail adjacent to the Taw-Torridge estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), an area of national importance for the large number of over wintering wildfowl and waders that use the estuary and adjacent land, particularly in winter and on migration in spring and summer. For a few species,

Page 15 Agenda Item 5

the site is of international importance. The site is also within the buffer zone of the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. The redevelopment of Yelland Quay should avoid harm to the area's biodiversity value (Policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets) and will deliver a net gain in biodiversity through enhancement of existing habitats. A wider study is required to assess the potential impact on the Site of Special Scientific Interest.

10.199 The site also forms part of the developed coast and estuary, although the adjacent former ash beds that have been capped form part of the undeveloped coast and estuary (Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy). The former ash beds have an important biodiversity value whilst contributing to the wider green infrastructure along the Taw estuary. As such, new buildings will be minimised here with the open landscape character safeguarded for provision of additional green infrastructure. The jetty and wharf remain and are safeguarded through the Devon Minerals Plan to facilitate continued import and export of minerals. Redevelopment must have regard to the value of the existing concrete plant and the recycled aggregates facility in terms of the Devon Minerals Plan and the Devon Waste Plan respectively. Any development on this site must be in accordance with adopted policies within these documents (or successor documents) to retain future potential as a strategic quay facility for water- borne transport of goods. Flexible space accessible from the wharf will be provided as associated operational land.

10.200 Yelland Quay is at risk of tidal flooding. Flood risks will be managed by raising ground levels to reduce the extent and severity of flood risks both on site and elsewhere in the Taw estuary in accordance with Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience. Development will need to be designed to provide a safe means of escape from the site.

10.201 A mixed-use development at Yelland Quay will deliver a range of economic uses and community facilities including a business hub, tourism, leisure uses and approximately 250 dwellings, including a proportion of affordable housing. The provision of housing as part of a comprehensive redevelopment will facilitate a viable regeneration of North Devon's largest previously developed site. The residential development will also help to provide new facilities and social infrastructure for the wider benefit of the local community including a new football pitch and associated facilities as well as contributions towards the expansion of Fremington Medical Centre. The master plan will ensure there are no adverse impacts on residential amenities arising from the economic development and traffic associated with the existing jetty, wharf and associated operational land. Development that may have offshore implications may require licensing from the Marine Management Organisation.

10.202 Yelland Quay is prominent within the open landscape setting of the estuary. New buildings and structures should be located predominately on the site of the former power station, set back from the estuary frontage and designed to address their landscape impact, as well as securing environmental enhancement of the site. Due to the site's prominent location on the Taw-Torridge estuary and visual prominence within the wider landscape, including from Braunton Burrows, development should be designed to complement its sensitive landscape setting. External lighting will need to be designed to minimise light pollution on neighbouring protected habitats and species and the nearby Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Page 16 Agenda Item 5

10.203 Parts of the existing site are contaminated from its historic use as a power station, which is understood to include contamination from hydrocarbons, heavy metals and a substantial amount of asbestos. The capped ash beds must be safeguarded from disturbance. Levels of contamination will need to be assessed across the entire site and appropriate remediation agreed and undertaken before redevelopment occurs in accordance with Policy DM02: Environmental Protection. A phased approach to this remedial action could be undertaken across the site to facilitate phases of redevelopment in accordance with an agreed comprehensive programme of remediation works.

10.204 Vehicular access to the site will be along the access road off an improved junction with the B3233, as well as providing pedestrian and cycle links to the Tarka Trail. A new public car park of approximately 30 spaces will be provided for users of the Tarka Trail. Development at Yelland Quay will need appropriate traffic management where it crosses the Tarka Trail and South West Coast Path in order to reduce conflict with and improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists using these routes.

The other relevant policies of the NDTLP are listed below:

DM01 - Amenity Considerations DM02 - Environmental Protection DM03 - Construction and Environmental Management DM04 - Design Principles DM05 - Highways DM06 - Parking Provision DM07 - Historic Environment DM08 - Biodiversity and Geodiversity DM08A - Landscape and Seascape Character DM09 - Safeguarding Green Infrastructure DM10 - Green Infrastructure Provision DM12 - Employment Development at Towns, Local Centres and Villages DM17 - Tourism and Leisure Attractions DM18 - Tourism Accommodation DM21 - Local and Rural Shops

FRE - Fremington and Yelland Spatial Vision and Development Strategy FRE02 - Yelland Quay

ST01 - Principles of Sustainable Development ST02 - Mitigating Climate Change ST03 - Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience ST04 - Improving the Quality of Development ST05 - Sustainable Construction and Buildings ST07 - Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area ST08 - Scale and Distribution of New Development in Northern Devon ST09 - Coast and Estuary Strategy ST10 - Transport Strategy ST11 - Delivering Employment and Economic Development ST13 - Sustainable Tourism ST14 - Enhancing Environmental Assets

Page 17 Agenda Item 5

ST15 - Conserving Heritage Assets ST16 - Delivering Renewable Energy and Heat ST17 – A Balanced Local Housing Market ST18 - Affordable Housing on Development Sites ST22 - Community Services and Facilities ST23 – Infrastructure

Fremington Parish Neighbourhood Area was designated in November 2015 but there is no emerging or adopted Neighbourhood Plan that has arisen from this albeit work is underway.

The Devon Minerals Plan 2011 – 2031 (adopted February 2017)

5.6 Marine Aggregates 5.6.1 While marine-dredged materials form an important element of aggregates supply elsewhere in the UK, they only make a minor contribution in Devon. Small quantities of marine-dredged sand and gravel originating from the Bristol Channel are landed at two wharves in Appledore and at Yelland, with sales to the local North Devon market averaging around 48,000 tonnes each year. The Devon Minerals Plan does not apply to the maritime coastal and estuarial areas which adjoin the County (measured from the level of mean high water at spring tides), which are administered separately as stated in the Maritime & Coastal Access Act 2009.

5.6.2 Proposals for marine dredging of aggregates are decided by the Marine Management Organisation, making decisions in accordance with national maritime policy set out in the UK Marine Policy Statement (March 2011), Section 3.5 of which addresses marine aggregates. However, the Devon Minerals Plan does have a role in the safeguarding of transhipment sites and therefore safeguards marine wharves and associated facilities (Policy M2). The three wharves receiving marine aggregates in northern Devon have adequate capacity for increased levels of throughput to respond to any growth in future demand.

Policy M2 of the Devon Minerals Plan proposes the safeguarding of a range of mineral resources and transportation infrastructure, defined as Mineral Safeguarding Areas and shown on the Policies Map, to protect them from sterilisation by non-mineral development

Policy M2: Mineral Safeguarding Areas Mineral resources and infrastructure within the Mineral Safeguarding Areas defined on the Policies Map will be protected from sterilisation or constraint by non-mineral development within or close to those Areas by permitting such development if: (a) it can be demonstrated through a Mineral Resource Assessment and in consultation with the relevant mineral operators that the mineral resource or infrastructure concerned is not of current or potential economic or heritage value; or (b) the mineral resource can be extracted satisfactorily prior to the non-mineral development taking place under the provisions of Policy M3; or (c) the non-mineral development is of a temporary nature and can be completed and the site restored to a condition that does not inhibit extraction or operation within the timescale that the mineral resource or infrastructure is likely to be needed; or (d) there is an overriding strategic need for the non-mineral development; or

Page 18 Agenda Item 5

(e) it constitutes exempt development, as set out in the exemption criteria.

Mineral Consultation Area is exempt from the need for consultation with Devon County Council as Mineral Planning Authority:

(a) development in accordance with an allocation in an adopted Local Plan;

South West Inshore and South West Offshore Marine Plan

Some weight should be given to the policies within consultation draft South West Inshore and South West Offshore Marine Plan in accordance with NPPF paragraph 48.

It has been published for consultation so carries similar status to a publication draft Local Plan.

The most relevant policies of the draft SW marine plan are considered to be:

 SW-SCP-1 (seascape and landscape) : protecting the seascape and landscape of an area; taking measures in order of preference to avoid, minimise, or mitigate any adverse impact;  SW-CC-2 (climate change) : demonstrating for the lifetime of the development that they are resilient to impacts of climate change and coastal change;  SW-BIO-1 (biodiversity) : avoiding, minimising, mitigating (in order of preference) any significant adverse impacts on the distribution or priority habitats and priority species [need to check if the waders in the estuary are listed];  SW-BIO-2 (biodiversity) : avoiding, minimising, mitigating (in order of preference) any significant adverse impacts on native species; [which will include roosting waders]  SW-NG-1 (net gain and natural capital) : delivering environmental net gain for marine and coastal capital; taking measures in order of preference to avoid, minimise, or mitigate any adverse impact;  SW-DIST-1 (disturbance) : avoiding, minimising, mitigating (in order of preference) any significant adverse impacts on highly mobile species; [which will include roosting waders]  Whilst these policies are considered relevant, they are broadly in line with objectives of existing local plan policies relating to landscape, flood risk and biodiversity. The Council responded to the draft SW Marine Plan in spring 2020. This was the final stage before it was submitted to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for adoption. It has not yet been formally adopted. At the moment it remains as a material consideration, and will carry some weight equivalent to a local plan at examination.

Other

 North Coast AONB Management Plan 2019 – 2024 o Policy I4 of the AONB Management Plan (2014-2019) states that no development should be permitted inside or on the edge of the AONB that would have a detrimental impact on the landscape character or setting of the designated area.

Page 19 Agenda Item 5

o Policy A1 requires that landscape character and natural beauty are conserved and enhanced o Policy A4 that no development is permitted outside the AONB that would harm its natural beauty, character or special qualities. o Policy B5 aims to support and extend the range of internationally, nationally and locally important species o Policy B6 supports the long-term survival of vulnerable species within the AONB o Policy B7 aims to ensure that local coastal and marine species and habitats are conserved and enhanced. o Policy D6 aims to ensure that water quality and the state of the environment of inshore waters and streams supports biodiversity.  UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Strategy,  Taw Torridge Estuary Management Plan,  Taw-Torridge Coastal Management Study  Shoreline Management Plan  North Devon Biosphere Strategy for Sustainable Development 2014-2024

Consultees

This has been a complicated application and hence the consultation responses are presented in two parts. The first contains the comments of the Parish Councils and interest groups. These are presented in full. The technical and statutory consultees are interspersed with each chapter of the report for ease of reference. Some of these responses have been edited due to their length. The report makes it clear where they have been edited. All consultation responses have been published on the web site and can be accessed using the Planning Tracker.

The comments listed are primarily those made following the resubmission of the application in 2019. Comments from the original submission 2015 are only set out if they contain information not repeated in later responses.

In November 2019 the Local Planning Authority and the Fremington Parish Council were invited to attend a site visit to view the site as a number of the Councillors were newly appointed and had not had the benefit of the previous site visit.

Revisions were again made in 2020 resulting in a further round of publicity and advertisement. These revisions were made to address the consultation comments from the January 2019 re-submission. The main change was a reduction in housing numbers down to 250 (from 280), the removal of the proposed 50 bed hotel and an increase in employment space with a decrease in retail space. A summary of the changes is attached to this report.

Member briefings were held in January 2020 when the scheme was resubmitted in its current form and officers attended Parish Council Meetings to explain the application.

The applicant has since responded to comments made within the consultation responses and letters of representation in detail in June 2020. Additional consultation and public re-advertisement was undertaken with follow up engagement with the consultees as appropriate.

Page 20 Agenda Item 5

A virtual site meeting is being held to show the Planning Committee the site and to allow time for independent visits to be made to key viewpoints as necessary.

The highlights (bold text) aim to summarise the issues.

Name Comment Ashford Parish Ashford Parish Council wish to reply: No comment Council

Reply received 25 April 2016 Braunton Parish Braunton Parish Council wishes to object to this application on the Council grounds, as follows:

Reply Received Adverse influence on the Northern Devon UNESCO Biosphere 25 February Reserve the development will cause further damage to the 2020 landscape negatively impacting on this core area of the Biosphere Reserve putting North Devon at risk of no longer being able to defend its recognition as a world class environment by UNESCO. The Northern Devon UNESCO Biosphere Reserve is a key natural capital asset and has a value to the local community and its economy the loss of this world class environment would have a detrimental impact on the North Devon economy.

Adverse impact on the Braunton Greater Horseshoe Bat (GHB) roost as the site is an important connector between the north and south of the estuary, the development would result in a threat to protected species adversely impacting on foraging and nesting habitat for bats.

Adverse effect on the adjacent estuary which is a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) for its wildlife importance. Concerns being in close proximity to the RSPB's Isley Marsh Nature Reserve, also within the SSSI, the development during its construction phase and after construction will cause disturbance to overwintering birds and further decimate numbers visiting high tide roost areas in the vicinity.

Policy ST01: Principles of Sustainable development - adverse effect on the intrinsic environmental value and character of the landscape as the proposal will harm local wildlife and result in the loss of important wildlife habitat significantly outweighing the economic and social benefits.

Negative visual impact the design, height and appearance of the proposed development is not in keeping with the character of the estuary's landscape setting, raising the site by two metres and erecting six-storey buildings on top is inappropriate for the area.

Page 21 Agenda Item 5

Name Comment Increase in artificial lighting will have an adverse effect on native wildlife, particularly the GHB and other species that have evolved to be active during the hours of darkness.

Concerns increased risk of flooding the development does not take into account the latest data on sea level rise predictions being 2.5 metres. Yelland is already at risk of tidal flooding raising the land level and building the armoured wall sea defence will cause tidal displacement and put Braunton and other communities along the estuary at further risk of flooding. Policy BAR21: Flood Management Strategy - Flood management measures along the River Taw and its tributaries will re-establish functional flood plains in the Taw estuary and upstream of Barnstaple.

Concerns regarding asbestos contamination throughout the site disturbance to the soil could result in asbestos fibres leaching into the estuary causing severe water contamination.

Unsuitable landscaping to offset biodiversity net gain the proposed planting of trees will not survive the site conditions and salty winds experienced in the area.

Fremington It was RESOLVED that the Application be REFUSED for the Parish Council following reasons:

Reply Received The development would be visually intrusive in a largely unspoilt 4 February 2019 estuary setting of international importance.

It would introduce an unacceptable urban characteristic to the estuary that would adversely impact on the:

o SSSI Designation o The UNESCO Biosphere o RSPB Isley Marsh o Unacceptable impact on the ecology of the Taw and Torridge Estuary

There are profound concerns relating to significant contamination by asbestos on site which remain unanswered and which potentially pose unacceptable health safety risks.

Failure to demonstrate that there is sufficient capacity in the sewerage system

An increase in traffic along the B3233 especially through Instow during construction works with no proposed infrastructure improvements to accommodate the substantial increase in traffic movements along an already congested road

Page 22 Agenda Item 5

Name Comment The application does not include any education funding or recognises the requirement for a new school in the Instow/ Yelland catchment area Fremington RESOLVED: That the Application is recommended for refusal for Parish Council the following reasons:

Reply Received 1. The proposal will have an unacceptable impact on the 4 February 2020 estuary and an area of international importance which is at the heart of the Biosphere and a SSSI along with an RSPB reserve. 2. The visual impact will be intrusive on the estuary and other communities such as Heanton, Northam and Appledore and create an urban intrusion. 3. The Parish Council is concerned at the disturbance of the asbestos on site that would be required. 4. There is already significant development taking place within the Parish and no remedial works or proposals to deal with the highway issues and congestion within the area. 5. The infrastructure in the area is not adequate and there are not sufficient school and medical/health provision to cope with the increase this development would create. 6. The application is not policy compliant as it is not offering 30% affordable homes. 7. This development would not be compliant with the Councils current Climate Emergency declaration in particular the flooding projections. 8. The Council has concerns over the encroachment of green space. 9. There are questions over the accuracy of the environmental data used and that the Council requests North Devon Council to ensure that the most up to date information is used in the application. 10. There are concerns over the impact on migrating birds 11. There are grave concerns over the safety of crossing the road for pedestrians. In addition, that the Clerk writes to Seline Saxby MP and Geoffrey Cox MP to ask the minister to consider a change in Government Policy to ensure that potential developments do not ruin the local area.

Fremington It was noted that a viability assessment had appeared on the Parish Council Planning Portal and then disappeared, the Parish Council would ask if the Viability Assessment that is being independently Reply Received reviewed is the same assessment as was published or a new 7 July 2020 assessment

Heanton Refusal - Members expressed extreme concern that this Punchardon application would have a severe visual impact on the Taw Parish Council estuary, a noted tourist attraction in this part of North Devon.

Page 23 Agenda Item 5

Name Comment Reply Received 16 January 2019 Heanton The development is completely unsuitable for the location and is Punchardon in direct contravention of several of the key objectives and strategic Parish Council policies of North Devon and Torridge Local Plan, including Aim 2 parts (a - e) of the Spatial Planning Vision; Policies ST01 (in regard Reply Received to sustainability of development on the site under anticipated 5 February 2020 conditions of climate change; ST02 (b), ST03 (a,e,h,i,k); and ST09 (2,3,4,5).

The site was briefly developed under emergency government policy in the 1950's to 1980's, contrary to planning policies extant at the time, and has since returned to the natural state which befits an estuary riverbank adjacent to an SSSI, which hosts significant nature reserves and migrant and native bird populations. It is entirely unsuitable for re-development; cannot meet the sustainability requirements of the NPPF in regard to sea-level rise over the next 50-100 years; is heavily contaminated; and will further impact the already inadequate B3233.

In addition, the new proposals do not provide low-price and affordable dwellings to meet the needs of local people; do not meet North Devon Council 30% standard for affordable housing and incorporate development of green (undeveloped) land as well as that land previously deemed "brownfield". The Council believes that under the provisions of the NPPF this site could and should be designated as a protected green space, at significant risk from officially-predicted effects of climate change and of significant national, regional and local ecological and environmental importance.

Instow Parish We would recommend refusal based on the following: Council Generally: Reply Received In line with core planning principles and the policy on coastal 21 February change, decisions should avoid allowing inappropriate 2020 development in vulnerable areas and that the assessment suggests if guarantees cannot be given that the development will be safe through its planned lifetime without increasing risk to life or property, or requiring new or improved coastal defences then this development is inappropriate.

Brownfield sites are considered for redevelopment of not only housing and commercial buildings but also as open spaces for recreation, conservation, woodland etc. This site left to nature could blend into the landscape and increase biodiversity. The UK government signed the convention on biodiversity at the earth summit in 1992 with countrywide targets and action plans to

Page 24 Agenda Item 5

Name Comment conserve priority species some of which depend on wasteland/industrial habitats, such as this.

Specifically • This development has material conflicts with the following policy of the adopted North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2013- 2031. Policy ST09 Coast and Estuary Strategy and in particular Criterion 7 which requires all new development to safeguard the unspoilt character of the coast and estuary and Criterion 11 which requires the continuity of the South West Coast Path to be protected and improved with enhancements to coastal and estuary access as part of any regeneration proposal. • It also conflicts with the policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets and in particular Criterion h and Criterion J ‘increasing opportunities for access, education and appreciation of all aspects of northern Devon’s environment, for all sections of the community’. • At present (9 February 2020) there are no details on the website of any doctor’s surgeries or other community facilities as were suggested would be included by the planning officer at the Fremington meeting. • The roads around Fremington and Cedars are already very congested at peak times, and since the survey in 2013 there have been many developments in the area leading to more traffic. Until a realistic solution for the volume of traffic is found there should not be any further development. • The provision of one six storey block, 2 five storey and 9 four storey blocks of residential or office space is overdevelopment of the site. This development will be seen from miles away (as is shown in its photoshots provided) particularly at night. It is noticeable that the ‘photoshots’ of the development from various angles colour the taller buildings very light grey. This is unrealistic and the photoshots should be redone to show the taller buildings in dark grey before any decisions are made. • If 4, 5 and 6 storey blocks are allowed then this will set a precedent for other developments in the area. • 25% of the GDP of this area comes from tourism (Strategy Plan ref 8.42). Strategy 8.43 states the importance of the natural and historic environment providing an underlying attraction for visitors. • This new plan has enclosed part of the ash beds area which was supposed to be a public open space amenity under the North Devon Development plan. • This proposed development is surrounded by important areas which will be affected by it, all border the site or are part of it. ENV2 AONB; ENV3 Heritage Coast; ENV9 UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and SAC; ENV10 SSI; ENV16 Conservation Areas. The joint report from the bodies involved (English Nature, RSPB etc) is about to be published and should be read before any decisions are

Page 25 Agenda Item 5

Name Comment made. Interim results from the joint report commissioned by English Nature starkly show that there is already overuse of the area by people, and that any increase would cause grave damage to the SSSI and area. The consultations by RSPB, SW Footpaths and the letter in February 2019 from English Nature were very much against this development. English Nature does have objections and grave concerns. • Users of the South West Coast Path will be significantly and adversely affected by the nature, extent, proximity, scale, height and massing of the development. • This development also has material conflicts with the following policies of the adopted North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2013-2031. Policy ST04 Fails to show inclusive design improving access for users of South West Footpath. Policy FRE02: Yelland Quay and in particular Criterion (d) which requires buildings and structures to be sited and designed ‘to address their visual impact on the open landscape setting of the estuary’ and Criterion (m) which requires improvements to pedestrian links through and around the site. The development is also in conflict with the supporting text to Policy FRE02 in respect of the requirement for development to be designed to complement its sensitive and open landscape setting of the estuary (paragraph 10.202), to enhance the green infrastructure network (paragraph 10.206) and to secure improved accessibility and visitor experience (paragraph 10.208). • Flooding. The consultation on flooding projections states that no account has been made of the deterioration of Crow Point and does not take into account the latest data on sea levels. A new report should be commissioned to rectify this. • The present power station is a site where the protected species, the Braunton Greater Horseshoe Bat is found. There is grave concern that the bat boxes proposed by the developer are not at all adequate. • There is no data given for jobs created by this development. As the plans have been submitted by a large contractor, we can thus assume that there will be very little local work generated for local people. We can also assume that any jobs that are created in the long term will be minimum wage type of jobs: cleaning, groundsmen, wardens etc.

If the development is to go ahead the following conditions must be taken into account: • As part of the proposed development is in Instow Parish, there should be in addition to all the other S106 monies, substantial S105 money set aside for Instow Parish. • Due to the anticipated increase in numbers of pupils for Instow, Fremington and Roundswell schools, and later on secondary schools, the S106 should take account of the additional

Page 26 Agenda Item 5

Name Comment services that will be required. These have been assessed by Devon County Council as: Special Educational needs of £36,391, £840,417 for Primary schools, early years provision £62,500, primary transport £334,993, secondary school transport £143,568. A total of £1,417,869. This should be considered the minimum required. • The development should not be gated as this (as has been shown in other parts of the world) is detrimental to the community. Any gated community causes divide in the community, emphasising the social problems and causing resentment. • The developers should build and give to the community (perhaps with Fremington Council as trustees) suitable premises on site for a doctor’s surgery and a community hall for the use of the people of the area, not just the residents of the new development. • There should be at least 30% affordable/social housing as required by the North Devon District Council own recommendations (FRE02: Yelland Quay). This is 75 affordable dwellings. The affordable housing tenure mix would need to be at least 75% social rent (57 dwellings). This affordable and social housing should be peppered throughout the development and the social housing should first be offered to Instow and Fremington parish council residents as the development is situate in both parishes. • If the developers are claiming that the high costs of developing the site are a reason for the low number of affordable houses, the planning committee should take account of the availability of the £1 billion Housing Delivery Fund available to developers of contaminated brownfield sites, and of the Small Sites Fund (£630 million) which aims to help public landowners with infrastructure. If the developers take advantage of these funds then their contamination costs would be very little or almost none existent. • The developers are claiming that the site will cost £54 million to develop. Other District Councils have successfully challenged costings by developers by using independent consultants who have considerable knowledge of building projects, and have succeeded in imposing the amount of affordable housing required by the District council (in North Devon’s case 30%). • There should be no development over 3 storeys. As much of the development will be on raised ground (by 2.6m) even 3 storeys will be equivalent to 4 storeys. As much of the development will be second homes or holiday homes the same amount of housing could be generated on the same area without the tower blocks. • It is known that this site is badly contaminated with asbestos. Per the consultants report no investigation has been made of the asbestos sealed in the pump room, they have just

Page 27 Agenda Item 5

Name Comment ASSUMED that what they were told was true. Firstly, the developer should follow to the letter the recommendations by the Environmental Health consultant - Construction Environmental Management Plan Condition, or face financial fines that would make the site not viable. Secondly, the developers should be required to purchase an insurance bond with a pay-out limit of say value of around £100 million (or a sum to be determined by an independent actuary), which would be in place for at least 50 years for use in paying for problems from asbestos. This would be in addition to the normal bonds required by developers for residential properties. If permission is given by the District Council for development without proper investigation of the asbestos then they might be held liable in the event of the property company having been dissolved as they have a duty of care to the community. • No permission should be given until the missing Noise consultation has been received and published on the website giving consultees a chance to comment. • The developer should be required to screen the transformers for noise so the residents are not disturbed. • No permission should be given until the missing Air Quality report has been received and published giving consultees a chance to comment. • An independent traffic survey should be undertaken, not just at the junction of the site road with the B3233, but also at peak times in Bickington where the traffic has to pass through in order to get to Barnstaple. No permission should be given until this is done and the figures made public. If necessary, the developers should be obliged to buy land and build a road from Yelland to join the link road. We note that Highways are asking for £713,000 towards road improvements, transport etc in addition to the road works to be done on site. • Adequate parking spaces need to be provided on site to accommodate not only the residents of the 250 dwellings, but also visitors to the site. The car park outside the gated site is for visitors to the Tarka trail, not for visitors who cannot park on site because there is not enough parking. • There should be an enforceable covenant held by the local council that a marina and mooring of boats of the residents are not allowed to ensure that the tranquillity and wildlife of the area is not further disturbed. • Fremington parish council, on a trustee basis, should be given control of the ash bed park area to ensure that it is truly open to all and not just the residents of the development, and the curtilage of the houses bordering the ash beds should be reduced so that the ash beds are not encroached for this development. • S106 monies should be made available for local transport – the bus system. As the inhabitants of the dwellings

Page 28 Agenda Item 5

Name Comment are likely to be of pension age, they will be entitled to a free bus pass and the costs of these have to be paid for by the council.

Northam Town I have been asked to write to you to register objections to the Council above application. I have listed the Council's concerns below for your attention; Reply Received 10 February 1. Adverse effect on views from Appledore, Northam 2020 Burrows and Kipling Tors, Westward Ho! and on landscape generally Policies: NPPF170-171, Local Plan Policies ST14,10.190 (Protection of Landscape between Yelland and Fremington), Policy FRE and contrary to the Vision for Yelland Quay in that the development will not 'complement the estuary's landscape setting' or 'protect sensitive ecological areas'. Provision to raise the site levels by 8 metres with buildings erected on top, including a six storey building is totally unacceptable. 2. Adverse effect on tourism due to impact on landscape Policies: Local Plan Policy ST13 3. Restriction of access to open space Policies NPPF 96 4. Adverse visual impact on South West Coastal Footpath and other local footpaths See objections from South West Footpaths Association 5. Subject to climate change and flooding Policies: NPPF 148- 150, Local Plan ST03. Possible impact on dynamics of the estuary from construction of flood wall. 6. Disturbance of asbestos and other toxins Policies: NPPF 179,181 7. Potential pollution of the Taw and Torridge estuary due to disturbance of toxic materials on the site during construction phase Policy NPPF 109 8. Adverse effect on local highways: Policies: NPPF 109 particularly lorry movements during groundworks and construction 9. Adverse effect on adjacent estuary SSSI, Biosphere buffer zone and County Wildlife Sites. Policies: Local NPPF 170- 175. Local Plan ST14, DM08. See also Devon Trust, Natural England and RSPB objections. 10. Adverse impact on ecology of site Policies: NPPF 170-5 (See Devon Wildlife Trust Objections) 11. Adverse effect on tranquillity of the environment and dark skies Policy NPPF 180. Also reference effect of light pollution on wildlife, particularly bats (see Devon Trust comments) 12. The application fails to demonstrate that the development would fulfil the requirements in the Local Plan (ref FRE02) of a balanced housing market and there is inadequate provision for affordable housing 13. Not sustainable - NNP 8 ref economic sustainability the site is not in the 'right place', ref environmental sustainability the development is not sustainable in terms of impact on landscape and biodiversity, ref social sustainability the development would

Page 29 Agenda Item 5

Name Comment lack the required community services under Policy FRE02, Fremington lacks comprehensive services and the development would adversely impact recreational opportunities for local people.

Torridge District After assessing the application, Torridge District Council Planning Council Department wish to express that they have no observations on consultation. Reply Received The comments in this letter are purely officer opinion and are not 11 February binding upon the Officer or the Council. 2020 CAMPAIGN TO An objection and response by CPRE Devon. PROTECT RURAL The proposal fails to explain uses in terms of land use policy, how ENGLAND they have been informed by identified need, how the uses work well together, and how the proposal will achieve a high quality Reply Received place useful to the community focusing on economic objectives, 2 April 2019 above and beyond the environmental and social objectives – failing to deliver sustainable development, contrary to national and local planning policy.

Principle – no demonstrated need for additional housing and employment. It is appreciated that this site is allocated within the adopted North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011 -2031 (Local Plan). However, CPRE Devon have instructed an independent up to date study into the housing needs of Devon, by leading research company "Opinion Research Services" (ORS). This study: "Devon Housing Needs Evidence September 2018" has been presented to the RT Hon MP Sir Hugo Swire MP, who has shared the findings of the report with central government, in helping to drive forward housing which is:  based on appropriate and realistic numbers;  of a type which reflects local need;  and in a location which is sustainable.

The main findings of the research show that 4300 homes are required (per annum) for Devon over the next 10 years and that Devon Local Authorities and their Local Plans are seeking to deliver 5800 homes per annum – an excess of 1500 homes per annum across Devon. Furthermore, our independent research shows the predominant number of homes being delivered are unaffordable. The study has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority as evidence and needs to be circulated to Planning Committee members. The recently adopted Local Plan Policy FRE02 states: "approximately 250 dwellings the size and tenure of which will be reflective of local needs" Yet the proposal is for 280 dwellings – a 12% increase in numbers and the amended supporting statement fails to justify this number and provide a demonstrated need for the proposed 1 to 5 bed ‘high quality homes’ – no specific details on type, price, tenure to address

Page 30 Agenda Item 5

Name Comment identified market demand and to support a mixed use community – failing to meet the requirements of local and national planning policy.

The submitted ‘amended supporting statement’ contains just a short paragraph on affordable housing and states: "The proposal will deliver the appropriate level of affordable housing provision for the site in line with the Local Plan 2011- 2031." Within this document, there is no indication that there is no intention on behalf of the applicant to provide affordable housing, this coming to light having read the comments of the Service Lead – Housing Market Balance, back in 2016 stating: "I understand that the District Valuer has evaluated the viability assessment but I am still shocked to see that the regeneration of this area will require the cross-subsidy of 280 open market dwellings with zero affordable housing. On this site I would be expecting between 25-50% affordable housing as a brownfield site in a rural area." And: "Could it be that the project is too ambitious and that perhaps a different project could still achieve business advantages and regeneration of the area in question but NOT at the expense of Social Value to the tune of between £10-20 million?" Is this still the case? If so this just highlights the total imbalance of this scheme, and failure to pursue the objectives of sustainable development in a mutually supportive way, as outlined in national planning policy.

The proposal is for a 50 bed hotel and restaurant, B1 and an unspecified use within the application description of 2000sqm: "50 BED HOTEL (USE CLASS C1) SPACE OF UP TO 3000SQM. EMPLOYMENT (USE CLASS B1) SPACE OF UP TO 1000SQM GROSS FLOORSPACE; UP TO 2000SQM" The Amended supporting statement states: "The Vision – The Waterfront The proposal seeks to regenerate the existing brown field site to create a Mixed use development providing 280 units, 50 bed hotel, A1 use, A3 use and B1 use." Where is the emphasis on and inclusion of, community facilities, which Policy FRE02 requires? Clearly not within the vision of the proposal. The applicant refers to: "A unique community centre building can be found almost floating at the heart of this mini development" And the provision of: "1000sq.m B1 use, 2000sq.m A1 use, 2000sq.m A3 use " According to calculations, the employment and tourism offer relates to in excess of 8000sqm an increase of 33% (excluding the community facilities which once again aren’t mentioned) – these figures exceed the parameters of Policy FRE02 without any apparent justification for need and the exclusion of the community facilities. FRE02 states: "approximately 6,000 square metres of economic development and community facilities, compatible with its waterside location including business development, tourism and leisure uses;"

Page 31 Agenda Item 5

Name Comment Where is the analysis of need for the scale and use of the proposed development in context with national and local plan policy, and community aspiration? Policy, Design and Consultation The Planning Portal states: "A DAS must explain the design principles and concepts that have been applied to the development. It must also demonstrate how the proposed development’s context has influenced the design. The Statement must explain the applicant’s approach to access and how relevant Local Plan policies have been taken into account, any consultation undertaken in relation to access issues, and how the outcome of this consultation has informed the proposed development. Applicants must also explain how any specific issues which might affect access to the proposed development have been addressed." The submitted ‘amended supporting statement’ (we have been advised that this is the Design and Access Statement (DAS)) fails to meet the standards of a DAS, required by your validation. For example, it fails to address a number of issues fully, including policy and community engagement:

 The ‘contents’ of this document alludes to a section looking at planning policy, and yet there is no such section; and  The statement of community involvement is weak.

Where is the policy appraisal within the amended supporting statement, explaining how this proposal accords with Local Plan policy and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2018)? The applicant has failed to draw attention to particularly relevant policies and guidance that have affected the evolution of the proposal. For instance, in terms of design, this proposal should be subject to independent Design Review and make reference to Building for Life in line with para 129 of the NPPF.

Local Plan Policy FRE02 clearly makes reference to a design code and yet there is no mention of this within the ‘amended supporting statement’. The proposal is not demonstrating attempts to secure high quality place making. Para 128 of the NPPF 2018 clearly states: "Applicants should work closely with those affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community. Applications that can demonstrate early, proactive and effective engagement with the community should be looked on more favourably than those that cannot." The submitted document fails to identify what groups of people have been discussing the scheme, fails to explore the findings of any consultation and explain how these have directed the decisions made by the applicant. This is amplified by the failure of the applicant to even mention the emerging Fremington Neighbourhood Plan, and show a real exploration of the social context of the proposal, in terms of how people living in the locality

Page 32 Agenda Item 5

Name Comment will be affected by the development, including any aspirations they might have for the site.

This failure to carry out effective engagement, is amplified by the number of objections to this proposal.

Natural and Historic Environment The poor level of detail already mentioned in respect of the submitted DAS (or equivalent) is repeated in concerns echoed by AONB team in respect of the LVIA; RSPB in relation to the EIA; failure to consider historic assets; objections by Devon Wildlife Trust and concerns regarding the failure to deliver biodiversity net gain; the list goes on in terms of the inadequacies of this proposal in terms of meeting national and local plan policies, community aspirations and in supplying supporting justifications for this scheme.

Natural England have highlighted that the detail of the proposal is insufficient and warrants further justification, stating: "SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND’S ADVICE Further information advised to determine impacts on designated sites:

 As the Competent Authority, North Devon Council is required to conduct a Habitat Regulations screening to determine the significance of impacts on Braunton Burrows Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the scope for mitigation and to demonstrate that the requirements of Regulations 63 and 64 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 have been considered by your authority.  Further consideration is required regarding impacts on, and mitigation for, the Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI.  Amendments to the Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) are required to include necessary SSSI mitigation. Details are provided below. Without this information, Natural England may need to object to the proposal. Please re-consult Natural England once this information has been obtained."

Heritage have recently stated that: "the development will have a transformative effect on this part of the river bank. This will in turn have an effect on the significance of those heritage assets which have the river valley as part of their wider landscape setting, such as the two aforementioned churches, and the Conservation Areas. It is difficult to say quite what this effect will be, without detailed plans, but it is likely to be in the ‘less than substantial harm’ bracket, and so the public benefits of the scheme will need to be taken into account when the decision is made, under the terms of paragraph 196 of the NPPF."

Page 33 Agenda Item 5

Name Comment

It is clear that the proposal fails through lack of information, detail and consideration, to demonstrate environmental and public benefits, to outweigh the harm to the historic environment. The proposal’s disregard to the special character of undeveloped coast, a finite resource for everyone to enjoy, is highlighted by the objections raised by South West Coast Path Association. There is an overriding failure of this proposal to sustain local distinctiveness and character and protect, even where possible, and enhance North Devon’s natural and historic environment and assets, contrary to national and local planning policy.

Conclusion It is appreciated that this site is allocated within the Local Plan, however, the proposed scheme fails to adhere to national and local plan policy in terms of use and amount, the assessment, evaluation and justification is poor and the design is failing to deliver high quality place making – at the expense of community aspiration, the historic and natural environment. CAMPAIGN TO It would appear that the proposed description has been amended PROTECT positively e.g. reduction of unit numbers (see below) and a RURAL reconsideration of the scheme in terms of overall design approach, ENGLAND following the recommendations of the Design Review Panel (DRP). Furthermore, an Environmental Statement has also been submitted Reply Received alongside the application. 21 February 2020 However, unfortunately, the submitted supporting statement lacks a robust analysis and explanation for the amended scheme and how it addresses the concerns raised by the community and other stakeholders/consultees, nor does it demonstrate how the proposal draws upon the recommendations of the Environmental Statement. This document, as raised before, falls short in both detail and evaluation to justify this proposal.

The planning portal does not appear to allow members of the public to read the statutory consultee responses – can the Local Planning Authority please explain why? It is noted that a number of bodies have yet to reply, their responses are imperative to the consideration of this significantly amended scheme.

The inability to consider statutory consultee remarks and the poor quality supporting statement, hinder a thorough analysis of the amended scheme.

As the statement says it: “Provide(s) information regarding the development in terms of its amount, layout, scale, landscaping, appearance, phasing, access and movement.” – not a justification!

Page 34 Agenda Item 5

Name Comment In terms of DRP, is their valued input going to be sought in assessing this submission, to ensure that the scheme delivers an example of high quality design and place making?

It is noted that the supporting statement has omitted to justify e.g. why the scheme falls short in its delivery of 6000 sqm (providing 5500sqm) of economic development and community facilities, why the football pitch has been omitted – this potential loss of economic and social benefit has not been explored to allow an informed balanced consideration of the proposal.

Conclusion It is appreciated that this site is allocated within the Local Plan, however, the proposed scheme fails to adhere to national and local plan policy in terms of use and amount, the assessment, evaluation and justification is poor. The continued input from the Design Review Panel is imperative to ensure delivery of a high quality scheme. Without access to statutory consultee responses, it is difficult to consider the proposal robustly. The scheme fails to demonstrate that it will deliver benefits/net gains across the three objectives: economic, social and environmental.

The application should be refused.

Representations

The application has been advertised on numerous occasions the following letters of representations have been submitted:

Support: 2 Object: 704 Comment: 17 Total: 723.

All but a handful have been opposed to the development. Every letter of representation submitted since 2015 has been read and is summarised below. To assist the Committee the comments have been sorted into themes.

Issues raised are covered within the report. Any comments in italics are responses to issues not covered elsewhere.

Representation Summary: Those in Objection

1. Application Submission

 Public engagement in the whole process ranging from adequate one day developer consultation event (52 responses)/LPA/decision/localism of decision making

Page 35 Agenda Item 5

 Scheme requires independent review/independent experienced/competent planning officers  Concerns that the change in case officer (third) will lose historic context of strength of feeling of community  Council is not capable or competent to enforce regulations e.g. Fremington Army Camp issues and DCC’s handing of issues at Yelland Quay in 2014  Role of Planning Authority in delivering Govt Policy v localism  Application is not signed so is invalid (the published copy is redacted for data protection purposes)  Questions the independence of reports  Inconsistencies in documentation  Inadequacy of the ES and inaccuracies in supporting statements (lighting, noise, TA, contamination & ecology)  Under consideration for an extraordinarily extended period of time during which the applicants have been allowed to make unlimited amendments  Would like to see a model of the development  Clarity of plans (revision numbers and details)  Access to Design Review Panel Comments (these have been published on the web)  Changes do not affect total opposition to the principle

2. Principle of Development

 Contrary to Corporate Plan 2019  Contrary to the Spatial vision  Contrary to policies in NDTLP  Local plan consideration of this site inadequate (see policy section of report)  Local Plan Designation – Related to a marine environment – Commercial use/ no public engagement in policy change – no change of use granted  Should be plan led empowering local people to shape their surroundings – residents understanding of policy & policy development  Does not address and is contrary to all aspects of adopted policy  Contrary to the AONB management Plan

 100’s objections indicate that scheme is not in the public interest  Local people do not want this development  Residents feel ignored by the Tarka Ridge decision  Legacy we leave for the future

 Contrary to NPPF guidance on brownfield sites  Fremington army camp was a larger brown field site at 15.5ha  Inspector supported brownfield part of site, not the greenfield  Brownfield register BFL/FRE/028 – extends onto greenfield land  Not a brownfield site due to planning history  Reg4 of the TCP(Brownfield Land Register) Reg 2017 should be applied  Applying Government blanket policy re brownfield sites with no discrimination  In wales/Midlands/the north they have returned industrial land to nature  Site should be publicly acquired to ensure restoration.

Page 36 Agenda Item 5

 Requires restoration – can’t be left as is.  Removal of power station resulted in estuary enhancements  The estuary should be provided with a buffer restricting development  Site should be left undeveloped & returned to a natural asset

 No strategic requirement to build in this location  There are other more appropriate sites for housing  Housing should be next to employment areas  Perception that ND has met its housing targets  Housing targets for Fremington already met  General concerns about build rates around Barnstaple  Instow/Yelland/ Bickington /Barnstaple infill development – 5 year land supply discussions  There will be pressure for other estuary development  Cumulative impact with other developments – Fremington Army Camp, Allenstyle, Mead Park, Sampsons Plantation, Tews Lane, West Yelland (now Tarka Ridge), Anchorwood Bank (1200 units)  Homogenisation of Bickington, Fremington, Yelland  Empty properties and 2nd homes creating housing shortage  Strategy to deal with empty homes before building more  Too many houses already built/remain unsold

 Need more public open space not housing  A ‘green’ alternative solution is required for this site  Alternative development more acceptable – single quality hotel  Remove commercial elements in favour of more houses.  Use site for wind turbines

3. Infrastructure

 Development is occurring with no additional infrastructure  Infrastructure should be delivered before development e.g. Roundswell School  Inadequacy of and impact on infrastructure (schools/health (GP’s & hospital )/ No NHS dentist/mains drainage/ sewerage treatment)  Yelland has no facilities (shops/PO/community centre/play etc.)  Realism of delivery of a GP surgery  Lack of on-site community facilities ‘D’ uses  No need for café – Fremington Quay/Instow plus café within new business units off Yelland Quay Road  Can residential capacity be accurately assessed to arrive at accurate contributions?  S106 requests are never enforced  Lack of formal play facilities  No football pitch  Concerns about development creep onto areas of open space  No jobs.  Social hubs relationships to Tarka Trail  Access right to site (already publicly used)

Page 37 Agenda Item 5

4. Form of development

 There are no other developments, other than historic towns and villages that stretch down to the waterside  No integration with Yelland and Fremington  Scale of development/over development  A smaller scheme would be more suitable but less viable  Proposal will result in Holiday/second homes/retirement homes/price out locals/gated style community  Targeted at affluent 2nd home owners  Restrictions required over sub letting  Inspector stated 240 dwellings so why does plan state 250? Developer 280!  Are additional 30 units (12%) justified  Part of the site is in Instow – growth will increase by 20%

 Exceptional need for affordable housing in North Devon  Build affordable housing for local people  Affordable housing (lack of) – 30%/35%/40% not 10%  Integration of affordable housing units/ghetto/add on  If 10% are AH, 90% do not meet local housing needs  Disabled adapted/Homes for Life  Application does not fulfil local housing needs for smaller affordable homes for local working families  Single and shared access for elderly

 Strategic Housing Market assessment – oversupply of larger homes  Scheme must indicate size, tenures, occupation density  Housing mix (4/5 bed) does not reflect local needs  Oversupply of 4 bed units (Tarka Ridge application to now deliver smaller units) (application was subsequently withdrawn so housing mix remains as originally approved)

 Empty hotels (no longer part of this scheme)  Existing hotel capacity taken up by homeless – need social housing next to employment areas

5. Design

 Impact of raising site levels & scale of development (height)  Landmark v visual blot  Fails to deliver high quality place making  Poor Urban design approach  Private focus of design approach  Modern villages do not contain apartment blocks  Design does not match a ND Design style  Form of development does not reflect local buildings  Proposal modelled on sites in Plymouth, Poole, Bristol & Hale

Page 38 Agenda Item 5

 North Devon character is not Southend on Sea/Milton Keynes/Benidorm /Blackpool /Florida /Thames  Not a seaside resort  Vernacular form of Fremington/Yelland single and 2 storey  Chalets and bungalows dominate the area  Objections to ‘landmark’ buildings  Indicative sections required  Height of buildings (2-4 max)  4/5/6 storey building is inappropriate  No illustrative detail of the 5/6 storey feature buildings  No four storey properties on the seafront in Instow  The taller elements will be intrusive and not screened  Seaside colours selected by residents increase visual impact  Design does not mitigate visual impact – larch (natural materials ) v render  Power station colour blended to minimise impact  Issues raised by DRP not addressed  Not sustainable e.g. solar orientation/renewables  Amended scheme is tweaking/window dressing  Result in wind tunnels/vortexes  Review of renewable technologies is inadequate  Adds to carbon footprint

6. Contamination

 The Yelland power station was built at an exceptional time in our history – one where environmental considerations were not at the forefront of decision making – should not be used as a precedent now  Grants for clearing contaminated land  Land Remediation Relief – 115% tax credit - the tax scheme by Govt would provide developer support so there is no justification for the intensification of development  Battersea – asbestos had to be removed  Site contamination and impact on health (asbestos & other pollutants)  Airborne asbestos risks  What happens to buried asbestos if the buildings above catch fire?  Inexperience of dealing with asbestos  Adequacy of Concrete capping  Quality of concrete/untested – 30 years old  Future management of contamination over the lifetime of the scheme (100 years)  Needs insurance to deal with post development contamination issues  Extension of build into Ash beds  No construction involving deep foundations would be feasible  Risk to release of pollutants from pile driving

 Construction impacts (Lorries & dust)  Length of build (14 years).  Noise from pile driving

Page 39 Agenda Item 5

 CO2 emissions from lorries traveling to site with fill materials estimates at 268,000kg of C02  Testing required of all imported materials  Impact of the oil deport  Radon gas  Electromagnetic radiation from existing transformer station/pylons – risk to health and safety

7. Transport/Access

 DCC Highways powerless to oppose  TA is becoming less realistic with time /TA figures 2014/TA bus information is out of date  Cumulative impact with other developments – Fremington Army Camp, Allenstyle, Mead Park, Sampsons Plantation, Tews Lane, west Yelland (now Tarka Ridge), Anchorwood bank (1200 units)  Highway capacity inadequate.  Traffic increases – Car based scheme- Lack of buses to site & disconnected from amenities (more than 5min walk to bus stop)  Traffic impacts on journey to work/school times  DCC comprehensive infrastructure review is still outstanding  Significant highways improvements required  B3223 used when link road is closed  B3233 is overwhelmed/pollution  Narrowing the B3223 adds to issues  Right turn lane is impossible as two buses have difficulty passing  Junction design & movement of bus stop - impact on existing properties  Impact of junction works on residents accesses to their houses  Lack of pavements on north side of B3233  Traffic exhaust pollution  Damage to roads from development – not repaired  The jetty should be used to import all materials to limit the impact on the roads

 Impact on Tarka Trail/SW coast path/temporary (construction)/permanent  Impact on Tarka Trail crossing  Conflict of use Tarka Trail -peak leisure time is when business uses are limited – this will change with a residential scheme  Tarka Trail – restrictions over use/raised crossover design- disabled-flat  Diversion of SW coast path unacceptable  Impact on SW Coast Path  Damage to tourism use of trail  On road car parking by people who access the trail – restricts access to Yelland Quay  Inadequate on plot parking results in more vehicles on the roads  Car park – Free for those using trail?  Walking distance to schools (see West Yelland appeal)  Preclude the reinstatement of the railway

Page 40 Agenda Item 5

8. Natural Environment - Ecology

 Contrary to climate change emergency declaration and the pledge for nature  Priority is natural environment  Ecological environmental concerns outweigh brown field site status  Natural environment should be prioritised over development  Live in times of environmental emergency  Environmental holocaust  Destroy the tranquillity of the place  Lack of diversity of the countryside  Loss of countryside feel and rurality of Yelland  DCC Pledge for Nature  DWT bought Horsey Island – exemplar  Contrary to English Nature proposals for the coastline  Impacts on SSSI/Biosphere/ AONB/Home Farm Marsh (GAIA Trust)/RSPB reserve  lack of recognition of the important of natural species  People and wildlife cannot coexist  Public Spaces Protection Order Dog control  Conflict humans and wildlife  Impact of pets on wildlife Impacts on wildlife biodiversity – from wild to managed /wintering migratory  Impact on Red and Amber bird species bats/Spiders/Glow worms etc  Effect on otters/birds/high tides roost by increased number of dogs/people  Current use of Ash beds is destroying wildlife contrary to planning conditions re use  Birdlife already disturbed by development at West Yelland  Loss of heronry and ravens nests (pine trees)  5 heron nest sites replaced with 5 platforms – where is the net gain?  Offsetting not defined – no net gain in biodiversity  There is no adequate mitigation  Bat building inadequate mitigation  Protected species measures will be ineffective given length of build – site recolonised  Impact of lighting on estuary  Bat dark corridor conflicts with pedestrian safety crossing Tarka Trail  Light Pollution  Needs detailed on site oversight by a nature conservation officer during build  No net biodiversity gain  Developer makes inadequate compensation for wildlife  Biodiversity off setting cannot compensate for on-site habitat destruction on this sensitive area

9. Natural Environment – Landscape

 Visual impact on estuary – AONB  Impact on biosphere reserve  Destroy coastal area

Page 41 Agenda Item 5

 Impacts on unspoiled estuary  Irreparable damage to the estuary  9km of undeveloped estuary from Anchorwood to Instow  Damage to emotional wellbeing – much loved and cherished environment  Marred by remains but nature is taking a hold  Whilst the site is ugly now, the scheme will result in a permanent blot on the landscape  Urbanisation of the river environment which people on the Tarka Trail experience as natural  Loss of beautiful panoramic and uninterrupted estuary views  Impact on/Loss of views  Visual impact of the development/impact on views of the estuary from both sides Westward Ho!, Northam, Appledore, Worlington, Instow, Braunton, Ashford, Saunton Sands, Chivenor, Wrafton, Heanton Punchardon, Crow Point  Impact in Instow second beach  Impact on Instow of pony field development on estuary  Impact Downend has on Croyde  Planting mitigation unlikely to be effective  Removal of existing trees  Requirement for a detailed landscape specification

 LVIA is misleading/ Photomontages misleading  LVIA demonstrates the impact of 5/6 storey and prominence  Photo montages show retained trees whilst tree report show them removed  Scots pines are a feature for miles around  Impact on TPO’d trees  Loss of on-site trees  Whilst trees may be C2 they provide significant landscape features  Pressure from resident to remove trees to gain views  If you buy by the estuary properties residents will want access to the water

 Views from Tarka trail not represented  Inadequacy of screening  Effectiveness of tree screening given the hostile environment  Deciduous planting means the visual impact on winter will be greater  Adequacy of light report – dark skies/residential illumination  More details required to support the outline planting strategy  Impact of chain link fence  Bird screen will detract from enjoyment of river/views  Amendments do nothing to address devastation impact of the scheme

10. Flood Risk & Water Environment

 Climate Change agenda – climate emergency  National agenda to steer development away from flood plains  Rising of site levels  Sea levels rises predicted as 2.5 m – defences 1.1m  Adequacy of see level rise modelling

Page 42 Agenda Item 5

 Impact on sea e.g. at Dawlish  Role of the site at times of flood/ its absorption ability – loss of flood plain  Flood Risk/climate change/does raising this site then impact on others?  Design of the wave defence brutal & impacts it will have  Wave impact on Crow Point  Crow point already eroded – impact on estuary – boggy marsh land  Design of surface water system at high tides  Concern about impact on water environment  Existing surface water flooding issues (B3233) blocked drains  Impact of site suds on water contamination  Route of connection to the SWW pumping station is unknown  Sewerage issues will directly affect estuary  Water supplies are inadequate  EA advise to keep away from Northam Burrows  Health and safety risk from water features

11. Economic considerations

 Site more appropriate for a new power station  Retention of concrete plant?  Quay is valuable asset to the estuary/construction industry  Historic links to industry  Strategic importance of jetty – UK’s renewable policy - tidal range  Commercial value of site –access to sea – used for recycling  Marine renewables 100% sustainable energy policy – Tidal range  Economic benefits are questionable  Do the benefits significantly & demonstrably outweigh the adverse impacts  Economic claims misleading can only be given limited weight– 500 jobs – wages/skills not justified  No economic value to the area – low paid jobs only in tourism/caring  Short term construction jobs do not balance negative impact on tourism  What commercial interest is there in the site?  Economic benefits are not substantiated – 3000m2 of B1 employment – can this be delivered creating high quality jobs  House to job ration calculator has been discredited  Distrust the developer’s vision, can it be delivered?  Independent review required of the Viability Appraisal  Impact of retail uses on other local shops  Purchased cheaply as employment land  Marine development aspirations linked to Plymouth University unrealistic  No guarantee that New Homes Bonus will be forthcoming  Greed/profit/money making scheme  Impact on Covid on economy  Impact on Tourism  Restrictions on the operation in the past – economic viability

12. Heritage

Page 43 Agenda Item 5

 Impact on Worlington Hill  Importance of archaeological sites

7. Other  Impact on Marine base from jet skies  Trinity house should be consulted re Impact of lights on navigation – ‘lighthouse’ restaurant  Future ban on natural gas  Comparable to APP/R1038/W/18/3216245 North Wingfield, Derbyshire  Years of disruption will be caused by the development  Length of build 15 years  Weekend construction disruption

 Detailed conditions would need to be applied to inform the reserved matters  Conditions required to secure design/build standards/renewable energy  Building For life assessment

Representation Summary: Those in Support

 Supports a public car park for those using Tarka trail  Redevelopment of a brownfield site  Allocated in local plan for development  Provides much needed housing

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

The report will cover the following

1. Proposal Description 2. Planning Policy 3. Form and Layout of development & Design 4. Amenity Impacts including Noise, Air Quality, and Construction Management 5. Contamination 6. Waste and Minerals 7. Natural Environment/Biodiversity, Lighting 8. Arboriculture, Landscape & Visual Impact 9. Impact on Heritage Assets 10. Transport & Movement 11. Flood Risk & Water Quality 12. Drainage - Surface and Foul 13. Social and Economic Impacts 14. Infrastructure – Affordable Housing, Public Open Space, Education, Health 15. Section 106 - Head of Terms 16. Planning Balance

Recommendation and conditions

Page 44 Agenda Item 5

1. Proposal Description

1.1 The application was originally screened and scoped under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 and a full Environmental Statement (ES) was submitted.

1.2 The revised submission has been rescreened/scoped under the 2017 regulations and a revised ES has been supplied. This contains 3 volumes

 Volume1: Main Text and Figures and  Volume 2: Technical Appendices.  Volume 3 The Non-Technical Summary, which provides a summary of the Proposed Development and the findings of the ES in non-technical language (this is attached)

Full Application

1.3 The application is a Hybrid Planning Application which provides full details of the:

 site preparatory works to allow for the implementation of the access and highways works to the site  The importation of fill material (via the existing access road);  The raising of site levels by up to 2.6m in height with an AOD of 8.6m over the area of the former power station;  Provision of the car park to serve the Tarka Trail  provision of a bat habitat building and bird screen and lagoon

1.4 The first phase of works will involve the demolition of all existing structures to allow for site clearance and filling. One of the first required reserved matters will be for the design of the new sea defences (rock armour) as these need to be in place to protect the development from flooding. The timing will be dependent on ecological mitigation given their proximity to the over wintering

1.5 Prior to the main construction phase material will be imported to the site to fill the existing turbine rooms and raise the levels across the site to reduce the risk of flooding. This could potentially be completed by road or sea to reduce the impact of HGV trips. It is understood that 2580m3 of fill material will be required for the turbine rooms and 157,950m3 is required to raise the land above the flood plain. It is estimated that this material will be transported to site over 12 to 14 months. Approximately 64 daily trips will be required to complete the fill operation in this time period, which equates to approximately 8 HGV trips per hour

1.6 Due to the scale of the development, the above works will be completed across the site in sections, so some areas will be fully complete before the site clearance and filling stage has been completed in other areas. A detailed infrastructure delivery plan Y029 18 205 P has been produced along with a draft CEMP.

1.7 The development proposals would be undertaken in 9 phases with an approximate 13 year build programme

Page 45 Agenda Item 5

Outline application

1.8 The outline application is submitted with a ‘masterplan’ (Site Plan drawing number Y029 18 204V and Proposed Storey Plan & Design Code Y029 18 206I) which shows how the development could be laid out. This is also seeks to address, Scale and Mass together with Layout for development to be known as ‘The Waterfront’ Yelland Quay.

1.9 Criteria (b) of FRE02 requires approximately 250 dwellings, which is the number applied for. The agent has confirmed that these will range from 2 bed to 5 bed units. The mix would be determined at the reserved matters stage in line with ST17. Criteria (c) of FRE02 requires approximately 6,000 square metres of economic development and community facilities, compatible with its waterside location including business development, tourism and leisure uses. The application proposes mix of uses within the following quantum’s.

 Employment Space of up to 3000sqm (Use Class E(g)(i) Offices to carry out any operational or administrative functions, E(g)(ii) Research and development of products or processes was Use Class B1)  Retail Space of up to 250sqm gross floorspace; (Use Class E(a) Display or retail sale of goods, other than hot food was Use Class A1)  Café and Restaurants of up to 2000sqm. (Use Class E(b) Sale of food and drink for consumption (mostly) on the premises was use class A3).  Service and Community Space of up to 500sqm Gross floorspace. (Use Classes E(d) Indoor sport, recreation or fitness (not involving motorised vehicles or firearms), E(e) Provision of medical or health services (except the use of premises attached to the residence of the consultant or practitioner), E(f) Creche, day nursery or day centre (not including a residential use), F1(a) Provision of education, F1(b) Display of works of art (otherwise than for sale or hire) F1(e) Public halls or exhibition halls, F2(b) Halls or meeting places for the principal use of the local community was use Class D1 and D2)  Open Space (see Heads of Terms for breakdown of the area)  Inclusion of large water bodies to provide buffer to Overwintering birds to West of application site

Other works

1.10 The third part (C) of the application involves all the associated infrastructure including removal of any contamination, roads, footpaths, cycleway, drainage (including attenuation works), flood defence works, landscaping & appearance, public open space, utilities & vehicle parking& including demolition of buildings.

1.11 Criterion (d) of FRE02 states that all buildings and structures will be sited and designed in accordance with an agreed 'Design Code' to address their visual impact on the open landscape setting of the estuary and to avoid any harm to the protected biodiversity value of the Site of Special Scientific Interest and other designated habitats in the locality. Whilst this is an outline application, a Building for a Healthy Life Assessment & Design Code Rev B has been provided. This would need to be conditioned and would inform the reserved matters.

Page 46 Agenda Item 5

1.12 Criterion (e) requires the retention of the existing jetty and wharf and provision of associated operational land, including a safeguarded vehicular access to it. The Masterplan shows this along with a lay down area.

1.13 Whilst the application is in outline, sufficient information needs to be supplied to allow a decision to be taken on the quantum of development and its distribution across the site. The application is supported by a Site Plan and a Proposed Storey Plan and Design Code.

1.14 The layout will flow from a main spine road that will twist through the centre of the site and will terminate at the jetty. This jetty area will also be the location for one of two commercial zones. The other commercial zone will be next to the site entrance just north of the Tarka Trail. Within these areas will be a series of detached buildings set around a central piazza. These areas would include shops, restaurant, bike hire, café and a potential doctor’s surgery (or similar community use). These commercial buildings will be single storey.

1.15 From this main route more minor roads will lead to the east and west. At the site edges with the waterfront and former ash pit area, development will be 2 storey residential primarily single plot units. Development within the heart of the site will feature a terrace form of development which would include 2 and 3 bed apartments with car parking courts to the rear. Within this zone development will be a mix of 3, 4 and 5 storey units.

1.16 Areas of blue and green infrastructure feature prominently within the site and along the site edges. The application is supported by a Strategic Landscape Masterplan. A strong green planted edge is shown between the built form and the former ash bed area which forms a major area of informal open space.

1.17 Paragraph 10.202 of the Local Plan states ‘Yelland Quay is prominent within the open landscape setting of the estuary. New buildings and structures should be located predominately on the site of the former power station, set back from the estuary frontage and designed to address their landscape impact, as well as securing environmental enhancement of the site’.

1.18 Detailed plans have been provided showing the access into the site. This will be discussed in greater detail in the Highways and Transport & Movement section of this report.

2.0 Planning Policy

2.1 In the determination of a planning application Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is relevant. It states that for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination is to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for this area includes the Devon Waste Plan and North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. The relevant Policies are detailed above.

2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration

Page 47 Agenda Item 5

Principle of development and site allocation

2.3 Paragraph 59 of the NPPF is clear that to help deliver the Governments objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, a variety of land should come forward where it is needed and that permission should be granted where there are no overriding development plan issues. In this instance, as the site is allocated for development, considerations around the five year housing land supply do not result in the need to evoke the ‘tilted balance’. The delivery of this site for housing would however contribute to the required housing targets and help support the Council’s 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites.

2.4 Spatial policy ST01 takes a positive approach to the provision of sustainable development. This site is sustainably located, being situated within the Fremington/Yelland area and is readily accessible to the shops and facilities within Fremington, and accessible to sustainable modes of transport (Bus routes/cycle/footpaths) and to the local road network (B3233) to access facilities of Barnstaple and beyond.

2.5 Spatial Policy ST08 focusses development within the development boundaries of the sub regional and main centres to increase sustainable growth. The development of this site for 250 dwellings contributes to the planned provision of a minimum of 17,220 dwellings throughout Northern Devon in accordance with ST08 and will contribute to the Council’s five year housing land supply.

2.6 Fremington and Yelland is a Local Centre defined in Schedule A of policy ST07 (1) where, within such centres development is supported in accordance with the local spatial strategies. The Fremington and Yelland Spatial vision would seek to deliver a minimum of 426 dwellings, including affordable homes to meet a range of community housing needs throughout the period of the local plan to 2031. The provision of the 250 units will contribute towards this minimum figure.

2.7 There has been significant development in both Fremington/Yelland and the adjoining parts of Barnstaple. Whilst residents express the view that the locality has ‘received its share of development’ and objects vociferously to more, the figures quoted are not maximums. Given the fragile position relating to housing delivery the emphasis should be on ensuring that allocated sites such as this come forward for development in a timely manner to protect land outside of the defined development boundaries. Some context information about approved sites is provided below.

Application Site Address Capacity No. Net. 61119 Larkbear (total 820) 236 70954 Larkbear (Phase II) 252 (Pending Decision) 56232 & Land off Old Torrington Road (adj. Brynhyfryd), 49 57085 Roundswell 60871 Land east of Old Torrington Road, Roundswell 89 53881 Land West of Tews Lane, Roundswell 350

Page 48 Agenda Item 5

Application Site Address Capacity No. Net. 56351 Land off North Lane, Bickington 65 55479 Land at Glenwood Farm (Phase I), Roundswell 83 60854 Land at Glenwood Farm (Phase II), Roundswell 73 63553 Land at Glenwood Farm (Phase III), Roundswell 53 60985 Land West of Mead Park, Bickington 61 60234 Land at Mead Park (Phase I), Bickington 61 62783 Land at Mead Park (Phase II), Bickington 44 64203 Land West of Oakland Park South, Sticklepath 34 66229 Land off Old Bideford Road, Roundswell (BAR08 (Pending - Allocated for a 50 bed unit of self-contained Decision) extra care housing) 61482 Land at Allenstyle, Yelland 73 53147 Fremington Army Camp 277 57663 Land adj. B3233, West Yelland 135 50265 Land South of Yelland Road (off Sampsons 37 Plantation)

2.8 The North Devon and Torridge Local Plan shows this site, whilst not within the development boundary for Fremington and Yelland as a formal allocation. As set out in the Policy section, the site was allocated within the old adopted North Devon Local Plan (July 2006) under Proposal FRE4 for an industrial or quasi industrial use that requires a coastal location. Therefore, from a policy perspective the principle of redevelopment on this previously developed site has been well established for a long period of time subject to formal planning permission being granted.

2.9 The site is now the subject of a specific allocation in the plan under policy FRE02 for a mixed use development including residential. The policy section also details why changes were made to this policy and addresses the comments raised within the representations section of this report with regards to how policy has evolved over time and the amount of public engagement that has occurred. The allocation has been thoroughly tested at examination and is the adopted policy for this site.

2.10 The mixed-use proposal is acceptable in principle subject to all site specific development principles as set out within Policy FRE02 being met or addressed and the ‘Vision’ for the site being satisfactorily delivered.

2.11 The other policies of the NDTLP and other associated development plan documents also need to be addressed and accorded the appropriate level of weight.

2.12 It is appreciated that this allocation and the application itself has resulted in significant objection from the public and local Parish Councils and the strength of feeling is understood and recognised. This is a highly sensitive site where the policy and constraint context is complex.

Page 49 Agenda Item 5

2.13 The starting point should however be that the site is allocated for development under Policy FRE02.

2.14 Consultation Responses:

Planning Policy Policy FRE02: Yelland Quay is allocated for a high quality, Unit mixed-use development that will deliver the site specific development principles as set out within criteria (a) to (p). Reply Received Therefore, the principle of re-development of this previously 4 April 2019 developed site is acceptable subject to the stated criteria set out within Policy FRE02, other relevant local plan policies as well as Edited any redevelopment addressing the stated aims and objections within the ‘Vision for Yelland Quay’.

It is recognised that Yelland Quay is North Devon’s largest brownfield site which has been left derelict for a number of years, however it is also recognised the site is within a very sensitive location in terms of its landscape setting and environmental constraints.

The proposed development extends further east than the area for development identified on the Local Plan Policies Map. The land to the east (former ash beds) is identified for informal open space as part of enhancing the green infrastructure network. Justification is required to extend development into this area, as part of any justification for the proposed increased level of development.

The site is within the Coastal and Estuarine Zone where Policy ST09 will apply. Although the site lies beyond the extent of the defined settlement of Fremington / Yelland, paragraph 4.39 clearly recognises that large previously developed sites form part of the ‘Developed Coast’…..Therefore, from a policy perspective although the site is within the coastal and estuarine zone it does form part of the developed coast where the principle of development is acceptable.

On balance, I would consider the current mixed-use proposal is potentially acceptable in principle subject to all site specific development principles as set out within Policy FRE02 being satisfactorily addressed.

Planning Policy From a policy perspective, I consider that our position on this Unit particular proposal has been clearly set out in the previous response to this application, dated 4th April 2019. Reply Received 19 February From a planning perspective there is no doubt that the large 2020 majority of this site should be considered as previously developed (or brownfield) land although it is accepted that the eastern part of edited the development should be considered as greenfield. In my opinion the former power station was a permanent structure albeit the

Page 50 Agenda Item 5

building was only operational for approximately 30 years before it was demolished during the late 1980s.

It is also worth noting the ‘in principle’ support for the development by the South West Design Review Panel, an organisation that is independent from the Council and developer.

In terms of the eastern boundary, the need to go beyond the scope of the brownfield allocation (FRE02) is questioned, thereby encroaching on to greenfield land (as shown on the Policies Map). As you are aware, this area of land is identified for informal open space as part of enhancing the green infrastructure network and the delivery of additional housing here must be fully justified.

On balance, I would consider the current mixed-use proposal is potentially acceptable in principle subject to all site specific development principles as set out within Policy FRE02 and the Vision for the site being satisfactorily addressed. However, several matters as set out above require further clarification and amendment.

Planning Policy From a policy perspective, I consider that our position on this Unit particular proposal has been clearly set out in the previous responses to this application and should form part of our overall Reply Received comments relating to this current application…..I will make further 23 June 2020 comment on the latest plans in regard to comments dated 25th February 2020 although it is unclear as to what the amendments have actually addressed in terms of previous concerns.

I would again reiterate that in policy terms there is an in principle support for the redevelopment of this relatively large previously developed site subject to compliance with policies in the adopted Local Plan including the site specific allocation FRE02. An in principle support was also provided by the South West Design Review Panel, an organisation that is independent from North Devon Council and developer. Again their support was on the basis that the developer should consider a number of amendments to their proposals.

Again, the issues raised in this response should be considered alongside previous consultation responses but I would still consider the current mixed-use proposal is potentially acceptable in principle subject to all site specific development principles as set out within Policy FRE02 and the Vision for the site being satisfactorily addressed. However, several matters as set out previously and above require further clarification and amendment.

Page 51 Agenda Item 5

Brownfield Register

2.15 Within the representations section the status of this site as being Brownfield has been much discussed. Councils are required by Government to prepare and publish a Brownfield Land Register ('the Register'). The Register provides details of previously developed sites that are available and potentially suitable for residential development. The preparation of the Brownfield Land Register is governed by The Town and Country Planning (Brownfield Land Register) Regulations 2017.

2.16 The Register is to be kept in two parts: Part One of the Register will be for sites categorised as previously developed land which are suitable, available and achievable for residential development; and Part Two of the Register is optional and allows local planning authorities to select sites from Part One and grant permission in principle (PiP) for housing-led development. Once the Register is in place it will be maintained and reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is kept up to date. This site is on Part 1 the North Devon Council’s Brownfield Land Register.

2.17 From a planning perspective there is no doubt that the large majority of this site should be considered as previously developed (or brownfield) land although it is accepted that the eastern part of the development should be considered as greenfield. The Glossary within the adopted Local Plan is clear in that it takes the definition of previously developed land from the NPPF which states ‘land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill, where provision for restoration has been made through development management procedures; land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape’.

2.18 The Policy Team are of the view that the former power station was a permanent structure albeit the building was only operational for approximately 30 years before it was demolished during the late 1980s. Its register entry is BFL/FRE/028. The site still contains remnants of this former use.

2.19 Within the representations section of the report, the status of the site as ‘brownfield’ is disputed. The removal of the power station use (albeit not all of the structures) and its partial naturalisation have resulted in a view that the land is now greenfield. Indeed the Ash Beds are green in character (and on the whole will remain as such) but the greater part of the site remains under continuous commercial use. These parts of the site are not attractive comprising denuded land with derelict structures and industrial activity.

2.20 Extensive public representations have been made that the status of the site should be reviewed under Reg4 of the TCP (Brownfield Land Register) Reg 2017 and that it should be publicly acquired to ensure restoration. There is a recognition

Page 52 Agenda Item 5

that it cannot be left as is. Removal of the power station resulted in estuary enhancements. The power station was a very imposing feature on the edge of the river. Whilst there is a strong view that the site should be returned in whole to nature providing a buffer on the edge of the estuary restricting development, this is not an option open the Planning Committee. Its allocation for a mix use development has been tested at the Local Plan Inquiry and was found to be sound. The decision for the Planning Committee is whether the current application is acceptable in accordance with the adopted Policy FRE02.

Site Limits

2.21 Within the representations it is argued that the Inspector supported the brownfield part of site, not the greenfield areas. Parts of this development extend onto land coloured green on the proposals map. In terms of the eastern boundary, the need to go beyond the scope of the brownfield allocation (FRE02) has been questioned, as the scheme thereby encroaches on to greenfield land (as shown on the Policies Map).This area of land is identified for informal open space as part of enhancing the green infrastructure network and the delivery of additional housing here must be fully justified.

2.22 The plans below show the Local Plan Proposal Map, the proposed site plan and an overlay showing the encroachment onto the Ash Beds.

2.23 The local plan allocated developable area (hatched on the proposals plan above) is 12.36ha. The proposed developable area of this application is 11.74ha. The requirement to provide a buffer to the waterside (referred to as the 60m set back) on the western part of the site has reduced the developable area. The layout plan does encroach onto the former Ash Beds. (Section 5 of this report deals with contamination).

2.24 The development of 250 units over 11.74ha results in the provision of a development at approx. 21 dwellings per hectare, a housing density which is not considered unreasonable in this location. The removal of the parts of the development on land coloured green in the local plan (ST14), would reduce the developable area to 8.81ha. This is estimated to reduce the site capacity down to 185 units if provided at the same density. The site plan whilst encroaching on land shown as green infrastructure (ST14) provides a compensatory amount of land on the western site edge. In respect of the enhancement of environmental assets the proposal as a whole needs to be considered.

2.25 Whilst parts of the Ash Beds are now being proposed for development the overall approach maintains the developable core and provides enhanced water edge

Page 53 Agenda Item 5

‘green’ space to enhance the setting from the River. The reduction in developable area if the Ash beds were removed would impact on scheme viability and deliverability.

2.26 The Policy Team have asked about what is proposed for the remainder of this land to the south of the car park within the blue line i.e. within the applicant’s ownership. As can been seen from the proposals map this land is not allocated for any specific development and this application does not provide any development options. The land would remain as quasi agricultural as now other than the proposed car park which will be discussed in more detail in the Transport and Movement section of the report.

2.27 The Policy Team have identified that this land would be suitable for the delivery of allotments in accordance with Policy DM10 and Table 13.1 to serve residents of the development and possibly Yelland. This is not currently proposed.

Conclusion: Planning Policy

2.28 The site has been allocated for development under FRE02 of the NDTLP. This is a criteria based policy and as such the application would need to address all aspects of the policy. Where there is divergence or omission this will need to be judged on its own merits in line with material planning considerations and the wider policy aspirations of the NDTLP and the NPPF.

2.29 There is agreement that something has to happen with this site. The strong representations made both from individuals and Parish Councils oppose this development. Many argue that the site should be restored to a natural green condition. There is also concern about the quantum of development that has and is occurring with the Parish. The site is however a brownfield site in need of regeneration which is a strategy supported by national policy. The encroachment onto the Ash Beds is accompanied by an equivalent (60m) set back on the western boundary of the site for biodiversity reasons. The balance of developable area to green infrastructure will be explored later on in the report but the layout does not intensify development beyond that allocated.

2.30 The starting point for consideration of this site is its allocation in the NDTLP. Policy FRE02 should be accorded significant weight.

3.0 Form and Layout of Development and Design

3.1 New development must be of high quality and integrate effectively with its surroundings to positively reinforce local distinctiveness and produce attractive places to live and to accord with the design principles of policies ST04 and DM04 and with part 12 of the NPPF.

3.2 In determining applications Paragraph 131 states that “great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings.”

Page 54 Agenda Item 5

3.3 All design matters should be considered in the context of Policies ST04, ST05, DM01 and DM04, including the requirement for this development to be supported by Building for a Healthy Life Assessment which minimises “amber” scores and avoids of “red” scores. The commercial elements would be subject to BREEAM Very Good. At this stage the latter cannot be supplied as these element have not been designed.

South West Design Review Panel

3.4 Design review panels are encouraged by paragraph 129 of the NPPF. This application has been to two panels meetings (17th May 2019 and 21st August 2019). The responses are attached to this report

3.5 It is also worth noting the ‘in principle’ support for the development by the South West Design Review Panel, an organisation that is independent from the Council and developer. The Panel considered that the site’s special nature presents a unique opportunity to create a development of both local and regional significance; that is to say the site deserves a very high-quality design response which included a Design Code. The Panel provided detailed feedback followings its first review which resulted in significant revisions to the scheme and the development of a clearer Vision.

3.6 In August 2019 the applicant produced the Yelland Quay Vision Statement and Design Code and a new Masterplan. The revisions were then reviewed by a second panel.

3.7 The Main Conclusions were: (a) The Panel is supportive of the applicants stated aspirations & the clear brief & vision given by the applicants (b) The response to the previous design review panel feedback given is welcomed (c) It is felt that embracing the sites natural assets will result in a sensitive & well-designed scheme (d) As a proposed coastal village, it is felt the design would benefit from providing a relationship with the water; there may be an opportunity to link the Tarka trail to the existing jetty/quay It would be beneficial to further explore the sense of arrival & intersection between vehicles, pedestrians & cyclists (e) The proposals would benefit from more clearly showing how ecology / biodiversity & landscape have informed the urban form (f) The different conditions & responding design iterations should be explored for key areas within the site (g) The proposed relationship between the green space & build forms on the eastern boundary would benefit from further consideration (h) The proposed central boulevard feels very urban, is of an inappropriate scale for a village (i) There may be opportunities to consider links with other surrounding landmarks & visual links (j) There is an unresolved tension between the sense of enclosure & openness of the surrounding landscape

Page 55 Agenda Item 5

(k) It is felt that it would be beneficial for a footpath to be taken through the site, rather than along the foreshore (l) The Panel are not supportive of the house type precedents indicated (m) It would be beneficial for the design to now be explored & presented in three dimensions (n) It may be beneficial to incorporate subtle heritage references within the landscape design (o) The potential future evolution & expansion of site should be strategically considered (p) Environmental opportunities should now be considered at this stage of the design process (q) It is felt that the production of a Design Code at this outline stage would be beneficial to the applicant & local authority (r) The proposal should now consider details of maintenance, such as the management of refuse

Design Code

3.8 As this is an outline application, the Authority needs to consider whether the quantum of development, its distribution across the site and its relationship to the Taw/Torridge estuary and the landscape setting along with the use of green and blue infrastructure are acceptable in providing a high quality development in line with adopted NDTLP policies, recommendations of the DRP and the ten principles within the National Design Guide.

3.9 The details can then be delivered through the reserved matters. The feedback from the DRP is at both a macro and micro level.

3.10 In January 2020 a further Supporting Statement and the Crime and Disorder Statement were received, this has been refined by the Building a Healthy Life Assessment & Design Code Rev B March 2021 (point q). This has been further expanded in drawing number Y029 18 204V and 206I.

3.11 The National Design Guide sets out the 10 principles of good design and the Design Code similarly looks at key themes such as integrated neighbourhoods, Distinctive Places, Healthy Streets.

3.12 Any development on this site will result in a significant change to the local context. The estuary setting is understood and the parameters for development recognise that the provision of a landscape context will address both landscape and biodiversity concerns. This will be a new development on a unique brownfield site divorced from established places such as Instow but which seeks to provide a well-designed, high quality and attractive place.

3.13 The Masterplan draws some of its inspiration from other coastal communities of northern Devon. An approach which is supported by the 'Vision' for Yelland Quay as set out within the Local Plan. The DRP considered the approach set out ‘embracing the sites natural assets will result in a sensitive & well-designed scheme’.

Page 56 Agenda Item 5

3.14 The layout is showing a compact form of development with a range of building types and forms. The layout leads towards new destinations in the form of new public spaces such as a piazza and the sunken square.

3.15 The effective use of land is a key consideration given the climate emergency and the need to ensure that housing is delivered with minimum impact on green spaces.

3.16 Although the Panel encouraged the development of landmark buildings within the site when applying the considerations around landscape impact this has now be capped at 5 storey buildings. Such structures are within the heart of the site so that when viewed from across the estuary there would be a degree of gradation with edge development being 2 storey and the higher density block sitting to the rear.

3.17 It has been questioned whether the bulk and mass proposed throughout the site is justified or reflective of a traditional coastal village. The allocation is for approx. 250 units. To provide this level of development will require a form of unit above two storey. Restrictions on building heights affect site development capacity. To remove the proposed element of 5 storey (which are mainly used as feature blocks) would reduce the number of units that could be delivered by 10. The 5 storey elements are limited in their use to feature blocks that are placed strategically on the site to aid street coherence and to provide feature elements at key routes.

3.18 If the scheme were to be restricted to three storey then this would result in the loss of a further 35 units. The 4 and 5 storey elements are not wide spread throughout the site with some feature blocks at the lower floor level of 7.1 AOD, but will provide a degree or articulation in roof scape and will enable units to take advantage of the setting and outlook.

3.19 The layout shows a series of connected networks with the emphasis on the pedestrian and cyclist thus encouraging active travel. The layout features access points to and from the Tarka Trail and South West Coast Path. The site is fully publicly accessible.

3.20 As set out above a mix of uses is proposed with dwellings being detached, terraced or apartments. No affordable housing is proposed due to viability.

3.21 In respect of materials, the Design Code shows the ‘Use of either flat roof, mono- pitch or pitched roof typologies’ and ‘A range of materials including Zinc, Copper, Sarnafil and Slate’ with Render and Stone, Timber / Composite Cladding and Glazed panel Systems.

3.22 The DRP also suggested that the management of refuse/wheelie bins (point r) should be considered as part of the design process but again this level of detail would need to be considered at the Reserved Matters stage as would the treatment of hard surfaces within the site (Policy response below) and is conditioned.

Page 57 Agenda Item 5

3.23 The layout shows an integrated network of green spaces with a variety of landscapes types within them (hard and soft) and play spaces (LEAP, LAP and NEAP). Blue spaces such as lagoons will aim to improve and enhance water management and support rich and varied biodiversity.

3.24 It is agreed that there is a need for a ‘soft green boundary edge’ in order to form a transitional boundary between the development and the ‘Countryside’ (point g) and that controls are required to ensure that such landscaping is not removed by residents. This would need to be part of the Management Company required under the s106.

3.25 Secondary green links are proposed, at a point near the pond in order to integrate and create new green linkages throughout the development, breaking up a continuous line of homes along the western boundary and providing a green edge on the eastern boundary.

3.26 The proposal at Yelland Quay will seeks to promote renewable energy through the following design / Infrastructure aspirations:  District wide heating scheme together with utilising ground source heat pumps  PV Panels to buildings  Battery Storage to dwellings allowing for the storing of electricity to use during night-time.  Electric car charging points per dwelling  Provision of electric cycle hiring

3.27 The reserved matters would need to be supporting by a detailed Building For a Healthy Life assessment and the BREEAM assessment which would also need to deal with renewable energy and building adaptability to changing needs and evolving technologies. This is conditioned. There is no longer have a specific requirement to achieve a % improvement through onsite renewable energy. However there is a requirement for a more strategic overview of the design principles and how climate change mitigation (ST02) and adaptation (ST03), quality of development (ST04) and sustainable construction (ST04) as well as that contained in FRE02. The entire scheme should be covered by a Sustainability Statement which addresses the criteria of each of these policies.

3.28 Consultee Responses

Planning Policy Relevant design policies includes ST04, ST05 and DM04. You will Unit be aware that the proposal should be supported by a Building for Life 12 assessment for residential development and a BREEAM Reply Received rating of ‘Very Good’ for proposed non-domestic development. 4 April 2019 Therefore, from a policy perspective I would suggest there is real Edited merit here in engaging with the South West Design Review Panel in order to provide that independent stance regarding design matters on the development proposed.

Page 58 Agenda Item 5

Planning Policy It is also worth noting the ‘in principle’ support for the Unit development by the South West Design Review Panel, an organisation that is independent from the Council and developer. Reply Received 19 February However, if you are minded to support housing in this location then 2020 it is important to fully understand what the proposed treatment is for the ‘soft green boundary edge’ in terms of any additional Edited planting, height etc. as this boundary needs to form a transitional boundary between the development and the Countryside. It is not appropriate in landscape terms for this ‘soft green’ boundary to be later replaced by or added to with close board fencing or something similar in order to safeguard the amenities of future residents. It is also recommended that a secondary green link is proposed through the housing, at a point near the pond in order to integrate and create new green linkages throughout the development, breaking up a continuous line of homes along the eastern boundary.

In order to reduce the amount of hard surfaces within the development, has the agent explored the possibility of developing the proposed car parking areas with a permeable surface, such as grass-crete in order to reduce the risk of flooding? Also, to reduce the visual impact of the two areas proposed as a ‘social hub’ which include extensive areas of car parking, it is suggested some additional planting should be provided along the northern boundary to help screen the extensive open car parking areas from across the estuary. Additionally, I would question the reason for encouraging significant car movements in to the heart of the site for the proposed community facilities when in my opinion the priority should be to encourage increased cycle / pedestrian movements and not dominated by the private motor car, albeit vehicular access is required to the jetty to facilitate delivery of the Devon Minerals Plan.

I welcome the inclusion of a ‘Design Code’ for the site but again I would query the conclusions put forward by the agent in the context of the views set out by the SWDRP in their report of August 2019. I note from the ‘Design Code’ that the residential low scale development does not provide details of the proposed roofscape; these need to be clarified. Roofscape is important especially in long distance views across the estuary. I would also question why the development is not exploring the opportunity for delivering a green roofscape, particularly on those parts of the development that will be more prominent in the wider landscape. Again, this was highlighted by the Panel who recognised that ‘there are opportunities to incorporate green roofs and other ecologically sensitive materials which will help to make the proposals unique and may raise the design standard of the proposals compared to a normal national house building scheme’.

Page 59 Agenda Item 5

The SWDRP also suggested that the management of refuse/wheelie bins should be considered as part of the design process, possibly incorporating centralised refuse collection, but it is unclear how or where this is to be accommodated within the site layout.

Planning Policy I would also consider that the responses from the South West Unit Design Review Panel (SWDRP) dated 17th May 2019 and 21st August 2019 are also important to the determination of this Reply Received application. 23 June 2020 An in principle support was also provided by the South West Edited Design Review Panel, an organisation that is independent from North Devon Council and developer. Again their support was on the basis that the developer should consider a number of amendments to their proposals.

It is worth noting again, the Panel considered that the site's special nature presents a unique opportunity to create a development of both local and regional significance; that is to say the site deserves a very high-quality design response. The Panel also support the concept to create a permanent new village (rather than a holiday village) that draws some of its inspiration from other coastal communities of northern Devon. An approach also supported by the 'Vision' for Yelland Quay as set out within the Local Plan. Although the Panel encouraged the development of landmark buildings within the site so as to root the proposals in a wider setting and to help navigability for end users, I am still not convinced that the number of 5 and 6 storey buildings of the bulk and mass proposed throughout the site is justified nor reflective of a traditional coastal village.

I refer back to my previous response of February where policy raised a number of questions regarding the landscape treatment on the eastern boundary, access and location of the proposed car park to the south of the Tarka Trail. From the additional information currently being consulted upon I do not see any response to address the questions raised.

Policy also raised concerns regarding proposals for future use for the remaining land to the south of the car park within the red line of the application site, because additional built development in this location will not be acceptable in landscape terms. Again, no suitable response has been provided and therefore would the delivery of allotments be appropriate in this location in accordance with Policy DM10 and Table 13.1 to serve residents of the development and possibly Yelland.

I would also question why access in to the new car park is not off the new road in to the development, avoiding conflict with cyclists

Page 60 Agenda Item 5

and pedestrians which appear to be encouraged to use the footpath to the west in order to access the Tarka Trail.

Planning Policy Thank you for the updated version of your BfHL at Yelland Quay. Unit I welcome that you have attempted to provide more detail to justify Reply Received your assessment and that you intend to re-visit the assessment at 6 April 2021 RM. I also welcome that you have cross-referenced some of the headings to the recommendations set out by the DRP which I think is important and useful in the context of a tangible evidence base. I assume you have followed the recommendations set out by the Panel? Apologies if I have missed this but it is still unclear how you intend to deal with cycle parking within the public spaces.

Again, if the submitted BfHL assessment is considered acceptable then as advocated by the latest edition of the code, if a development secures at least nine green lights (and no red lights) such as in this case then I would encourage you to apply for BfHL Commendation. A Commendation will allow the developer to use BfHL logo on the development and help showcase its qualities to prospective home buyers.

From a policy perspective, I am happy to agree in principle with the overall assessment as amended but would re-iterate the importance of its continual review through to completion. Designing Out It is appreciated that at this time it is for outline only, however, Crime Officer please note the following initial comments from a designing out crime, fear of crime, antisocial behaviour (ASB) and conflict Reply Received perspective:- 14 January 2019 Too much permeability in a development makes controlling crime and anti-social behaviour very difficult as it allows easy intrusion Edited around the development by potential offenders. All planned routes should be needed, well used by generating adequate footfall, well overlooked and well integrated.

If existing hedgerow is likely to comprise new rear garden boundaries then it 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.

I would also advise that for all plots, any private front gardens are suitably defined.

Parking spaces would preferably be on plot, must not be disconnected from the associated dwellings and should be well

Page 61 Agenda Item 5

overlooked by ‘active rooms’. Residents will also look to park as near to their choice of main access point, likely resulting in inappropriate parking on footpaths and verges.

Designing Out The revised layout details of the Concept Masterplan / Proposed Crime Officer Site Plan are noted and whilst at this time they do not reveal many details that would be of interest to police, I refer back to my Reply Received previous comments of January 2019 regarding pedestrian access 27 January to and from the site. With these in mind, I have concerns with the 2020 proposed/indicated footpaths and access to open space. Public footpaths should not run to the side / rear of and provide Edited access to gardens, rear yards or dwellings as these have been proven to generate crime.

Communal areas, such as playgrounds, toddler play areas, seating facilities have the potential to generate crime, the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour. They should be designed to allow natural surveillance from nearby dwellings with safe and accessible routes for users to come and go.

Boundaries between public and private space should be clearly defined and open spaces must have features which prevent unauthorised vehicular access. Communal spaces as described above should not immediately abut residential buildings.

Designing Out Police have no further comments to those of 27th January 2020, Crime Officer which remain valid

Reply Received 23 June 2020 DCC - Health and wellbeing: The Council has a significant role in health Development and wellbeing; the Council has a statutory duty to improve the Control health of the local population. As such, it is appropriate to identify the important role that new development can have in improving Reply Received health and wellbeing for the local area and future residents. In this 29 April 2016 context it may be helpful to highlight the evidence in the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA). The JSNA and the Locality Public Health Plan show that the local priorities for North Devon are: reducing smoking prevalence; improving housing conditions; reducing harm from alcohol and encouraging sensible consumption; reducing health inequality through place based approaches and improving mental health.

To support the achievement of these priorities, the County Council would welcome measures that enable safe and easy active travel. In particular, opportunities for active travel using routes that are linked to local networks and that separate cyclists and walkers from vehicle traffic routes would increase the attractiveness of active travel. Making provision for local food outlets and taking opportunities to carefully manage outlets of unhealthy food such as

Page 62 Agenda Item 5

fast food takeaways would also be supported. The application could be improved through the provision of allotment space to support local food production.

The quality and condition of the proposed housing, particularly any affordable housing should reduce energy use, make use of technologies that are low-carbon or carbon neutral and reduce the risks of fuel poverty and increased healthcare costs. The development should allow adequate private or semi-private outdoor space per dwelling. Community facilities should be co-located with other services where possible and be designed for a variety of different uses.

Design Conclusions

3.29 All design matters should be considered in the context of Policies FRE02, ST02, ST03, ST04, ST05, FRE02, DM01, DM02, DM04, DM08A, recommendations from the DRP and National Design Guide.

3.30 The application is in outline and hence a Building for A Healthy Life Assessment Rev B for the residential development and a BREEAM rating of ‘Very Good’ for proposed non-domestic development would need to be agreed alongside the reserved matters. This is conditioned and will follow the principles established with the submitted documentation which provide a sound framework to guide the development of the scheme.

3.31 Similarly the reserved matters would be delivered in association with the Design Code submitted as part of this application. The parameter plans deliver a mixed use development, zoned to provide a core of higher density buildings within the heart of the scheme reducing to two storey at the site edges. The distribution of open space, green and blue infrastructure will form the basis of achieving a new development form which recognises the local context and which aims to minimise its impact.

3.32 The aspiration of policy is to secure high quality development. The application has been informed and has responded positively to the feedback from the DRP. The supporting documents focus on the National Design Guide’s standards regarding character, context, street hierarchy etc. The form of development will create new character areas on the edge of the river that responds to its context in a positive manner. Whilst this will be a ‘new’ development, and one that will be visually apparent it has been designed to allow a visual transition from the more sensitive site edges and will provide new public spaces that will allow the river environment to be widely enjoyed.

4.0 Amenity Impacts - Noise, Air Quality, and Construction Management

4.1 Policy DM01 of the NDTLP requires that development should secure or maintain amenity appropriate to the locality with special regard to the likely impact on

Page 63 Agenda Item 5

neighbours, the operation of neighbouring uses (which in this case is primarily commercial), future occupiers, visitors on the site and any local services.

4.2 In terms of neighbouring residential amenity, such as the ability for dwellings to be delivered on site whilst preventing any overlooking, overbearing or loss of light to the nearest existing neighbour, given the separation distances involved, it is considered that dwellings can be delivered on this site whilst maintaining appropriate amenity to existing dwellings in the area, therefore in compliance with Policy DM01 and through appropriate design DM04 of the NDTLP

4.3 It should be recognised that the site is already in commercial use as a concrete batching plant and the location for the landing of sand and gravel. It is therefore a busy commercial hub.

4.4 Policies DM02 considers atmospheric pollution and noise and DM03 considers Construction and Environmental management of development.

Noise

4.5 Chapter 13 of the ES considers Noise. Three noise assessments have been carried out (July 2015, May 2017 and August 2018) A Noise assessment was also carried out in October 2015 regarding boat arrival and unloading noise in order to measure noise levels at the jetty to the north of the proposed development site. The existing concrete batching facility will be removed from the site and the jetty will remain with occasional deliveries of aggregate/sand around once per month.

4.6 Boat activities at the jetty only occur for around 3.5 hours once per month and the internal noise levels during the boat unloading activities would meet the noise target provided by BS8233:2014 in both the day and night-time periods with windows closed, it is considered that the noise at proposed residential properties is within acceptable levels with the operation of the jetty remaining as is.

4.7 Noise levels during construction period in respect of the SSSI could be potentially significant. As a result of this, an acoustic 2 to 2.5m high fence will need to be erected around the site to mitigate the noise disturbance from the effects of construction. The construction noise assessment indicates that there is likely to be a moderate to significant noise impact for specific phases of the construction overlooking the estuary. To minimise the construction noise effects on birds at the Isley Marsh Nature Reserve it is recommended that an acoustic barrier/site hoarding on the estuary boundary should be constructed. A 2m high acoustic barrier/site hoarding would reduce the construction noise at the estuary by 5 to 10 dB(A) based on the guidance in BS5228. To further protect the high tide roost it is recommended that the acoustic barrier is increased to a height of 2.5m on the western side of the construction works.

4.8 Construction noise is considered to be temporary. On the basis of the distances at which vibration from various construction activities is likely to be perceptible, nearby residential properties are unlikely to be affected. The construction effects are considered temporary and negligible. The Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will detail the methodology for the control of

Page 64 Agenda Item 5

construction noise. The CEMP will provide a protocol for ongoing noise monitoring during the most noise sensitive construction phases. The CEMP will also consider the noise effects over the whole construction phase.

4.9 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) considers that a change in road traffic noise of 2.9 dB(A) or less is considered to be negligible. The noise increase identified shows no significant noise impact due to development traffic at the nearest noise sensitive properties in Yelland Road

4.10 As the commercial units are not designed, there is no detail of mechanical ventilation and hence a noise condition referring to noise sensitive receptors to be 5dB(A) below the representative LA90 would need to be applied.

4.11 The baseline noise environment is such that no special design measures would be required for residential units and that daytime noise levels are within the range of acceptable levels for outdoor living areas as provided in BS8233:2014.

Air Quality

4.12 Chapter 14 of the ES deals with Air Quality. The Government's policy on air quality within the UK is set out in the Air Quality Strategy (AQS) for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (AQS) published in July 2007, pursuant to the requirements of Part IV of the Environment Act 1995. Policy DM02: Environmental Protection of the NDTLP applies.

4.13 During construction of the proposed development, Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDVs) will require access to the site to deliver and remove materials; earthmoving plant and other mobile machinery may also work on site including generators and cranes. These machines produce exhaust emissions; of particular concern are emissions of NO2 and PM10.

4.14 The main air quality impacts that may arise during construction activities are dust deposition. The Air Quality SPD (adopted June 2020) requires an air quality impact assessment for substantial earth moving in excess of 2.5 hectares to assess whether there would be a likely impact on air quality, albeit temporary. However, this issue is addressed adequately as part of the ES. The treatment of asbestos is dealt with in the Contamination section of the report. The reference in this section relates to dust from the works of site raising and construction. The greatest potential for dust nuisance will generally be within 200m of the Site perimeter. Very few properties are likely to be affected by dust due to the separation distances involved. The sensitivity of the area to human health is low.

4.15 The identified ecological receptor is Taw-Torridge Estuary SSSI, to the north of the development. The sensitivity of the ecological receptor is medium.

4.16 The development is considered to be a high risk site for dust soiling as a result of track out activities. The site is already in commercial use and the access road is well used by HGV’s so with proper controls over wheel washing tracked dust should be limited. This will be controlled via the CEMP.

Page 65 Agenda Item 5

4.17 During the operational phase the impact of traffic associated with the development has been considered. Effects on annual mean NO2 concentrations as a result of the proposed development were predicted to be negligible at 36 receptors and slight adverse at one location. Effects on PM10 concentrations were predicted to be negligible at all receptors. The overall significance of residual effects was predicted to be not significant.

4.18 The air quality assessment has considered the impact on sensitive receptors (residential properties and educational facilities) located adjacent to the local road network. All results were negligible apart from one receptor along Bickington Road which was classed as ‘slight’.

4.19 The ES recommends a CEMP which should include outline measures for:

 Wheel washing to reduce dust emissions  Equipment to be fitted with dust suppression techniques  Enclosed chutes to covered skips  Avoid bonfires  Water assisted dust sweepers to access roads It further recommends:  Provision of a Travel Plan for the development to encourage sustainable modes of transport to and from the Site;  Inclusion of secure cycle parking;  Inclusion of green infrastructure throughout the development to reduce atmospheric pollution through increased levels of deposition and absorption; and,  Provision of electric charging points throughout the development.

4.20 The ES assessment of the potential impacts during the construction and operational phase on air quality has shown that impacts associated with vehicle emissions are predicted to be not significant but that dust will need to be subject to Fugitive Dust Emission Mitigation Measures within the CEMP.

Construction Management

4.21 A framework Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted but will require revision to address the detailed feedback of the consultees. As this relates to all phases of development a specific CEMP is recommended for the works of site filling and thereafter for the construction phases. A pre-commencement condition is recommended.

Other issues raised:

4.22 Environmental Health have considered the location of the site in respect of adjoining commercial uses. The Estuary Business Park is now within the applicant’s control and whilst it is outside of the red outline, it now falls within the blue outline and as such there could be an opportunity to negotiate the removal of these units and seek and improved buffer to the Tarka Trail.

Page 66 Agenda Item 5

4.23 Radon gas is unlikely to be an issue given the amount of fill that is proposed albeit the contamination section of the report makes further recommendations in this respect.

4.24 The applicant has indicated that development will be outside of the 100m buffer to the electric pylons that run to the south west. The transformer station is further east again. The buffer will allow for further landscape mitigation on the eastern approach to the site.

4.25 Consultee responses:

Environmental 2 Noise Health Manager I have reviewed Chapter 13 (Noise) of the Environmental Statement dated 2 January 2020. I would like to review the original Reply Received noise report referenced in Chapter 13 prior to commenting on noise 27 January issues. I could not find the document. 2020 3 Air Quality Edited I have reviewed Chapter 14 (Air Quality) of the Environmental Statement dated 2 January 2020. I would like to review the original Air Quality report referenced in Chapter 14 prior to commenting on air quality issues. I could not find the document. 3 4 Construction Phase Impacts

Page 67 Agenda Item 5

I have reviewed the Woodward Smith Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) dated 17 December 2018. The document provides an outline of approaches for controlling construction related impacts and issues. A more detailed document will be required prior to works commencing that fully reflects recommendations contained within relevant specialist reports such as the Air Quality Impact Assessment report and land contamination reports. Given the scale of development proposals and proximity to sensitive publicly accessible locations, a detailed complaints process should also be included. In order to ensure that the potential impacts of demolition and construction phase activities are suitably controlled I recommend the following conditions be imposed.

Environmental I have now reviewed the original Noise and Air Quality reports in Health Manager relation to Environmental Protection matters and provide updated comment as follows: Reply Received 20 March 2020 1 Noise I have reviewed the Accon Noise Impact Assessment report dated 8 December 2015. The report assesses noise constraints on the site due to existing sources of noise in the locality and the potential for noise impacts related to construction of the development and subsequent operation of the site. The report considers noise issues based on a proposed development that has subsequently been significantly amended. As such, the assessment will need to be updated and revised to take account of the current proposals and circumstances (including for example existing industrial / commercial businesses currently operating in the vicinity; times of day or night when noise may be an issue; existing and proposed sensitive receptor locations including any outside amenity areas; any proposed significant noise sources such as proposed external plant, operation of commercial units forming part of the amended development etc.). In addition, any updated assessment should have regard to the latest relevant standards and guidance on such matters. Given the nature and scale of the proposals, I recommend specific reference be made to incorporating a good acoustic design approach as supported within the NPPF. The aim should be to achieve a good quality acoustic environment for existing and future residents and other sensitive receptors in the vicinity. Professional Practice Guidance (ProPG): Planning & Noise 2017 provides guidance on utilising a good acoustic design approach with a view to ensuring that factors such as site layout, use of noise bunds, buffer zones and so on are considered as part of a general aim of mitigating and minimising undesirable noise levels.

2 Air Quality I have reviewed the Accon Air Quality Assessment report dated 22 February 2016. The report assesses potential air quality impacts

Page 68 Agenda Item 5

related to construction and operational phases of the development based on development proposals in 2016.

Construction Phase The Assessment identifies a number of potential impacts related to the construction phase and recommends a scheme of best practice mitigation to manage such risks. I accept the findings of the report in relation to construction phase impacts which remain relevant to the current amended proposals. I recommend the proposed mitigation measures be incorporated into a suitable Construction Environmental Management Plan (see my emailed recommendations of 27 January 2020).

Operational Phase The Assessment considers potential traffic related impacts associated with the proposals having regard to relevant standards and guidance. The report concludes that the impact of the proposed development on local air quality, using worst case traffic flows, emission factors and background pollutant concentrations is "negligible" and the pollutant concentration levels will remain significantly below the Air Quality Assessment levels.

I accept the findings of the report which are likely to remain relevant to the current amended proposals. However, I recommend the Applicant be asked to provide a Statement prepared by a suitably qualified air quality specialist with a view to confirming that the Air Quality Assessment report of 22 February 2016 remains appropriate based on the amended development proposals and having regard to the latest standards and guidance on such matters.

Environmental In terms of potential EMF related health and safety risks, I have not Health Manager considered this previously. My understanding is that, provided the statutory safety clearance distances are maintained, there is no Reply Received established evidence that significant health risks are likely to arise 9 March 2021 and I'm not aware of any specific UK health based EMF restrictions relating to development of homes near power lines or substations (potential noise impacts may be relevant though). If concerns exist then asking the Applicant to provide a Statement covering the issue and confirming that recognised safety clearances, ICNIRP guidelines etc are to be complied with is probably justified Environmental Views awaited on updated reports Health Manager

Western Power Thank you for making us aware of the above planning application Distribution (Document dated 10/1/2020) which is approx. 30m from our East Yelland Bulk Supply Point substation (26 0465). The substation Reply Received contains transformers whose noise is characterised by a 1OOHz 24 January hum that is present at all times (except when de-energised) 2020

Page 69 Agenda Item 5

together with a usually smaller 200Hz component. Low frequency noise can be very difficult to attenuate. Western Power Distribution wishes to ensure that the impact of their distribution plant has minimal impact on adjacent residents and thus we seek to have an input during the planning process, where possible, to raise any noise concerns. In our experience, some people can find even very small amounts of low frequency tonal noise unacceptable resulting in lack of sleep. With this in mind, Western Power Distribution requests that a full independent noise survey is carried out by the developer prior to planning being given and that the developer designs the new dwellings to mitigate the 1OOHz and 200Hz tonal noise from reaching the new residents of the proposed development. Such mitigation could include noise reduction enclosures around the two 132kV transformers, subject to survey. This could reduce the noise by up to 20 dB at l OOHz, which would be chargeable to the developer I hope this letter has been useful in clarifying Western Power Distribution's position

Amenity Conclusion

4.26 In terms of neighbouring residential amenity given the separation distances involved, it is considered that dwellings and commercial spaces can be delivered on this site whilst maintaining appropriate amenity to existing dwellings in the area, therefore in compliance with Policy DM01 and DM04 of the NDTLP.

4.27 With appropriate conditions the impact during the construction phase can be addressed in respect of pollution controls and in particular fugitive dust. An acoustic barrier will be required during construction along with a detailed phased based CEMP. The CEMP would also have mechanisms to deal with construction noise complaints.

4.28 In respect of future occupiers controls will be needed over mechanical ventilation and plant on the commercial units which are yet to be designed. The internal acoustic standards for new build will address any noise arising from the jetty.

4.29 The applicant is revising the Noise report in line with the latest scheme to ensure that there will be no residual impact from existing commercial uses that adjoin the site. This may necessitate additional conditions and delegated authority is sought to add these as required.

4.30 Adequate safety clearances have been applied to the transformer station and overhead power lines.

Page 70 Agenda Item 5

5.0 Contamination

5.1 Para 178, 179 and 180 of the NPPF set out responsibilities for dealing with site contamination. Policy DM02 requires development to safeguard against hazards, and pollution policy DM02 of the NDTLP are satisfied.

5.2 Chapter 12 of the ES deals with Ground Condition (Contamination). As with all other sections of the ES the magnitude of potential effects during both construction and operation of the proposed development has been assessed. The chapter is supported by:  Phase 1: Preliminary Geotechnical and Contamination Assessment Report JF/SB/SR/11352/PGCAR/04 July 2018  Phase 2: Preliminary Contamination Investigation and Environmental Assessment Report CR/JF/SR/11352/PCIEAR/02 July 2018  Phase 2: Exploratory Contamination Investigation and Environmental Assessment Report CR/SR/11352/ECIEAR/03 July 2018  Phase 2: Additional Exploratory Contamination Investigation and Environmental Assessment Report CR/SR/11352/AECIEAR/01 December 2019  Preliminary Contamination Remediation method Statement CR/SR/11352/PCRMS/02 December 2018

5.3 Given the site history contamination has been one of the major concerns raised within the letters of representation and within the consultation responses of the Parish Councils. The main concern is that the development will result in the release of air borne asbestos. The site is known to contain:  Buried Asbestos within the footprint of former pump house which has been encapsulated in concrete  Hydrocarbons  Arsenic  Lead

5.4 The Phase 1 Report identifies the potential areas for contamination which are the former ash beds in the centre and east of the site, former coal storage area in the centre/ south, former power station process areas/ buildings in the west, former transformers and associated decommissioning area in the west and north, former underground pump house in the north, generic contamination (including asbestos) of made ground and leaking former fuel pipes or underground tanks in the plot of land in the far south of the site (former garage) and are all considered as potential sources of contamination.

5.5 The report outlines that all uses could be accommodated on the site without risk to human health and/or the water environment. The Phase 1 Report advises that there would be no negative effects on human health especially because site levels are to be raised by 2m (see flood risk section), no matter what use or uses the site is developed for, including residential uses.

5.6 In order to confirm both geotechnical and environmental recommendations, an intrusive investigation is required, comprising windowless sample boreholes and

Page 71 Agenda Item 5

trial pits with in-situ ground gas/ groundwater monitoring and in situ and laboratory testing, combined with rotary and cable percussive boreholes.

5.7 Phase 2 report (ECIEAR) was intended to provide a preliminary indication of the levels of contamination present, but the locations tested were specifically targeted to the locations most likely to contain elevated levels of contamination based on the conceptual site model. It is also noted that localised areas of particularly heavy contamination, requiring removal and/ or treatment, might still locally be present. Primarily for this reason, further, more intensive, intrusive investigation is required to determine the levels of contamination present and the extent of any contamination ‘hot spots’ requiring removal/ treatment to protect human health and/ or the water environment. Asbestos fibres were recorded in four of the eight soil samples tested. Covering the site with up to 2m of inert fill will protect end users from this asbestos. However, it is possible that asbestos containing material (ACM) may be encountered during construction activities, though again it is noted that capping the site with inert fill will also reduce the likelihood of exposure of construction workers to ACM. The Phase 2 report recommended that more intensive testing will be required.

5.8 Phase 2 Additional Exploratory Contamination Investigation and Environmental Assessment Report (AECIER) again concluded that the proposals to raise site levels by up to 2m alone will be enough to ensure the safety of end uses, with no additional measures required. This investigation has found that the anecdotal report regarding buried asbestos is likely to be true. Given that this structure appears to have been infilled with concrete, i.e. the asbestos has been encased in concrete, and that site levels are to be raised by approximately 2m with fill in this area, and assuming that the fill material is proven to be inert, it is considered this will provide a suitable barrier to protect end users coming into contact with the asbestos. However, the location of the former pump-house should be documented and, if necessary, marked-out on-site during the construction process, to ensure that the integrity of the concrete capping is maintained and that site workers are not at risk from the underlying buried asbestos.

5.9 Further, more intensive, soil and groundwater testing and gas monitoring is required to fully characterise the site, to ensure that the remedial recommendations are appropriate and that the site is safe and suitable for use. A phased (area) approach is recommended for the additional intrusive investigation at this site. The additional contamination investigation to be carried out in conjunction with a geotechnical investigation.

5.10 The Preliminary Contamination Remediation Method Statement provides an indication of the anticipated remediation strategy for the site, using the ground investigation data available to-date, and will therefore need to be revised following the proposed additional phases of investigation. The remediation requirements of each phase will depend on the findings of each individual detailed investigation. The following is proposed:  Isolate the contaminated soils from end users by a covering of hardstanding or a suitable depth of capping of inert soil in gardens and soft landscaped areas of 2m

Page 72 Agenda Item 5

 Any areas of the site are to be filled by 1m or less of inert material, a capping layer would need to be installed within all soft landscaped areas, to reduce exposure to acceptable levels and to enable healthy plant growth. It is currently considered that a minimum depth of 600mm of clean, inert subsoil (typically 450mm in depth) and topsoil (typically 150mm in depth) within these areas of the site would be sufficient  Upgraded water supply pipes that are resistant to hydrocarbon attack.  The cover system within affect soft landscaped areas will be underlain by a geotextile membrane, to act as a visual marker to discourage excavation and to prevent mixing of the clean soil with underlying contaminated soils.  Although not currently considered to be necessary, depending on the results of further, more intensive, investigation at the site, the following remediation measures may also be necessary at the site and the requirement for these should be reviewed following the results of these investigation: 1. Localised removal of contamination ‘hot spots’, should future investigation prove this to be necessary; 2. Localised installation of ground gas protection measures within the proposed buildings, should future investigation prove this to be necessary; and 3. Localised installation of a hydrocarbon vapour resistant membrane within the proposed buildings, should future investigation prove this to be necessary  In order to ensure that the not a danger to construction works and future site occupiers, it is recommended that all previous and future ground investigation reports for the site be passed onto a specialist asbestos consultancy, so that suitable risk assessments and further advice can be provided

5.11 The EA at para 12.10.3 concludes that ‘There is a possibility that surrounding site users/ residents may be exposed to increased levels of potentially contaminated dust due to ground disturbance, though given that site levels are to be raised significantly (by up to 2m) and that appropriate construction works risk assessments and methodologies will be implemented (e.g. for asbestos), as well as the typical distance to the receptors, it is considered that there is a low likelihood risk of surrounding site users/ residents being exposed to potentially contaminated dust. Nevertheless, the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be very high. Based on the levels of contamination recorded, as well as detailed quantitative risk assessments, the potential magnitude of the impact is considered to be slight. This would result in a direct, short term and temporary, intermediate adverse effect, which is considered to be significant’.

5.12 The possibility that future site users would be exposed to increased levels of potentially contaminated soils during operational use is considered to be unlikely, particularly given the ongoing further phases of ground investigation, which will identify whether remedial measures (e.g. localised contaminated soil removal and/ or capping of garden areas) are required to protect end users (receptor).

5.13 Validation testing will be required within an appropriate Material Management Plan.

Page 73 Agenda Item 5

5.14 There is a potential that earthworks and construction could increase the potential for contaminant migration to the underlying groundwater due to accidental spills and leakages from construction activities and storage of materials (including soil stockpiles, chemicals and fuels) or the creation of a preferential pathway (e.g. pile foundations). The sensitivity of the underlying groundwater is considered to be high due to its classification as a Secondary A Aquifer. Given mitigation measures detailed, the potential magnitude of the impact is considered to be slight. This would result in a direct, short term and temporary, intermediate adverse effect, which is considered to be significant.

5.15 All works throughout the development area would need to be undertaken in accordance with current best practice to minimise pollution risks e.g. in accordance with national guidelines such as Defra / Environment Agency ‘Pollution prevention for businesses’. Where appropriate, method statements would need to be produced for high risk activities, such as refuelling and use of concrete. Measures to control dust and run-off would be specified within the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for the site; ecological protection measures would be detailed in a Construction Ecological Management Plan (CEcoMP) for each phase of the development.

5.16 It is envisaged that the construction compound would be located to the south of the Tarka Trail. No further sub-compound or storage areas would be created within 60m of the top of the proposed flood defences once complete.

5.17 Consultee Responses

Environmental 1 Land Contamination: Health Manager I have reviewed Chapter 12 of the Environmental Statement dated 02/01/2020 and the associated contamination reports. The Chapter Reply Received 12 summary does not adequately reflect the key recommendations 27 January of the assessment reports. The site known history of potentially 2020 contaminative uses has been subject to a number of contamination risk investigations and assessments. This work has been carried (see also out by Raddlesden Geotechnical. Their most recent report is the amenity) Phase 2:Additional Exploratory Contamination Investigation and Environmental Assessment Report dated 10/12/19 The states:

"As recommended within the previous preliminary and exploratory investigation reports undertaken for the site, further, more intensive investigation, testing and assessment is still required at a later date, to further characterise the site conditions and to allow location specific recommendations to be provided."

In relation to asbestos risks the report states:

"It should be noted that, if areas of buried asbestos are found to be present during future investigations, development of these areas may not necessarily be viable (e.g. as is the case remedial works and proposals."

Page 74 Agenda Item 5

the report recommends the following further works:

"Furthermore intensive, soil and groundwater testing and gas monitoring is required to fully characterise the full development site, to ensure that the remedial recommendations are appropriate and that the site is safe and suitable for use. A phased (area) approach is recommended for the additional intrusive investigation at this site. The additional contamination investigation might be carried out in conjunction with a geotechnical investigation. The precise remedial works required should be agreed within the local authority, on a phase-by-phase basis before being implemented."

I agree that a phased (area) approach would be beneficial to further contamination investigation and assessment as it would establish a clearer connection between specific development proposals in a given area and the best approach to investigation and remediation of the associated contamination risks. Subsequent development of an area would then take place in a manner that ensures the area specific remediation recommendations are fully implemented and are signed off following submission of appropriate area specific verification reports and certification to the LPA. Given the above, I recommend conditions be imposed on any permission

4 Construction Phase Impacts I have reviewed the Woodward Smith Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) dated 17 December 2018. The document provides an outline of approaches for controlling construction related impacts and issues. A more detailed document will be required prior to works commencing that fully reflects recommendations contained within relevant specialist reports such as the Air Quality Impact Assessment report and land contamination reports. Given the scale of development proposals and proximity to sensitive publicly accessible locations, a detailed complaints process should also be included. In order to ensure that the potential impacts of demolition and construction phase activities are suitably controlled I recommend the following conditions be imposed.

Environmental I refer to my previous comments on this application 27 January Health Manager 2020 and to follow-up comments I made to you regarding noise and air quality on 20 March 2020. I have reviewed the Woodward Reply Received Smith consultee response letter dated 4 June 2020 and the 15 June 2020 Ruddlesden Geotechnical response to comments document dated 13 May 2020.I do not wish to add anything to my previous comments, which stand.

Environment • A scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of Agency the site;

Page 75 Agenda Item 5

Reply Received • Any unsuspected contamination subsequently found to be 16 May 2016 present on the site; and • A Construction Environment Management Plan. (edited) We concur with the conclusion that further intrusive investigations are required in order to adequately characterise the site and assess risks to controlled waters. Whilst we have no objections to the proposed development, we recommend that the abovementioned conditions should be included within any permission to secure the implementation of this additional work. The inclusion of these conditions is also justified by national planning policy. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution. Government policy also states that planning policies and decisions should also ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (NPPF, paragraph 121).

We recommend that a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) is produced to pull together and manage the pollution and waste management requirements during the construction. A CEMP is best prepared with the main Contractor. It is a management system showing how the environmental risks are managed through the construction phase, in a similar way that Health and Safety risks are managed. We recommend that a CEMP is drafted using the guidance from PPG6.

Environment Advice – Construction Environment Management Agency We have reviewed the submitted Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) dated 17.12.18 by Woodward Smith Reply Received Architects. Whilst this is broadly acceptable we recommend that 30 January the document is updated at the detailed design stage to cover the 2019 following issues. There is no mention of incident reporting within the CEMP. We recommend the inclusion of a statement that any Edited pollution incidents will be reported to our incident reporting line 0800 807060. We note that water will be used for dust suppression and vehicle washing. The applicant should confirm where is the water for this coming from. We advise that if they abstract groundwater or surface water for this purpose, they are limited to 20 cubic meters per day. If they are likely to exceed 20 cube per day, they will need to apply for an abstraction licence. With regards to risk of water pollution to the surrounding watercourses, whilst the document states that appropriate measures will be taken to prevent discharges, it does not contain any details of the methods they will take to ensure there are no pollutions. Perhaps the methodology will evolve during

Page 76 Agenda Item 5

construction. We recommend that the detail is included within an updated CEMP in due course.

Environment Additional advice relating to Contaminated Land is also set out Agency below. All other advice in our letter dated 19 February 2020 remains valid and, should you be minded to grant the application, Reply Received we would recommend that all of our previously recommended 16 July 2020 conditions are included within the decision.

Advice – Contaminated land The additional information submitted does not alter the comments in our previous response dated 19 February 2020. However the comments from Ruddlesdon Geotechnical dated 13-05-2020 include reference to further more intensive investigations. We encourage the completion of further investigation to improve the data set available for the site and recommend that our previous comments are considered when designing these additional investigations and when interpreting and reporting this work. It would be beneficial to compile all relevant data from previous investigations in order to develop a site specific conceptual site model and we recommend that it would be beneficial to include site specific detail of the groundwater flow fields and cross sections of the site.

Conclusion

5.18 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water and other pollution. The policies of the NDTLP similarly require contaminants to be adequately managed.

5.19 As set out within the amenity section of this report the effectiveness of the CEMP will be critical in controlling construction to ensure that contaminated areas are not disturbed (unless agreed) but are treated in line with recommendations for filling and then appropriately secured and/or remediated.

5.20 It is agreed that a phased (area) approach would be beneficial to further contamination investigation and assessment as it would establish a clearer connection between specific development proposals in a given area and the best approach to investigation and remediation of the associated contamination risks. This can be controlled by condition

5.21 Subsequent development of an area would then take place in a manner that ensures the area specific remediation recommendations are fully implemented and are signed off following submission of appropriate area specific verification reports and certification to the LPA. Again conditions would need to be imposed on any permission to secure this.

Page 77 Agenda Item 5

5.22 Whilst there is a concern about the impact that contaminants and particularly asbestos could have on human health, the strategies set out above have been designed to address how the site is delivered and mitigated. The whole process has been designed to be on a highly precautionary basis given the sensitivity that contamination can have on human health and the natural green and water environments. There are no policy concerns in respect of DM02 and DM03.

6.0 Waste and Minerals

6.1 Policy MP53 Devon Minerals Plan seeks to safeguard the future operation of existing wharves. This requirement is reflected in criterion (e) of FRE02 where the existing jetty and wharf, associated operational land and vehicular access to it are to be safeguarded. The proposed development retains the jetty and a commercial lay down area.

6.2 The Applicants supporting statement indicates that: The Minerals Wharf and lay down area is being retained as part of the application proposals The Concrete Plant and Waste Transfer Station are a hangover from the applicants work in capping the ash beds. These facilities will be retained on site as part of the initial construction works including the raising of the ground levels. Following the completion of these works the applicant will reassess the viability of these elements and if considered still viable, the applicants will endeavour to relocate these facilities elsewhere.

6.3 It is not unusual in coastal areas for commercial activities to occur alongside tourism and residential life. The laydown area allows this site to retain its flexibility as the long term use of the jetty could be a valuable asset to the North Devon economy. The amenity section above has concluded that the continued operation of the jetty could occur within reasonable noise operating limits

6.4 In respect of the treatment of waste a full waste management statement will be required.

Page 78 Agenda Item 5

6.5 Consultee Responses

Planning Policy Yelland Wharf itself is identified in the Devon Minerals Plan (Inset Unit Plan E) where Policy MP53 to safeguard future operation of existing wharves. This requirement is reflected in criterion (e) of Reply Received FRE02 where the existing jetty and wharf, associated operational 4 April 2019 land and vehicular access to it are to be safeguarded. The proposed development appears to comply with these policy Edited requirements.

DCC - Waste Planning Development The supporting statement fails to mention the Devon Waste Plan, Control or the adopted and emerging Minerals Plan, together with national minerals and waste policy. The existing waste recycling and Reply Received concrete plant is included within a Waste Consultation Zone, with 29 April 2016 Policy W10 of the Devon Waste Plan allowing for non-waste development if a suitable and deliverable location can be provided for the facility. As the application includes a new site for the concrete plant, the proposals are compliant with Policy W10 subject to an appropriate condition ensuring that this component of the proposals is achieved.

Page 78 of the supporting statement includes a waste audit, the principles of which are acceptable. However, the audit would be improved by inclusion of estimated quantities of waste that will require management during the site preparation and construction phase and following occupation of the new development. In particular, quantities and means of management of any hazardous waste should be identified.

Minerals Planning The adopted Minerals Local Plan defines a Mineral Consultation covering the jetty and an adjacent area for use as a mineral wharf, which is currently operational for the landing of aggregates. The emerging Devon Minerals Plan proposes a Mineral Safeguarding Area for the wharf facility. Policy MP53 of the adopted Plan and Policy M2 of the emerging Minerals Plan oppose development that would constrain continued use of the mineral wharf; however, the application retains the jetty and includes provision for an adjacent ‘lay down dock area’, with vehicular access to this being separate to the residential element. On this basis, the proposals are consistent with the adopted and emerging Mineral Plans.

Conclusion

6.6 Yelland Wharf itself is identified in the Devon Minerals Plan (Inset Plan E) where Policy MP53 seeks to safeguard future operation of existing wharves. This requirement is reflected in criterion (e) of FRE02 where the existing jetty and wharf, associated operational land and vehicular access to it are to be

Page 79 Agenda Item 5

safeguarded. The proposed development does not conflict with these policy requirements.

7.0 Natural Environment/Biodiversity/lighting

Policy Context

7.1 Local Planning Authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that the impact of development on wildlife is fully considered during the determination of a planning application under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC), The Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CRoW) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (Habitats Regulations 2017).

7.2 Para 175 of the NPPF states : When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles:

a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts) adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; b) development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;

7.3 In respect of ecology, Policy ST14 (Enhancing Environmental Assets) of the NDTLP, requires the quality of northern Devon’s natural environment to be protected and enhanced by ensuring that development contributes to:

a) providing a net gain in northern Devon’s biodiversity where possible, through positive management of an enhanced and expanded network of designated sites and green infrastructure, including retention and enhancement of critical environmental capital; (b) protecting the hierarchy of designated sites in accordance with their status; (c) conserving European protected species and the habitats on which they depend; (d) conserving northern Devon’s geodiversity and its best and most versatile agricultural land;… (i) conserving and enhancing the robustness of northern Devon’s ecosystems and the range of ecosystem services they provide

7.4 This is further enshrined in Policy DM08 (biodiversity and geodiversity) whereby this policy provides detailed criteria on the above consideration in relation to the assessment of planning applications. Paragraph 170 and 171 of the NPPF also seek the same set of objectives in respect of the above and reiterates the statutory duties.

Page 80 Agenda Item 5

7.5 The impact that these works could have on the natural environment is again one of the key issues raised within the letters of representations and community forums. The sensitivity of this site was a key point of discussion at the Local Plan Examination when both Natural England and the RSPB were engaged with the development of the policy and participated in the debate with the Inspector.

Biodiversity

7.6 Chapter 6 of the ES deal with Biodiversity. The following surveys have been completed by EAD Ecology:-

 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey  Ecological Surveys o Botanical Survey o Hedgerow Survey o Invertebrate Survey o Reptile Survey o Breeding Bird Survey o Wintering Bird Survey o Badger Survey o Bat Survey o Dormouse Survey

7.7 There are no European-designated sites within the site boundary and the ES concludes ‘No effects on other European sites of nature conservation importance are predicted’.

7.8 The site lies within the buffer zone of the North Devon Biosphere Reserve.

Braunton Burrows SAC

7.9 The Braunton Burrows Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) lie approximately 800m northwest of the site. The ES concludes ‘No mechanisms or pathways have been identified likely to affect Braunton Burrows SAC during the construction phase. Effects are assessed as neutral and not significant’.

7.10 The site lies within the Braunton Burrows SAC ‘Zone of Influence. As such, any new residential or tourism development in the ZoI is considered to have recreational impacts on the SAC. During the operational phase of the development the effects are assessed as a major negative effect.

7.11 A financial contribution is required in order to mitigate the impacts of development. A S106 agreement would be required at £100 per unit (see Heads of Terms)

Page 81 Agenda Item 5

Taw-Torridge Estuary SSSI

7.12 Taw-Torridge Estuary SSSI is located immediately adjacent to the site. It is designated for its populations of overwintering and migratory wading birds and for its estuarine habitats supporting rare plant species. There are seven primary high tide roost sites within the estuary, of which Yelland is considered to be the ‘second most important’. The importance of the Yelland roost was also identified in a recently published study on wintering wildfowl high tide roosts and recreational disturbance impacts on the Taw-Torridge estuary. The study also identified Yelland as a ‘go-to’ roost for birds disturbed from high-tide roosts elsewhere within the estuary.

7.13 Construction activities (between high tides during September and March) have the potential to disturb wintering waterfowl. Birds are most likely to be affected by works immediately adjacent to the estuary frontage, and could be disturbed by noise or visual disturbance from construction activities. In the area around the high tide roost the noise would be a ‘moderate’ during the majority of construction phases and ‘significant’ in the absence of mitigation.

7.14 The other issue would be visual disturbance during the construction of flood defences, lagoon and screen. Works inland of these areas would be unlikely to result in significant visual disturbance to waterfowl, as there would be no direct line-of-sight between areas used by birds and the construction area. Any disturbance would temporarily displace birds from the high tide roost area, causing them to expend energy during flight, either to return to the roost site (where there may be further risk of disturbance) or to alternative roost sites elsewhere in the estuary. The impact is a reduction in fitness of the affected birds which could lead to an increase in mortality. It is considered that without mitigation, construction disturbance could result in a medium-term, negative effect which given the significance of the site results in a major negative effect.

7.15 Without proper controls construction activity could affect water quality as a result of the release of sediments into the estuary during ground raising / construction of flood defences, or pollution from concrete, fuels or oils used during construction. These works also have a potential geomorphological effects arising from new flood defences. A CEMP and CEcoMP are required.

Page 82 Agenda Item 5

7.16 The ES concludes that noise from road traffic and mechanical services/plant would be negligible, as would noise from residential properties, assuming that standard best practice measures to insulate sound within new buildings was implemented. The jetty would continue to operate as it did prior to the development, and therefore noise and visual disturbance arising from ship deliveries would be unchanged.

7.17 A minimum 60m set-back of new buildings from the estuary edge, and limitations on building height along the frontage immediately adjacent to the known roost site are recommended. Noise disturbance during the operational phase of the development is unlikely to affect waterfowl adjacent to the site. A cross section across the main frontage adjoining the high tide roost (Section A-A, Y029-18- 501Q) shows the potential line-of-sight from the roost into the development, and confirms that with the provision of the proposed screen, buildings adjacent to the roost would not be visible to birds at that location. Therefore, any movement within the buildings or at ground level would not be visible to birds using the roost this minimising impact.

7.18 During the operational phase the increased pedestrian activity (including dogs) along the SW Coast Path and on the adjacent foreshore will be the main source of disturbance to the high tide roost. Provision of a screen along the western boundary of the site (Y029-18-501-Q), providing visual screening of walkers (and a barrier to dogs accessing the foreshore) is required.

7.19 Beyond the screen, a post and wire mesh fence would need to be installed along the remainder of the estuary frontage (including along the western edge of the RSPB Isley Marsh reserve) to deter pedestrian and dog access to the foreshore; this measure was recommended in the recent report on high-tide roosts and recreational disturbance on the estuary (Berridge 2019). The fence would be situated at the toe of the bank, out of view but still serving to prevent access to the estuary foreshore.

7.20 The inclusion of a low wall as part of proposed flood defences, which would provide some additional screening. Reed planting along proposed lagoons adjoining the estuary to provide additional screening.

7.21 The layout shows the creation of a new pedestrian route from the development to link with the South West Coast Path to the west of the site. The new path would be routed below the embankment adjoining the estuary, to minimise potential disturbance in the area immediately to the west of the roost.

7.22 To deal with disturbance from new artificial lighting arising from the development lighting parameters would need to be agreed to ensure a ‘dark’ corridor along the estuary frontage,

7.23 Without additional mitigation, there would be a residual risk that disturbance from residents of the proposed development could negatively affect waterfowl using the high tide roost, and, to a lesser extent, other intertidal areas adjacent to the site. On a precautionary basis, this is assessed as a long-term, negative effect on

Page 83 Agenda Item 5

waterfowl populations of the Taw- Torridge Estuary SSSI, significant at Regional level. This would be a major negative effect.

7.24 Summary of required mitigation:

a) A Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy (LEMS) sets out the principles of all landscape and ecological mitigation measures. The LEMS provides the framework for the delivery of a series of Construction Ecological Management Plans (CEcoMPs) and post-construction Landscape and Ecological Management Plans (LEMPs) that would be produced for each phase of the development. These would detail required ecological measures during construction and the management of new and retained habitats respectively. The LEMPs would cover site establishment and the first five- year post construction phase, after which they would be reviewed for the next five to ten-year period b) All works to create the new flood defence, visual screen along the north-west boundary and ground-raising within the 60m zone to the front of the first row of buildings, including the construction of the new screen, would be undertaken between April and the end of September, avoiding the key over- wintering period. c) Temporary visual and acoustic screening along the north-western boundary would be provided for all works, located at the top of the proposed flood defences, comprising an enhanced 2.5m acoustic barrier to protect high tide roost; d) In the event that a ‘winter wildfowling ban’ was implemented by the Secretary of State due to severe winter weather, further mitigation measures in addition to the above would be implemented e.g. timing/avoidance of certain construction activities in relate to high-tide times (plus two hours either side). Such measures would be agreed in advance with North Devon Council and Natural England. e) Regular monitoring of the high-tide roost would be undertaken by the Ecological Clerk of Works (EcoCW) for the development. In the event that regular disturbance of the roost was identified during construction works, working methods would be reviewed in consultation with Natural England and North Devon Council and additional mitigation measures implemented as appropriate.

Other SSSI’s

7.25 Eight other SSSIs are present within 5km of the site including Caen Valley Bats SSSI, which lies 4.9km to the north and is designated for its nationally important summer maternity roost and winter hibernacula for it’s population of greater horseshoe bats. The ES reviews the impact of lighting, the crossing of the Tarka Trail and the loss of habitat (summer roost for two individual bats with in the underground structures) and concludes that ‘Overall, it is considered that there would not be a significant negative effect on GHS bat populations from Caen Valley Bats SSSI during construction. Effects are assessed as negative and medium-term at Sub-Parish level (i.e. not significant); a minor negative effect.

Page 84 Agenda Item 5

7.26 The lighting parameter plan for the development (Y029-18-207-E) identifies a minimum 10m width dark (<0.5 lux) corridor along the southern boundary of the site, adjacent to the Tarka Trail. This would include the proposed new road crossing. New landscape planting within the development (Strategic Landscape Masterplan, Drawing No. 10655/P18D), would provide potential new commuting or foraging habitat for GHS and other bat species as it matured. Overall, effects on bat populations from Caen Valley Bats SSSI are assessed as neutral in the medium-term onwards and not significant using the site.

Other Statutory Sites

7.27 Bideford to Foreland Point Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) is situated approximately 3km west of the site and Taw-Torridge Estuary recommended MCZ lies approximately 1.7km north-east of the site. Fremington LNR lies approximately 2.3km east of the site boundary. The ES concludes that ‘No mechanisms or pathways have been identified likely to affect other statutory sites of conservation importance, including MCZs and Fremington LNR. Effects are assessed as neutral and not significant’. This conclusion is also offered during the operational phase.

Other Sites

7.28 Home Farm Marsh County Wildlife Site (CWS) lies approximately 500m east of the site and is designated for grazing marsh, arable land, brackish ditches and small area of saltmarsh with bird and plant interest.

7.29 Isley Marsh RSPB Reserve is located immediately to the east of the site. It is described as “an important haven for undisturbed feeding and resting birds, especially wintering flocks of ducks (such as teal) and waders (including significant numbers of curlew, greenshank and dunlin)”. No significant effects on are predicted during construction. This site is located approximately 200m to the east of the main development area and consequently would not be directly impacted by construction activities. The noise assessment identifies no ‘significant’ affect overall, construction effects are assessed as a minor negative effect.

7.30 The majority of the above two sites are inaccessible to the public and screened/separated from publicly accessible areas by vegetation, site topography or fences. Home Farm Marsh is currently subject to significant disturbance from visitor pressure and the GAIA trust are seeking additional Govt measures and/or PSPO to restrict public access. The Overwintering Bird SSSI assessment and NE have concluded that all development is contributing towards a steady, iterative increase in recreational pressure and there is a requirement for all new residents to be appropriately informed through home information packs and site interpretation. Mitigation measures to avoid disturbance effects on the wider SSSI (set out above) would also manage any potential additional disturbance effects on Isley Marsh and Home Farm Marsh. Overall, operational effects are assessed as neutral and not significant in the ES although this is considered an under estimate.

7.31 Two non-statutory designated sites East Yelland Marsh Unconfirmed Wildlife Site (UWS) and East Yelland Plantation UWS are situated within the north-eastern part

Page 85 Agenda Item 5

of the site and are designated for their unimproved neutral grassland and scattered scrub, broadleaved plantation and scattered scrub respectively. Site clearance would result in the removal / modification of approximately 3.06ha of semi-improved neutral grassland habitat. In the absence of mitigation or compensation, the overall effect on these non-statutory designated sites would be negative, long-term and significant at Parish level; a moderate negative effect. As open space residents would use this land during the operational phase of the development. Increased trampling and nutrient enrichment from dog fouling, could reduce species diversity and changes distribution of habitats. Without additional mitigation or compensation, effects of recreation pressures on these sites would be negative, long-term effect and significant at Parish level; a moderate negative effect.

7.32 A North Devon Biodiversity Network Key Feature, designated for its use as a wildlife corridor, is also situated within the site boundary but no significant effects are predicted. New landscape planting along the western boundary of the Key Feature would maintain or enhance the value of this area as a habitat corridor. This would mitigate habitat loss during the construction phase and would ensure a neutral, non-significant effect on the site in the medium-term onwards.

7.33 There are a further 29 non-statutory designated sites within 2km of the site, comprising four CWS, one proposed CWS, 23 UWS, and one Other Site of Wildlife Interest.

7.34 Retained on Site habitat Retained habitats, include scrub, reed beds and poor semi-improved grassland. Whilst the creation/enhancement of habitats would partially mitigate habitat loss in in the long-term, they would not fully mitigate for the loss of habitats within the footprint of the development.

7.35 A biodiversity net gain / loss assessment using the Biodiversity Metric 2.0 (Natural England, July 2019) has been undertaken which identified a predicted net loss of

Page 86 Agenda Item 5

approximately -113 ‘Habitat Units’ (-31.3%) and a gain of approximately +5.5 ‘Hedgerow Units (+200%)’. The assessment takes into account the enhancement of 1.25ha of poor semi-improved grassland adjacent to the site (to the south of the Tarka Trail) to ‘Good’ condition wildflower grassland, based on the Strategic Landscape Masterplan, Drawing No.10655/P18D.

7.36 Without additional mitigation or compensation, the net loss would be a negative, long-term effect significant at Parish level; a moderate negative effect. Planning policy requires a minimum 10% biodiversity net gain, preferably delivered on site. The s106 regime can be used to contribute to off-site improvements. The applicant and the North Devon Biosphere Reserve Manager have agreed in principle the delivery of new/enhanced off-site habitats to offset on-site habitat loss, and deliver >10% net gain overall. This would be delivered either through direct agreement with a third-party provider, or though financial contribution to the North Devon Biosphere Reserve, who would then deliver the required offset. In either case, the offset provision would be secured as part of the s106 agreement for the development, providing certainty of delivery. The North Devon Biosphere Manager has confirmed that +127 Habitat Units could be provided against the predicted - 113 Biodiversity Unit loss within the development site, which would equate to a net gain of approximately +12%. No offset for hedgerows would be required, as net gain would be achieved within the development site.

7.37 During the operational phase, retained habitats within and adjacent to the site could be subject to increased human activity (e.g. recreation, noise, physical damage) and artificial lighting, which could reduce their ecological value. However, the integrated landscape and ecological design contains a variety of new wildlife habitats, buffering of retained habitats and dark (<0.5 lux) corridors along key wildlife corridors (estuary frontage and Tarka Trail) but without further mitigation or compensation, effects would remain negative, long-term at the Parish level (a moderate negative effect)

Impact on Protected Species

7.38 The ES assesses the impact on the species surveyed above and concludes that with mitigation the effect would be minor to moderate negative during both the construction and operational phases. Full adherence would be required to the Construction Ecological management Plan (CEcoMP) to address any on site species such as amphibians/ reptiles/ badgers etc along with the timing of works to avoid nesting times. The ES recognises that a Natural England Bat Mitigation licence may be required and replacement bird and bat roosting is proposed as part of the first phase of development. Given the sensitivity of the site an Ecological Clerk of works would be required. This would be secured within the secured within the CEcoMP.

Page 87 Agenda Item 5

Measures to avoid or mitigate potential negative effects, and provide biodiversity enhancement.

7.39 The following are proposed:

a) Adherence to the Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Plan dated 19/12/2019 (Appendix 6.19 of the ES), CEMP, CEcoMP. LEMS and POS Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy December 2019 (LEMP) b) Retention of existing semi-natural waterbodies and proposed informal waterbodies c) Minimum 60m setback of the built development from the overwintering bird roost to the northwest of the site. d) Introduction of 220m barrier to protect overwintering bird roost and fencing along the whole estuary frontage to deter access to the foreshore by people and dogs. e) Proposed native tree/scrub belt and on site habitat creation Proposed wildflower meadow. f) Proposed bespoke bat roost building (drawing number Y029 18 301C contained in Appendix 6.2- of the ES) and minimum 75 bat boxes to be integrated into new buildings and on retained trees. g) Protection of a ‘dark’ corridor across the Tarka Trail and along the estuary frontage. Lighting strategy and parameter plan h) 2 days per week wardening for a minimum 25-year period to monitor the high tide roost and visitor use, and liaise with residents and visitors. In addition signage and information leaflets, dog waste bins 9Secured via the s106) i) Proposed 5 no. heron platforms adjacent to western pond, and minimum 250 bird boxes integrated into new buildings and on retained trees. j) Offsite habitat creation to offset loss within the development costed at £608,431 k) £100 SAC contribution per dwelling l) Erect a temporary screens until the soft screening becomes established and plant over the entire width of the bank with the native reed species.

ES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY BIODIVERSITY

7.40 Para 6.11.1 states: Overall, with the provision of the avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures, there would be no significant long- term residual negative ecological effects as a result of the proposed development. No negative effects on statutory designated sites are predicted; neutral effect. Medium-term, negative effects at the Parish level would occur on habitats (including on two Unconfirmed Wildlife Sites), plants, reptiles and breeding birds. These would be moderate negative effects but would reduce to neutral in the long-term through the proposed landscape strategy for the development and ‘biodiversity offsetting’; it is possible that the latter would bring about a ‘net gain’ (neutral to minor positive) in respect of habitats. All other species effects would be medium-term and negative (minor negative), reducing to neutral in the long-term (neutral effect). No in-combination effects have been identified.

7.41 Para 6.11.2 Overall, the development would ensure that significant harm was avoided, and that long-term effects would be neutral; there would be a minor

Page 88 Agenda Item 5

positive effect as a result of the proposed habitat offsetting. The development would therefore be in accordance with the relevant policies of the NPPF (2019) and policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031.

7.42 Consultee Responses

Planning Policy The site adjoins the Taw-Torridge Estuary SSSI where policies Unit ST14, DM08 and FRE02 (d) will apply and development must not harm the designation adversely. There is an important high-tide Reply Received bird roost in the estuary immediately to the west of the site. Whilst 4 April 2019 criterion (j) requires a contribution towards a wider study on the potential impact of increased recreational pressure on the SSSI, Edited this report has been commissioned and funded already so a financial contribution towards it is no longer required. However, this consultants’ report (currently being prepared) is expected to identify current disturbance of roosting birds at this high-tide roost from walkers and their dogs using this stretch of the South West Coast Path. Any development proposal will need to demonstrate that further disturbance is avoided, or otherwise mitigated to an acceptable level. Criterion (i) of Policy FRE02, Policy ST14(a) and the Local Plan’s spatial planning vision, together with the NPPF, also require a net gain in biodiversity as a result of development, which will reflect cumulative biodiversity impacts both onsite and adjoining the site assessed using the relevant Defra metrics.

Planning Policy I note that the site plan shows heron platforms adjoining the Unit western existing pond, although these are outside the red line of the application site. New built structures are likely to constitute Reply Received development so should be included within the application site, even 19 February if design details will follow at reserved matters stage. 2020 edited Planning Policy As the site is within the Braunton Burrows SAC Zone of Influence, Unit the applicant will be liable for a financial contribution towards the long term management and maintenance of the Special Area of Reply Received Conservation. I note the agent has suggested that such a 23 June 2020 contribution is subject to viability but in my opinion this contribution is not negotiable and if viability is an issue then it should be Edited reduced elsewhere. All issues around ecology should be considered against ST14 and DM08,

Arboricultural EcIA Review: Similarly to the LVIA Review I do not intend to make Officer intend to make detailed comment on the EcIA submitted by the Reply Received applicant as this has been reviewed by others and in general I 4 November concur that the work has been carried out comprehensively and to 2020 an appropriately high standard and I consider it to provide a reasonably objective assessment of the likely ecological effects in conjunction with the proposed mitigation and

Page 89 Agenda Item 5

enhancement measures of the proposed development on which to base your recommendations.

My only significant area of concern in respect of effective ecological mitigation remains in respect of the efficacy of the approach proposed for reducing disturbance on the sensitive roost area. Whilst I accept that the proposed barrier would appear to be appropriate in terms of ecological mitigation and is supported by NE and the RSPB in this respect, I would only consider this to be appropriate if other potential mitigation that would result in a reduced landscape and visual impact have been explored and ruled out as being undeliverable.

It is also clear from the EcIA that in order to meet our policy requirements for proposed development to deliver biodiversity net gain that compensatory habitat creation/enhancement offsite will be required and will need to be secured through an effective legal agreement between the LPA, developer and any third party landholder(s) and or biodiversity offset broker.

Whilst I understand that negotiations are continuing between the developer and the biosphere team and foundation, as I understand it we still have no clear proposals as to what, where, when and how the necessary compensatory activity will be delivered or in relation to the level of financial contribution that will be required in lieu of a detailed proposal and how this will be secured and spent on effective compensatory activity.

Whilst I have no in principal objection to the proposed biodiversity offsetting I would consider it in the public interest to be able to demonstrate that appropriate compensatory activity or financial contributions and an effective means by which to deliver them within a reasonable timescale are secured in association with the grant of any planning permission for the site.

Sustainability Please refer to response attached to this report. Officer

Reply Received 20 February 2020

Devon Wildlife We object to this application for the following reasons: Trust  No net gain in biodiversity. We do not think that "neutral or Reply Received minor beneficial" satisfies the National Planning Policy 15 February Framework's requirement for measurable net gains in 2019 biodiversity in NPPF paras. 170 and 174. Opportunities to enhance habitats on/adjacent to the site have been missed, edited

Page 90 Agenda Item 5

including the semi-natural grassland to the south of the Tarka Trail, which could aid on-site mitigation.

 Uncertainty over provision of compensation off-site

 No net gain for Greater Horseshoe Bats. The loss of the large underground area, used by GHBs, is unlikely to be adequately compensated for by the construction of a small purpose-built bat house. The precautionary principle demands that a more substantial replacement is required which will serve the same function as the existing roost and must be provided prior to any removal of the underground area.

 flight lines for light sensitive bats along the shoreline and the Tarka Trail will be affected by lighting from the development and the reflective surface of the proposed lagoon. We note the technical proposals in the Lighting Strategy but it will be difficult to prevent changes in the future or the introduction of further lighting in private properties. The proposed timing restrictions don't recognise the fact there is considerable bat activity at dusk and dawn when these lights will be on. Further measures are required to address the impacts of the currently proposed lighting regime, for example the planting of a physical light barrier (e.g. native shrub planting) along the entire site shoreline, in addition to the proposed fence. Similarly, a barrier of Devon bank hedgerow, with tree standards, could be planted along the south edge of the development, shielding the Tarka Trail bat corridor and particularly the proposed new roost from the new development lighting.

In conclusion, this scale of development in a sensitive estuary location potentially risks severe impacts upon the rich wildlife of this locality and the wider landscape. The lack of a clear mechanism to achieve net biodiversity gain and ensure appropriate protection for bats leads us to object to the development proposal in this form.

Natural England SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND’S ADVICE Further information advised to determine impacts on designated Reply Received sites: 18 February  As the Competent Authority, North Devon Council is 2019 required to conduct a Habitat Regulations screening to determine the significance of impacts on Braunton Burrows Edited – Full Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the scope for response mitigation and to demonstrate that the requirements of attached Regulations 63 and 64 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 have been considered by your authority.

Page 91 Agenda Item 5

 Further consideration is required regarding impacts on, and mitigation for, the Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI.  Amendments to the Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) are required to include necessary SSSI mitigation.

Natural England SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND’S ADVICE • North Devon Council is required to conduct a Habitat Regulations Reply Received Assessment for Braunton Burrows Special Area of Conservation 14 February (SAC). 2020 • Further consideration is required regarding impacts and mitigation for the Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI. Edited – Full response Details are provided below. Without this information, Natural attached England may need to object to the proposal.

Natural England SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND’S ADVICE The Taw Torridge Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Reply Received - no objection subject to conditions. Details are provided below. 26 June 2020 Please note that our advice in our consultation response of 14th Edited – Full February 2020 (306311) and 18th February 2019 (ref 269685) for response Braunton Burrows SAC, Biodiversity Net Gain; the North Devon attached Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; Caen Valley Bats SSSI; South West Coast Path National Trail (SWCP NT)/Tarka Trail; Local Sites; Priority habitats and species; Protected species; Soils and the England Coastal Path remains current and relevant to the amended application. I have attached copies for ease of reference.

Recommends conditions

Natural England Based on what I originally said, we would not have an issue with removal of the hard timber screen if a soft screen alternative is Reply Received proposed. We would also support the proposal to employ a hard 2 February 2021 screen until a natural screen has been sufficiently established as suggested by EAD (email Mark Saunders 26th November 2020).

Stock proof fencing would prevent access to the foreshore as much as is possible within the developer’s gift.

If the hard screen is taken out of the proposal the same length of the footpath will require the alternative soft screening which I think your amended drawing shows. The planting width needs to be of sufficient density to be effective all year round.

The plans you attach still show the footpath into the development on the west end coming out by the roost as well as diverting behind the bank. This will have some element of startle effect if retained. I think it’s important that this small section of new path is removed otherwise it makes the diversion behind the bank pointless. The

Page 92 Agenda Item 5

idea is to bring people off and onto the coast path away from the roost.

Natural England Key points for further consideration by the applicant.

Stephen 1. Cotswold Transport Planning as referred to in section 6.7.47 Jenkinson of the Environmental Statement – volume lack enough detail to specialist make a suitably-informed assessment of the path’s use and thus advisor to NE likely impact of the development proposals for a number of reasons on the English including: survey dates and times and on-lead percentage Coast Path assumptions not fitting with national and regional surveys. consultation However, the frequency of local people walking this section of the SWCPNT seems accurate. Reply Received 4 June 2020 2. Timber screening is not an effective nor appropriate means of mitigating disturbance in this setting; moreover, it has significant potential to increase disturbance to birds on the adjacent inter-tidal zone. The precise extent and location of the screen appears to vary across different documents, and a number of dimensions are lacking. Despite that latter, it is still submitted that significant limitations of the concept can still be readily assessed. the claim in 6.7.3 of the Environmental Statement – volume 1 that the screening/fencing would provide "a barrier to dogs accessing the foreshore" is not correct as dogs and people can, and do, already access the intertidal zone long before they get to where the screening is proposed to start. Loss of amenity due to the proposed screen will likely result in greater numbers of walkers on the foreshore for extended periods.

3. While fencing-in more of the South West Coast Path heading towards Instow could make it less likely people would go onto the intertidal zone, it would have to go for at least another 600 metres to the jetty to the west; even that is unlikely to be sufficiently effective given that people can walk on sand under the jetty. This would seem to present significant practical and legal challenges; it is noted this would also go well beyond the western extent of the site boundary shown on Drawing 10655/P18c.

4. The screening significantly reduces sightlines making that section of path feel less safe; moreover, the one or more

Page 93 Agenda Item 5

(it’s not entirely clear from the application) covered viewing areas create a sheltered location where anti-social behaviour can occur, making it even less attractive to use as one cannot readily take an alternative route.

5. Given the role of habituation and startle effects for birds on the intertidal area people, with and without dogs, appearing and then disappearing (as would be the case with the screen of the length proposed) may well make startle effects more likely as people will disappear and then reappear.

6. Recommended alternative to plant, cultivate and then maintain for the lifetime of the development, suitable year-round vegetation between a double row of post and wire netting (no barbed wire to be used) to approximately 1.1 metres tall, to replicate the natural screen effect already in place to the east of the former power station jetty. This would visually screen dogs on the path from being seen by the birds and physically keep them off the intertidal zone, without giving rise to the reduction of visual amenity, convenience, or feelings of safety for people that the 1.8 metre screen would impose; thus, walkers would be no-more likely to go onto the intertidal zone than as at present.

7. Diverting the South West Coast Path through the residential development is not an effective nor appropriate means of mitigating disturbance, and may actually increase the likelihood of disturbance to birds on the adjacent intertidal zone. No alternative to retaining the coast path on its current approximate alignment given the high level of amenity the coast path currently provides and its high level of established use.

8. Worn desire lines from people already crossing this area, along with access points from the coast path, should be retained, as it is unlikely that only the suggested formal pathways shown in the application drawing YO29 18 204 N will be followed in practice.

9. It is not recommended to provide seating on the coast path itself adjacent to this greenspace, as increasing dwell time in such spaces could increase the likelihood of disturbance on the intertidal area. It is also recommended to signpost such provision of seating and a wider viewpoint from the coast path, to further increase the likelihood of people walking away from the most sensitive intertidal area.

10. To reduce the likelihood of increased off-lead exercising of dogs occurring on statutorily designated sites for wildlife, or increasing conflict on the Tarka Trail, it is recommend adding a planning condition such that this area of non-statutorily designated greenspace should be formally retained as an area where dogs can be exercised off-lead, as long as they are kept under control.

Page 94 Agenda Item 5

This is contrary to what is alluded to in section 6.8.35 of the Environmental Statement – volume 1, which suggests restrictions could be imposed. Similarly there should be a condition to prohibit the use of livestock to manage the vegetation in this greenspace if it would in effect introduce an on-lead requirement. This greenspace needs to be seen as part of the overall mitigation provision in relation to walkers with dogs to protect adjacent habitats and species of up to international importance.

11. Provision should be made in the application for the installation, retention and emptying of bins suitable for bagged dog waste. These can be dedicated bins for dog waste only (as suggested in 6.8.35 of the Environmental Statement – volume 1) but they can also be general litter bins, as the latter can take bagged dog waste. Local councils are increasingly finding such a dual-use bin approach can make significant savings and reduce the amount of general litter left behind.

12. Drawing 10655/P18c shows a 1.1m high post and rail fence on the existing coast path; it is not clear which side of the path the fencing is to be constructed. If post and rail is used then it should have sheep netting added to the fence line nearest the coast path (suitable dimensions available on request) to stop dogs readily getting through it and onto the intertidal area.

13. On-site information provision should also be provided to address the information needs of existing path users and non- residents, as they will be affected by the development. Any provision of information relating to the walking of dogs should ideally use verbatim, or very closely mirror, the wording in Natural England’s Dog Walking Code.

14. Highly recommended to provide, and then maintain, a free- draining all-weather path surface (using suitable materials for this rural context) for all of the South West Coast Path abutting or within the application boundary. This will reduce the likelihood of walkers, with or without dogs, going onto the intertidal zone and/or around screened areas due to the path being very muddy.

15. Section 16.5.5 of the Environmental Statement – volume 1, refers to the adaptation of the former ash beds for dog walking. While the latter is to be welcomed in principle, it cannot be considered in itself to make a significant contribution to the mitigation of any impacts elsewhere.

Royal Society 1. The RSPB is concerned that this application risks harm to the For The Taw Torridge Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (the SSSI), Protection Of and to the RSPB’s Isley Marsh Nature Reserve (also within the Birds SSSI). The SSSI is notified for its intertidal habitats and overwintering water bird populations. A large mixed use

Page 95 Agenda Item 5

Reply Received development in this location inevitably poses significant risks to the 17 February SSSI. In the RSPB’s view the most significant risk is 2019 disturbance to and displacement of overwintering water birds from their inter-tidal feeding habitats and high-tide roosting grounds in proximity to the application site and further afield due to dispersed recreational activity of future residents of the 280 dwellings and hotel guests. Activity that disturbs wintering water birds from foraging for food or causes them to take flight, thus expending additional energy, could affect their fitness and breeding success the following Spring, and even their survival overwinter or on migration to their northerly breeding grounds. 2. Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) data and that provided by surveys undertaken to support this application confirm that the area to the immediate west of the application site, and Isley Marsh to the east, are important high tide roost areas within the estuary. This is confirmed by initial results from surveys being undertaken this Winter for the Taw Torridge Estuary High Tide Roost and Recreational Impacts study. 3. The ES recognises at 6.7.49 that residents of the new development would use the public footpath adjacent to the estuary. It predicts a likely increase of at least 16 visitors a day during the winter months. In our view this figure should be treated with extreme caution. It is inconceivable that 280 dwellings and a 50 bed hotel (between them accommodating some 700+ residents) in this location, i.e. offering immediate access to the estuary-side footpath, would generate such a low level of activity, particularly considering the proportion of dog ownership likely within the houses. It has to be anticipated that the increase in use of the footpath is far greater than that suggested. 4. RSPB strongly supports the measures proposed to mitigate risks to the SSSI, including those listed at 6.7.53 and 6.8.32 of the ES. In our view these all need to be secured as legally binding conditions on any planning permission, with secure in-perpetuity funding for maintenance/repair/replacement to ensure they continue to be effective. The second bullet includes A post and wire mesh fence would be extended along the northern and eastern boundaries to deter pedestrian and dog access to the foreshore. We support this measure, however it is not clear from the ES text or plans what the proposed extent and alignment of this fence are. Recent information has come to light that members of the public and their dogs using the footpath on the ash beds to the east of Yelland Quay occasionally access parts of Isley Marsh nature reserve There is a risk that the increased use of this footpath by future residents of the proposed development could significantly increase this activity. We therefore recommend that the proposed fence is required along the whole of the estuary front including alongside the western edge of Isley Marsh. Indeed, without it, in light of this recent information, we disagree with the SE’s conclusion at 6.9.7 that No significant residual effects on Isley

Page 96 Agenda Item 5

Marsh RSPB nature reserve are predicted. There would be a non- significant short-term, Sub-Parish adverse effect on the site as a result of construction noise. Effects would be neutral in the medium-term onwards. 5. 6.8.3 of the ES states that Regular monitoring of the high-tide roost would be undertaken by the Ecological Clerk of Works (EcoCW) for the development. In the event that regular disturbance of the roost was identified during construction works, working methods would be reviewed in consultation with Natural England and NDC, and additional mitigation measures implemented as appropriate. We consider that these contingency measures need to be defined now, before planning permission is granted, along with thresholds that would trigger their deployment. Avoiding construction around high tide would be an obvious additional measure to introduce. 6. At 6.8.20 the ES states that 75 bird boxes would be integrated within the walls of new buildings and on retained trees. This requirement is set out in the LEMS and would be carried forward to respective CEcoMPs and LEMPs. This is not in our view an acceptable level of provision for a development of this scale. Integral ‘swift boxes’/`swift bricks’ are used by a range of bird species. Built into the fabric of buildings, they recreate natural cavities found in older properties. Integral boxes are inconspicuous, simple and inexpensive to install and have no requirement for ongoing maintenance. Routine good practice in respect of incorporating integral bird boxes into developments is an overall ratio of at least one per unit (individual residential dwelling). More should be provided in larger buildings, where optimal height and number will depend on the design of the building and the surrounding area. As swifts breed in colonies, boxes should be created in individual buildings in groups of 2-3. RSPB therefore recommends that if the Council is minded to grant this application permission, at least 300 swift boxes are integrated into the built fabric of the development, in accordance with good practice. 7. 6.8.32 of the ES states that A wardening provision of at least two days per week during the winter period would be implemented for a minimum period of 25 years post-construction (reviewed on a five-year basis). The warden would undertake management, liaison and monitoring as required to minimise disturbance to waterfowl; this would include liaison with residents of the development and other footpath users, and monitoring of waterfowl in the vicinity of the development. We seek confirmation that this wardening would operate between September and March inclusive. 8. 6.8.32 also states that Provision of appropriate signage / information along the footpath adjacent to the estuary; the exact content and locations of which would be agreed with Natural England, RSPB and other stakeholders. We consider that the precise number, nature and locations of these signs should be agreed before any planning permission is granted.

Page 97 Agenda Item 5

9. 6.9.2 of the ES states that Measures to avoid disturbance to waterfowl during the construction and operational phases of the development, particularly in relation to the known high tide roost adjacent to the site, would ensure that adverse effects on this interest feature were avoided. Overall, residual effects would be neutral and not significant. Whilst we agree that the mitigation measures proposed should go a long way to reducing increased disturbance risk to an acceptable level, given the scale of the proposal in this location, and the importance of the Yelland high tide roost in the context of the whole estuary (confirmed by interim results from this Winter’s Taw Torridge Estuary High Tide Roost and Recreational Impacts study), if this application is granted permission we consider that regular monitoring of the high tide roost should be undertaken throughout its construction and operation, and contingency measures should be defined and legally secured, with agreed thresholds for their deployment, to be implemented should this conclusion prove to be incorrect. 10. The North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 Policy FRE02: Yelland Quay requires, at (j), contributions towards a wider study on the potential impact of increased recreational pressure on the SSSI and nesting birds in the estuary. In pre-application meetings with the applicant team RSPB accepted that it would be disproportionate to require the applicant alone to fund such a study. Natural England, North Devon and Torridge Councils and RSPB (accessing N.Devon AONB Sustainable Development Royal Society Further to our previous letter of 19/02/2019: For The Protection Of 1. the RSPB remain concerned that this application risks harm to Birds the notified features Intertidal habitats and overwintering water birds) of the Taw Torridge Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest Reply Received (the SSSI), and to the RSPB’s Isley Marsh Nature Reserve (also 17 February within the SSSI). In the RSPB’s view the most significant risk is 2020 disturbance to and displacement of overwintering water birds from their inter-tidal feeding habitats and high-tide roosting grounds in proximity to the application site and further afield due to dispersed recreational activity of future residents of the proposal.

2. As stated in our previous letter, RSPB strongly supports the measures proposed to mitigate risks to the SSSI listed in the ES summary. In our view these all need to be secured as legally binding conditions on any planning permission, with secure in- perpetuity funding for maintenance/repair/replacement to ensure they continue to be effective.

2.1. The RSPB welcome the inclusion of the period (September to March) for employment of the warden (2 days per week) in the management strategy. This needs to be secured for a 25 year period (reviewed in 5 years).

Page 98 Agenda Item 5

3. However, the RSPB raised specific concerns about the development, relating to potentially significant impacts on the SSSI that needed to be addressed, and the following mitigation measures remain outstanding: 3.1. The need to extend the fencing proposal around the whole of the estuary frontage, including that along RSPB land (to where the frontage joins the Tarka/cycle Trail). It is still not clear from the text, and based upon the maps provided, the vulnerable area of land to the east of the site still does not appear to have fencing identified around its entirety. 3.2. The extent of the screening at the western end to prevent disturbance to the roost where footpaths joined need to be assessed and measures incorporated. It is unclear whether any additional measures have been included.

4. In addition, we are concerned about the level at which enhancement features are being delivered: 4.1. The number of nest boxes should be one per dwelling, so the current number is significantly below the recommended level.

5. And seek clarification the following are in place and will be legally secured within the planning permission: 5.1. contingency plans to deal with disturbance 5.2. The net gain contribution of the project. 5.3. Maintenance of a SuDS scheme in the short, medium and long term. 5.4. The number and location of signage is clarified and legally secured. 5.5. Noise management plan protecting roosting and feeding water birds. 5.6. Additional land secured in perpetuity for water birds for use at high tide. Royal Society Further to our submissions of 18 February 2019 and 17 February For The 2020: Protection Of 1. The RSPB’s concerns over this development relate to the risk of Birds harm to the Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI and to the RSPB’s Isley Marsh Nature Reserve (also within the SSSI) and the associated Reply Received overwintering water bird populations. In the RSPB’s view the most 17 July 2020 significant risk is disturbance to and displacement of overwintering water birds from their inter-tidal feeding habitats and high-tide roosting grounds in proximity to the application site and further afield due to dispersed recreational activity of future residents. As we have stated in our previous responses, we strongly support measures to mitigate these risks as listed in the ES which in our view need to be secured as legally binding conditions of any planning permission and with secure in- perpetuity funding for maintenance/repair/replacement to ensure they continue to be effective. 2. We welcome the extension of the post and wire fence around the whole development site to include the border with the

Page 99 Agenda Item 5

RSPB’s Isley Marsh reserve. We request inclusion of a gate as access to the reserve is needed to enable periodic asbestos removal from the site. A further consideration is that we expect increased recreational use of the Tarka Trail, which runs along the southern boundary of the reserve, to increase the risk of access to the reserve, particularly by dogs. Although this is off the development site, mitigation in the form of a similar suitable fence is needed along this section. 3. We have the following outstanding concerns relating to potentially significant impacts on the SSSI which need to be addressed: - We previously expressed concern over disturbance to the high tide roost at the western end of the development and commented that the screening needed to be extended to the convergence of the paths. We also support an alternative footpath link to avoid people accessing the coast path adjacent to the high tide roost. It is not clear if amendments have been made and we seek clarity on both these matters as it remains critical that the design of the paths and screening ensures there is no increase in disturbance risk to the high tide roost. - We welcome the commitment to monitor the high tide roost throughout the construction phases as set out in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan YO29 18 205N. The stated monitoring period is October to March, however we consider it is important for monitoring to start in September in line with winter season bird use of the estuary. We also note there is no reference to contingency measures, which we consider need to be identified now, along with thresholds that would trigger their deployment. Avoiding construction around high tide would be an obvious additional measure to introduce. 4. In addition, as previously raised, regarding levels of enhancement: - Our recommendation for the number of nest boxes is at least 250, integrated into buildings in accordance with good practice. - We welcome that discussions are underway regarding offset land for bird use at high tide. However, there is currently no detail or timescale for delivery of this, which should be clarified and secured.

5. We also fully support Natural England’s advice in its letter of 26/06/2020 including: - Timing of works within 60m of MHWS to be between April and August. - Noise contour maps and a noise management plan. - SuDS scheme and surface water management plan.

6. The RSPB also strongly supports a strategic approach to mitigation such that all developments which add to the recreational impacts on the SSSI’s water bird populations make a financial contribution to measures to avoid such impacts.

Page 100 Agenda Item 5

The Biosphere Whilst the Biosphere has been working alongside the ecologist and Service the developer to mitigate and in so far as possible offer project to compensate the impacts on biodiversity arising from the Reply Received development proposal, there are outstanding concerns as well as 22 July 2019 other policy areas that make the development unacceptable to the Edited UNESCO Biosphere. Our objection is based on the following points; Biodiversity impact; is negative in several areas; a) Impact on estuary SSSI features. It has become apparent since the work with the applicant on developing mitigation for the site that the level of disturbance caused to overwintering birds is already beyond critical levels and is impacting on the overwintering populations of birds on the estuary. The study (about to be published) commissioned by North Devon and Torridge District Councils, Natural England and the AONB has been very stark about the impacts of recreational walkers around the estuary. The disturbance likely to be caused by the new residents, the cumulative impact of the near-by other new developments and current use are not sufficiently addressed by the mitigation being offered. The Taw Torridge Estuary Management Plan 2010-2015 produced under the auspices of the Biosphere Reserve has as its first Aim 'To reverse the decline in biodiversity' and states that The main concern around the Taw Torridge Estuary relates to the disturbance to wildlife'. It identifies the potential for creating alternative sites in the estuary via various policies and objectives e.g. Policy C1 no net loss of intertidal area through coastal squeeze; Objective CC1 by 2015 there will be 15ha of new estuary side The Biosphere The North Devon Biosphere Reserve would be able to deliver Service habitat creation measures to compensate for predicted habitat loss within the proposed development, and achieve net 10% Reply Received ‘biodiversity gain’, when measured in accordance with the Defra 2 July 2020 Biodiversity Metric 2.0 (Natural England, December 2019). The Edited identified loss within the development site is 113.29 units; my current offsetting proposals would deliver 127 units. This is currently proposed on land within 5km to the south of the development site, within the Biosphere Reserve and the North Devon District. This approach is consistent with the North Devon Biosphere Reserve Offsetting Strategy. Delivery would be funded for a period of 30 years by the agreed developer contribution of £608,431.57 and set out in the s106 Agreement. Environment The development will be acceptable provided that conditions are Agency included on any permission granted in respect of: Implementation of recommendations of the Ecological Impact Assessment; Reply Received 30 January Advice – Biodiversity 2019 Whilst we welcome the steps that have been taken to resolve the Edited concerns about the impact of the development on wintering birds, we defer to Natural England on this matter because they are the

Page 101 Agenda Item 5

lead for considering potential impacts on the SSSI and associated features (including wintering birds which use the estuary and surrounding habitats). We recommend that they are consulted to provide their views on whether the proposed mitigation is sufficient. Please contact us again if you require any further advice.

Environment The development will be acceptable provided that conditions are Agency included on any permission granted in respect of:

Reply Received Implementation of recommendations of the Ecological Impact 19 February Assessment; 2020

North Devon Biodiversity AONB Service The Estuary is an extremely valuable wildlife resource – its Reply Received integrity contributes to biodiversity in the AONB and to the diversity 25 February of wildlife at Braunton Burrows, as mentioned in the AONB 2019 Statement of Significance (AONB Management Plan, 2014-2019). In our response to the 2015 planning application at Yelland Quay we raised concerns over the cumulative impact of this proposal, with others in the local area, on bird populations in the Taw Estuary and therefore on wildlife in the AONB. We understand that an independent study has been undertaken, but that the results and recommendations have not yet been published. Our advice is that determination of this application is deferred until the LPA is assured that the cumulative effects of development will not adversely affect wildlife on the Estuary.

The Environmental Assessment predicts major adverse impacts on the Taw Torridge SSSI as a result of the development if a 1.8m high visual barrier is not erected to separate the SW Coast Path from the estuary. If the proposal goes ahead, then we would expect to see that measures are put in place to maintain the barrier and so mitigate the harm to biodiversity in years to come.

There is a considerable amount of evidence, some from the applicants own Wildlife Surveys, that the site is an important habitat for the Greater Horseshoe Bat (GHB), which is one of the rarest bat species in Britain. The Environmental Statement states that the development would not affect the population of Greater Horseshoe Bats associated with the Caen Valley SSSI based near Braunton. However, it should be noted that GHBs have been radio- tracked crossing the estuary from the Caen Valley SSSI and ringed bats in a nearby Fremington GHB roost had previously been ringed in Combe Martin, which lies in the northern part of the AONB. GHBs ringed in Combe Martin are also known to link with the Caen Valley SSSI roost. This demonstrates a clear link to GHB populations and the AONB. In addition, survey data in the ecological report shows significantly increased numbers of GHBs

Page 102 Agenda Item 5

during September. This is an indication that there is probably a mating roost within the area. We would echo the statements of Devon Wildlife Trust, and their concern that the loss of the large underground area, used by GHBs, is unlikely to be adequately compensated by the construction of a small purpose-built bat house. The precautionary principle demands that a more substantial replacement is required which will serve the same function as the existing roost and must be provided prior to any removal of the underground area.

Finally, it is known that this bat species is also extremely sensitive to light and we are also concerned about the potential effect of light emission on this vulnerable species. To allow development to proceed with little regard for such an important wildlife species and one that is clearly associated with the North Devon AONB is contrary to AONB Management Policies

• B5- "Support and extend the range of internationally, nationally and locally important species" as well as • B6- "Support the long-term survival of vulnerable species within the AONB"

Conclusion: We recommend that the application is refused for the following reasons:

1. The development will lead to harm to the special qualities of tranquillity and panoramic views within the setting of the AONB. It would be at odds with policies A2, A4 and I4 of the AONB Management Plan.

2. It is not yet clear that the development will not result in a cumulative adverse effect on feeding, nesting and overwintering birds within the estuary and the AONB.

3. We have concerns about the potential effect on the rare GHB populations. There is insufficient evidence that the development complies with polices B5, B6, B7 and D6 of the AONB Management Plan.

For the above reasons, we do not believe that the application complies with paragraph d of Local Plan Policy FRE02 and consequently, should be refused.

North Devon We commented in detail on the proposals in our letter of 25th AONB Service February 2019. Biodiversity: Reply Received We echo the concerns of the RSPB and Natural England regarding 23 March 2020 the potential impact of development on wildlife, the estuary being an important Site of Special Scientific Interest, particularly for wild Edited birds. Management Plan policy B1 is to "Support and promote

Page 103 Agenda Item 5

approaches to conserve and enhance habitats and species, increase wildlife richness and ensure the resilience of the landscape". With the current level of information submitted with the application, we do not believe that the application meets this policy. Our original objection to the application still stands and in line with Policy A4 which recommends that no development should be permitted inside or outside the AONB that would harm the natural beauty, character or special qualities of the AONB and so we continue to recommend refusal of this application.

Lighting

7.43 Chapter 11 of the ES deals specifically with Lighting. Lighting will have impacts on amenity (also referred to above), the natural environment as well as the wider landscape so was scoped as a specific chapter in the ES.

7.44 The NPPF states…By encouraging good design, planning policies and decisions should limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation…”

7.45 There are no neighbouring residential properties that are close enough to the site to potentially be affected by light pollution, even when considering the cumulative effect of the proposed developments in the surrounding area to the site.

7.46 Day and night-time site visits were undertaken on 3rd April, 8th May, and 3rd June 2017 to ascertain the current baseline lighting conditions. On the 8th May there was a cargo delivery with a boat docked overnight at the jetty on the quay, and temporary flood lighting was set up within the site, adjacent to the weighbridge and on the jetty. A record was made of the types of lighting installations present or light sources visible, within the Site, the surrounding area and at the selected viewpoint/ survey locations.

7.47 4 viewpoint locations were chosen that correspond to the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) as these have been identified to represent sensitive receptors.

TABLE 11.15: POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE COMPLETED DEVELOPMENT- OPERATIONAL PHASE Location Magnitude Effect Reasoning

VP11 Heanton Hill Low Minor There will be a Lane Adverse barely perceptible effects change in the level of sky glow; no change at this location in terms of light spill or glare. And light intrusion is not applicable at

Page 104 Agenda Item 5

Location Magnitude Effect Reasoning

this location. Therefore, the change to current baseline conditions in terms of obtrusive light will be negligible. When considering light presence, there will be a perceptible increase in the visibility of the site as the proposed lighting will be visible from this viewpoint. VP18 Appledore- Low Minor There will be a Churchfields Adverse barely perceptible Car park effects change in the level of sky glow; no change at this location in terms of light spill or glare. And light intrusion is not applicable at this location. Therefore, the change to current baseline conditions in terms of obtrusive light will be negligible. When considering light presence, there will be a perceptible increase in the visibility of the site as the proposed lighting will be visible from this viewpoint VP27 Yelland Low Minor There will be a Road Adverse barely perceptible effects change in the level of sky glow; no change at this

Page 105 Agenda Item 5

Location Magnitude Effect Reasoning

location in terms of light spill or glare. And light intrusion is not applicable at this location. Therefore, the change to current baseline conditions in terms of obtrusive light will be negligible. When considering light presence, there will be a perceptible increase in the visibility of the site as the proposed lighting will be visible from this viewpoint VP28 Footpath Low Minor There will be a north of site Adverse barely perceptible effects change in the level of sky glow; no change at this location in terms of glare. Light spill will only be applicable when temporary lighting is used for deliveries to the Jetty and Lay Down area. This reflects no change from the existing situation. And light intrusion is not applicable at this location. Therefore, the change to current baseline conditions in terms of obtrusive light will be negligible. When considering

Page 106 Agenda Item 5

Location Magnitude Effect Reasoning

light presence, there will be a noticeable increase in the visibility of the site as the proposed lighting will be visible from this viewpoint.

7.48 Survey locations were chosen in conjunction with the project ecologist in relation to sensitive ecological receptor locations, as there is significant bat activity within the site and surrounding areas. Large parts of the site are also proposed to remain natural and un-lit. The project ecologist has identified that the Ecology Dark Corridor needs to be kept dark, so that it is retained for bats to forage and commute. Mitigation will be provided to ensure that light spill into this area from the public realm lighting will be <0.5 lux. The main area where there is potential for light spill onto this area, is from the public car park, and the main access road to the site. The public car park lighting will be designed at the detailed design stage to include sufficient set-back distances to avoid light spill, and back shields added if necessary. The main access road will be designed to have a dark crossing point so that light spill is sufficiently limited where the dark corridor crosses the road.

7.49 An external lighting design strategy to cover the public realm has been prepared for the outline planning application stage for the development. This seeks to provide a lighting design which will contain light spill within the site boundaries other than the access road which requires adequate lighting for safety purposes. As part of this strategy the following has been provided:

 Details of Bollard Luminaires with Low Upward Light Output  Indicative Lighting Strategy 4012-ID-DR-1001 P03/1002 P03/1003/P03  Lighting Strategy Access Road BB 4012  Proposed Lighting Plan Y029 18 207E

7.50 The sources of artificial light that have been assumed to be present during the construction phase are:  Temporary floodlighting particularly during winter months;  Floodlighting and security lighting associated with site access, on-going work  areas, temporary car parking areas and on the exterior of construction compounds;  Lighting at height associated with construction of structures;  Interior lighting within any temporary office units within any construction compounds.  Crane warning lights.

Page 107 Agenda Item 5

7.51 Mitigation Measures- Construction Phase will include:  Specifying working hours, uses of lighting, location of temporary floodlights and construction compound and agreeing these with the local council  Lighting to be switched off when not required specifically for construction activities or required for health and safety or security  Glare will be minimised by ensuring that the main beam angle of all luminaires are directed away from any potential observer into the centre of site wherever possible, and angled at less than 70 degrees from the horizontal  Light spill will be minimised by avoiding poorly sited luminaires located at the boundary of the development  Sky glow will be minimised by using modern flood lights with good photometric control, angled at less than 70 degrees from the horizontal and by using additional shields as appropriate  The selection of luminaires, including those required for night-time security, that are designed to minimise any obtrusive light  The Contractor will be required to sign up to the “Considerate Constructors Scheme” and thereby act quickly and responsibly to rectify any lighting misaligned and/or found to be causing a nuisance

7.52 These measures will form part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

7.53 The street lighting and external lighting for the majority of the site will consist of low level bollard style lighting, with the exception of the main site access road, and the public car park which will have column mounted lighting. This will be supplemented by building mounted lighting. The lighting is intended to be low level to be sensitive to the environment, limiting obtrusive light, visual impacts and light spill that may affect flora and fauna. The strategy for the proposed lighting is outlined below and refer to the accompany Lighting Strategy drawing

7.54 The significant sources of lighting for the operational phase of the proposed development will be as follows:  Street lighting to the site access road including the associated adjacent pedestrian and cycle route;  Lighting associated with pedestrian, cycle and vehicular routes throughout the development;  Lighting to car parking areas;  Lighting to building entrances/ exits.

Street lighting will be designed in accordance with BS 5489 / BS EN 13201 and the requirements and specification from Devon County Council for Section 38 adoptable roads.

7.55 Tarka Trail crossing point with the access road, as this area is required to remain dark to maintain the dark corridor for ecology and a departure from the British Standard will be required for the lighting of this section of road, and is to be agreed with Devon County Council. The remainder of the vehicular routes and footpaths within the development site are intended to remain private. These routes will be lit

Page 108 Agenda Item 5

using bollard luminaires to the Applicants requirements with regard to the aim to restrict lighting impacts

7.56 It is proposed that the public car park will be lit using 5m column mounted luminaires of a warm white colour. All other car parking areas will be lit using bollard luminaires. There will also be building mounted lighting to building entrances/ exits. The Lay down Area and Jetty will operate similarly to the existing site, with the area remaining un-lit, and temporary lighting being used when needed to facilitate deliveries.

7.57 LED luminaires will have good light control and cut off angles (downward directional) to reduce light spillage, control glare and limit sky glow. External back light shields will be fitted to the majority of luminaires along the access road to minimise backwards light spill and impact onto the adjacent hedgerows and vegetation. Bollard luminaires with very low upward light ratios, that are less than 1%, will be selected. If bollards are proposed in any areas adjacent to the Ecology Dark Corridor these will be single sided/ directional to avoid spill into the dark area.

7.58 Devon County Council employ a Part Night Lighting Strategy meaning that the adopted street lighting along the access road will operate from dusk until 00:30, and 5:30 till dawn. This is part of a number of measures employed by Devon County Council to reduce carbon emissions and energy costs. The lighting being switched off for part of the night will also reduce the impact on ecology. The lighting to the remainder of the site is intended to operate dusk until dawn.

7.59 The landscape strategy has been coordinated with the lighting strategy to minimise lighting impacts and impacts from lighting on ecology. The lighting strategy should be informed by industry best practice https://www.bats.org.uk/news/2018/09/new-guidance-on-bats-and-lighting Native tree planting/ woodland belt is proposed to the southern development boundary, and to the north of the proposed public carpark, to further shield light spill onto the proposed dark corridor. Refer to Landscape Strategy Plan.

7.60 The ES concludes that the lighting scheme will have ‘Minor Adverse Effects/ Not Significant. There is likely to be a slight increase in visibility of the site from external lighting, however considering that the proposed lighting will mostly be low level and very directional, and that parts of the site are already lit, with neighbouring sites having very high levels of lighting, it considered that the increase will be minor. The level of sky glow caused by upward light will be slightly higher than the recommendations for an E1 zone, but well within the requirements for an E2 zone’ and that the impact from the new development’s public realm lighting, in terms of obtrusive light, will not be significant.

CONCLUSION: Natural Environment/Biodiversity/Lighting

7.61 The sensitivity of the location is recognised and has been the focus of detailed discussions and engagement with the statutory consultees to ensure that there is an ecological framework in place to manage/protect and enhance, allowing work to commence on site in respect of the detailed application.

Page 109 Agenda Item 5

7.62 The provision of an alternative bat roost (fully designed building – drawing Y029 18 301 C) the details of which will be used to inform a NE European Protected Species Licence where further mitigation maybe requested and an adequate number of nesting boxes are agreed.

7.63 The treatment of land between the lagoon and high tide roosting area has been detailed in full. Plan Y029 18 501 P shows how the edge of the SW coast path will be treated with both temporary and long terms screening. The inherent design features and mitigation proposals would ensure that the risk of recreational disturbance on roosting waterfowl adjacent to, and in the immediate vicinity of the site would be reduced by directing dog walkers to the informal open space on site whilst restricting access to the foreshore through fencing.

7.64 Noisy construction activities have the potential to result in a significant impact on the Isley Marsh Nature Reserve and high tide roost during the construction works and that appropriate noise mitigation measures and controls over the timing of works are required to minimise the construction effects. This will be controlled by the CEMP and conditions.

7.65 Any light shielding planting should be in situ prior to works starting on the main development to allow them to mature and provide screening benefits and the adherence to dark corridors and site specific lighting will influence the future design and layout.

7.66 The scheme will need to be the subject of a LEMP, CEcoMP. The scheme will also require ecological oversight and thereafter wardening to be secured as part of the s106 agreement.

7.67 The site should be further enhanced for biodiversity at the reserved matters stage in line with the advice of Natural England and the Environment Agency.

7.68 The recent NDC PSPO requiring control of dogs within environmentally sensitive areas will also assist managing the impact that recreation has on this environmentally sensitive area.

7.69 In respect of Biodiversity Net Gain, this cannot occur on site but reasonable provision in line with the DEFRA matrix can be made off site via the Biosphere Service. This would be secured via the s106. A full Biodiversity Net Gain metric will be required at reserved matters to reflect any changes to onsite landscaping and update the subsequent offsite contributions.

7.70 With appropriate mitigation and planning conditions overall, the development could occur ensuring that significant harm was avoided to the Taw Torridge Estuary and the SSSI, and that the ES concludes that the long-term effects would be neutral or minor positive in line with policies ST14, DM08 and FRE02(d)

Page 110 Agenda Item 5

8.0 Arboriculture & Landscape and Visual Impact

Arboriculture

8.1 Chapter 15 of the ES considers the quality of both individual and groups of trees on the site. The ES is further supported by a Tree Report Ref YQL 18965tr dated 20.10.2014. All trees surveyed have been given a category ‘C’ rating - either due to their low inherent value due to reduced overall physiological vigour, or structural faults, or their diameter is less than 150mm at 1.5m above ground level. Given the nature of the area, the trees are mostly windblown forms with little wider landscape value.

8.2 Tree removals will include all of G3, G4 and G5 (due to increases in site levels), and a section of G1 (new access point).

Page 111 Agenda Item 5

8.3 Notwithstanding the above, the landscape value of the group G1 could be deemed to elevate the overall group value to category B2.

8.4 The tree preservation order on G1 is a material consideration in the planning process. The Strategic Landscape Plan compensates for the loss of trees the subject of the TPO.

8.5 The need to incorporate the new sea defences and raising of the development platform will require the removal of two groups of existing pine trees. The distinctive line of pines adjacent to the Tarka Trail will be retained Tree with protection to BS5837 (see CEMP).

Landscape and Visual Impact

8.6 The impact on the landscape from this proposed development is the issue of concern raised within the majority of consultation responses and by most of the Parish Councils.

8.7 The applicant has worked extensively with the statutory consultees in considerable detail to ensure that there is agreement over the study methodology and assessment criteria. Chapter 7 of the ES considers Landscape and Visual Impact.

8.8 The site is not subject to any statutory landscape designation. The allocated site forms both part of the developed and undeveloped coast and estuary. The access and very top part of the site is within Landscape Character Type 3A Upper Farmed and wooded Valley slopes and the residual is within the Estuaries (Landscape Character Type (LCT) 4A). The latter and is described as having the following defining qualities and key characteristics:

 Open feeling and expansive views  Unique flora and fauna, particularly important for overwintering birds.  Opportunities for waterfront access and recreation (including cycle paths)  Evidence of historic quays.

8.9 The North Devon and Seascape Character Assessment (November 2015) identified the site as falling within the Seascape Character Area 19: Taw-Torridge Estuary, Seascape Character Type 4a: Estuaries. The assessment notes that development within brown and green-field land fringing the estuary (including the former Yelland Power Station site) could have the potential to impact upon the estuary’s naturalistic and tranquil qualities; levels of light pollution, and potentially its wildlife.

8.10 The site is also located in an area defined as within the coast and estuary zone as defined in Policy ST09. The ash beds are defined as undeveloped coast whereby new development will be supported ‘where it does not detract from the unspoilt character, appearance and tranquillity of the area, nor the undeveloped character of the Heritage Coasts, and it is required because it cannot reasonably be located outside the Undeveloped Coast and estuary’.

Page 112 Agenda Item 5

8.11 Policy DM08A: Landscape and Seascape Character and para 7.2.32 indicate that development should be of an appropriate scale, mass and design that recognises and respects landscape character of both designated and undesignated landscapes and seascapes; it should avoid adverse landscape and seascape impacts and seek to enhance the landscape and seascape assets wherever possible. Development must take into account and respect the sensitivity and capacity of the landscape/seascape asset, considering cumulative impact and the objective to maintain dark skies and tranquillity in areas that are relatively undisturbed, using guidance from the Joint Landscape and Seascape Character Assessments for North Devon and Torridge.

8.12 The site lies just over 1km to the south-east of the North Devon AONB, and the site and the wider estuary forms part of the setting to part of the AONB. Paragraph 172 of the NPPF states that “great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty” of the highest status of protection areas such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Proposals within or affecting the setting of the AONB should be informed by, and assist in the delivery of, the North Devon Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan which states that the non-designated areas around the AONB provide an important setting or backdrop to the AONB and extreme care must be taken when making management decisions within these special areas.

8.13 The development proposals would have no physical effect on the Burrows, the exposed wild character would remain unaffected. The development proposals would feature in views from Crow Point, as do existing settlements within the area.

8.14 Paragraph 10.195 of the NDTLP (see planning policy section of report) states that due to its prominent location within the setting of the estuary and resultant visual prominence the site should designed so that:

 New buildings and structures are located predominately on the site of the former power station, set back from the estuary frontage and designed to address their landscape impact, as well as securing environmental enhancement of the site;  The site should also be designed to complement its sensitive landscape setting; and  External lighting will need to be designed to minimise light pollution on neighbouring protected habitats and species and the nearby Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

8.15 The site of the former power station occupies a prominent location within the Taw Estuary and is located within a valued landscape in landscape and recreational terms and forms part of the wider setting of some parts of the North Devon AONB. It is within a landscape dominated by the seascape of the River Taw but also includes an area of undeveloped coastal grassland, beaches, sea defences, sand dunes, farmland, woodland, settlement, industrial, military, and recreational trails.

8.16 Although largely undeveloped the southern side of the estuary does have a number of established settlements and scattered developments, including Appledore and Instow located on the water’s edge and Yelland, Fremington and

Page 113 Agenda Item 5

Bickington which are set further back, and these developments are a key part of the character of the estuary.

8.17 Key landscape characteristics and features of the site and its setting can be summarised as follows:

 Panoramic and open views up and down and across the Taw Estuary;  Relatively tranquil;  Small groups and lines of distinctive pine trees;  Concentration of recreational routes;  Flat topography of the former power station site contrast with the undulating nature of the ash beds and adjoining ridgelines;  Strong horizontal lines formed by the foreshore, tree lines and the higher largely undeveloped ridgelines which form the skyline;  Secluded lagoon, which has established over time into a valuable wildlife resource;  Jetty, as well as a strong visual element (and functional asset) is also of cultural value, and time depth associated with the former power station;  Concentration of overhead Electricity lines;  Degraded nature of the semi-derelict former power station contrasts with the adjoining estuary; and  Settlements and villages set within lower estuary banks, with occasional areas where development stretches down to the waterside as can be seen at Appledore.

Existing Visual Appearance

8.18 The land between the Tarka Trail and the B3233 is low lying farmland with industrial and commercial use along the north west of the access road.

8.19 The restored Ash beds comprise an area of rugged coastal grass that has been capped and filled so raising the localised area, creating a gently undulating landscape with an area of higher ground providing a vantage point with views over the surrounding area. This area is currently poorly managed and becoming overgrown. The raised ash beds help screen views of the former power station land from the east.

8.20 The power station has been demolished and largely removed leaving just a few ancillary buildings, structures and the flooded base of the turbine hall. There are a number of crushing/filling operations being undertaken on site, with mounds of temporary material storage (sand), crushed concrete and aggregates. There are a number of cement silos on site. Some of the land has been filled and raised. The landscape character is degraded.

8.21 The Plantation and Western Lagoon contains a large area of reeds that sit between the South West Coast Path and the transformer station. The pond and its associated landscape setting is well established and forms a tranquil area with no formal public access making it a valued area for wildlife.

Page 114 Agenda Item 5

8.22 The development proposals will be visible from a relatively narrow band of land and sea which stretches along the western end of the Taw Estuary. Visibility is greatest from the north and west.

• To the west the visibility of the site extends up to 3.5km over the northern side of Appledore to Northam Burrows Country Park, and to Crow Point; • To the north visibility of the proposals extends over the River Taw, Hornsey Island and Chivernor Airfield towards Wrafton and Braunton; • To the east visibility is more sporadic and intermittent extending approximately 1.5km along the Tarka Trail; and • To the south visibility is also sporadic and intermittent, mainly limited to the lower ground immediately adjoining the access road to the site and from the more elevated land on the northern settlement edge of Yelland.

Impact on the Landscape setting

8.23 In total 31 viewpoints have been identified, recorded and assessed. A number of photomontages have been produced to help communicate the degree of change at a number of viewpoints.

8.24 The LVIA and the ES indicates that the study area fall within High Sensitivity to Very High Sensitivity to change within the coastal areas to a Medium Sensitivity within the farmland area to a Low Sensitivity within the brownfield parts of the site and finally the restored Ash beds to the east are in average condition and are publicly accessible and have a Medium sensitivity.

8.25 During construction the magnitude of change on the character of the site will be High, the significance of the effect will be High Adverse. The construction effects are likely to indirectly affect adjoining character areas, primarily noise and movement which will temporarily affect levels of tranquillity, and tall construction equipment such as tower cranes which will bring visual intrusion. The magnitude of change will be Low, the significance of the effect will be Minor Adverse.

8.26 The biggest change to local landscape character will be the introduction of built form across the site, which will create a new riverside settlement. This is after all a Major development scheme.

8.27 Within the Local Area the ES assesses the magnitude of change as High and the significance of the effect would be Moderate Adverse. Within the Wider Area the magnitude would be Low and the significance of effect would be Minor adverse as the development would cause minor permanent loss of one or more key elements or features in the landscape and the introduction of elements that may be considered to be uncharacteristic of the surrounding landscape.

Page 115 Agenda Item 5

8.28 The effects on the rest of the study area are summarised below:

Magnitude Significance of of change effect Area SCT 4B Marine Low Minor Adverse Levels and Coastal Plains Area SCT 4E Extensive Low Minor Adverse Inter-tidal Sands Area 4F Dunes Low Minor Adverse Area 3A Upper Farmed negligible and Wooded Valley Slopes Area 5B Coastal negligible Undulating Farmland Special Qualities of the negligible AONB Setting of the AONB Low Minor Adverse

Visual effects – Extract from ES

8.29 From Northam Burrows Country Park – (Photomontage View 3). The development will be noticeable in views from the eastern side of the Country Park along the route of the South West Coast Path. The development will be clearly noticeable within the mid-distance of views, seen just beyond Crow Point, and the intervening jetty. The development would form a focal point within the view and in terms of settlement would be seen largely in isolation within the confines of the static view, however Instow and Appledore are clearly visible and are developments which extend down to the river’s edge. The development will sit low down in the landscape/seascape well below the distant hills and ridgeline which end the view.

8.30 From the northern edge of Appledore (Photomontage View 31). The development will be less conspicuous than in View 3, and will be partially hidden from view. It will be seen beyond the in the mid-distance of the view, in the context of other established developments including Chivenor, wind turbines as well as Instow and Appledore. The development will be set low into the landscape with the hills beyond rising considerably above.

8.31 From Crow Point (Photomontage View 4) The development would be seen in the context of the existing jetties and electricity pylons. It would form the focus of the view forming a distinctive self-contained settlement, seen in isolation from other viewpoints in the static view, but with other settlements in the area clearly visible in views. Although the development sits low down in the landscape and is of ‘horizontal’ form due to the nature of the view development would in this instant break the distant ridgeline.

8.32 South West Coast Path (Photomontage View 24) directly west of the site. Views of the development would open up as the path crosses the northern side of Instow Barton Marsh. At such a close range the development would form the focus of the view, seen at the ‘end’ of the path in isolation from other developments. Although sitting low in the landscape the development would break the distant ridgeline

Page 116 Agenda Item 5

beyond. The variety of roof forms, building heights and sizes helps break up the mass of the development and create visual interest.

8.33 Photomontage View 6 is the view from the edge of the estuary/beach near Crow Beach House/Broadsands Beach. This view looks across the River Torridge to the site, development is seen in the mid-distance fronting onto the river and seen in the context of the existing settlement of Yelland which is seen beyond. The development proposals sit low in the landscape which ensures that the undeveloped backdrop and ridgeline are protected. The variety of building forms and heights ensures that the development will create visual interest, with new landmark buildings.

8.34 Photomontage View 7 shows the view from the beach at Horsey Reach one of closest viewpoints (at under 1km) to the site from the northern side of the River Torridge. The view looks over the Taw Estuary and directly onto the northern elevation of the proposed development which appears beyond the existing jetty in the mid distance of the view. Due to the short distance to the site and lack of intervening structures or development the proposed development would form a key component and focus of the view. The development would sit low into the landscape, appearing to be of similar height to the existing jetty and would not break or interfere with the undeveloped hills and ridgeline beyond. The variety of building forms and roof profiles (which would be seen in the context of adjoining settlements) will bring visual interest

8.35 Photomontage View 10 from the re-routed section of the South West Coast Path and looks over the marshland of Horsey Island. The proposed development would be seen in the mid-distance of the view, beyond the marshland where it would be viewed in the context of Yelland. The development would sit low in the landscape, forming a predominantly horizontal mass with occasional vertical accents. The heights of the buildings have been carefully planned to ensure that the undeveloped backdrop and ridgeline beyond are protected. The development form creates a distinct settlement that reflects some of the qualities and characteristics of adjoining settlements and elements of the landscape, with a strong horizontal form.

8.36 Photomontage View 13 – the development would be viewed across the River Caen and River Taw, seen in the mid-distance across the River Torridge from Appledore. The development would be clearly visible, fronting onto the water’s edge, the low form of development ensures that the undeveloped hills/ridgeline beyond would be protected. The occasional vertical accent helps create landmarks and visual interest.

8.37 View of the Grade I Listed Church of St Augustine. In some views, from the north (such as from Braunton Footpath 55 near Ash Barton), the church tower within Heanton Punchardon forms a distant local landmark with the River Taw and Torridge Estuaries and associated developments and hills forming the backdrop to available views. From this viewpoint the site is seen beyond the church tower (to the left hand side), on the southern bank of the River Torridge. The backdrop to the church contains a significant amount of existing development and settlement, principally Appledore set amongst the estuary, riverside and areas of undeveloped

Page 117 Agenda Item 5

banks, sand dunes and coastal plains. The development around the church within Heanton in the mid-distance of the view is also seen amongst farmland and woodland. A photomontage has been prepared to show how the proposed development would appear in this view. As can be seen the proposed development would sit very low down in the landscape/riverscape with views continuing to extend over it towards the River Torridge, Appledore and the distant hills beyond. The proposed development would form a discreet element in the view and would not interfere with or unbalance the setting of the tower of St Augustine’s as seen from this viewpoint.

8.38 From the East. From the east views of the proposed development are intermittent and sporadic, due mainly to the extent of intervening vegetation and also some localised variations of topography (in particular the Ash beds). The first views of the development from the Tarka Trail travelling west open up to the north of Chillparks Wood as can be seen in Photomontage View 19. The rooftops of some of the development on the eastern side of the site and top of the lighthouse building can be seen, above and between the intervening vegetation. The Ash beds partially also help screen the lower parts of the proposed buildings. Most of the development is screened from view, but introduce development into what is largely an undeveloped landscape, however the development forms a discreet element and only a minor component of the view.

8.39 From the South Photomontage View 26 shows the change from the south, the viewpoint is located on the existing access road. The photomontage shows the proposed development north of the Tarka Trail but does not illustrate the new access road, car park and woodland planting which would screen views of the existing industrial estate. Most of the development would be screened from view by the line of trees and vegetation growing along the Tarka Trail with just the tops of the development in the far south of the site being partially visible.

Summary of Visual Effects

8.40 There will be unavoidable changes to the composition of some views, this includes views from the AONB, South West Coast Path and Tarka Trail. The ES argues that the ‘proposed development would be well assimilated into the large scale dynamic landscape/seascape by virtue of a well-planned masterplan ensuring the development form respects its context and is harmonious in form’.

8.41 The development will create a new focus in some views and will remove a number of existing visual detractors located in a degraded landscape

Development response to landscape

8.42 The landscape strategy sets out to protect the riverbank and ridgelines from settlement intrusion and wherever possible keep the development below the heights of the existing tree lines so that the canopies are seen to rise above the roofscapes of the development in most viewpoints. Pushing back development south into the site helps minimise potential visual effects on users of the adjoining SW Coast Path and the North Devon AONB.

Page 118 Agenda Item 5

8.43 Offsetting development from the banks of the estuary by between 50 & 65m offers the potential to provide a soft undeveloped edge to the estuary so development is not seen to be right on the water’s edge/foreshore.

8.44 Raising of the site would be limited to a maximum of 2.6m (and tapering back to 600mm adjacent to the southern boundary) allowing for a green, soft and gentle interface and retention of the groups of pine trees which are key features of the site and will help filter the new development beyond;

8.45 Set back/buffer between the built development and the Tarka Trail on the southern side of the development, which will help reduce the visual impact of the development on users of the trail as will a set back/buffer between the western lagoon and built development;

8.46 Retention of the majority of the Ash Beds to be set out as open space;

8.47 Buffer between the western lagoon and main development with no public access to the lagoon

8.48 With the exception of the small car-park no development is proposed to the south of the Tarka Trail, which will maintain the undeveloped character of the land between the trail and Yelland;

8.49 Low level built development, predominantly 1 (commercial) and 2 storey along the periphery of the northern edge of the site with 3-5 storey development within the core of the site.

8.50 Detached dwellings on much of the outer edges of the site facing towards the estuary and foreshore allows greater visual percolation, reducing visual prominence and offering space for planting which in turn will create a softer edge to the development

8.51 Hard and soft landscape are identified as key components of good design. a high level landscape strategy plan has been prepared

8.52 Consultee Reponses

Arboricultural As requested I have carried out an additional review of the LVIA Officer and EcIA work undertaken by the applicants along with the representations of key stake holders- NE, RSPB, AONB, SWCP Reply Received user group etc and the comments made on the representations 4 November made by the project landscape architect and ecologists in addition 2020 to that originally undertaken by the Sustainability Officer. Edited I consider that both the LVIA and EcIA have been carried out to a very high standard and to an appropriate level that is demanded by development proposal for such a sensitive site and consider both to be a significant strength of the application and in having informed the various iterations of the design approach. LVIA Review

Page 119 Agenda Item 5

I do not intend to make detailed comment on the LVIA submitted by the applicant as this has been reviewed by others and in general I concur that the work has been carried out comprehensively and to an appropriately high standard and I consider it to provide a reasonably objective assessment of the likely landscape and visual effects of the proposed development on which to base your recommendations. I concur with the vast majority of the findings of the LVIA in that I consider the descriptions of likely change that would occur as a result of the development, the magnitude of change and nature of effects as being reasonably accurate in that the proposal will result in a new self-contained settlement that is quite distinct and separate from existing development and is likely to result in minor to moderate adverse landscape and visual impacts on a large number of receptors, including many with a high sensitivity, within the estuary and over a wide area due to the prominence of the sight within the estuary setting and the open views provided by the surrounding landscape. However given the brownfield nature of the site and its allocation for development within the local plan such impacts will be largely unavoidable should we continue to wish to see the site developed and I would consider the latest submissions, in response to previous criticisms and design review panel hearings, to largely mitigate and reduce the landscape and visual effects through site layout and design as far as is reasonably practicable. But should planning consent be granted further mitigation by design and materials choice will obviously continue to be critical to the success of the scheme. At this stage however think it appropriate to also state where I concur with a number of objectors and consider the likely visual effects of the proposed development to be greater than stated within the LVIA, these differences are not a criticism of the LVIA provided per-se but just a different professional opinion on the likely magnitude of change and the nature of the visual effect at certain receptors. The key area of difference between my own professional view and that of the applicants LVIA is on the visual effect of the development on closest visual receptors to the site and principally views from the south west coast path approaching and adjacent to the site (viewpoints 22 - 24) and in passing the site to the north where it is proposed to erect the timber screening along the estuary side of the SWCP. Whilst I generally concur with the applicants description of change from these viewpoints and consider the photomontages and wireframes to be accurate in my view the magnitude of change and nature of the effects cannot be considered as moderate change or likely to result in a moderate adverse effect, I consider the proposal likely to result in a significant adverse effect in that the development will be prominent or form the focus of the view, extending development toward the estuary and or obscuring distant

Page 120 Agenda Item 5

views from the SWCP and changing the character of the SWCP in the vicinity of the site. But again, I would re-iterate the previous comment that as the site has been allocated for development within the current local plan such impacts will be largely unavoidable should we continue to wish to see the site developed. The key element of the proposal that I remain to be convinced on and which could be potentially avoid a significant adverse impact on views from the SWCP, especially in the light of the attached comments from Stephen Jenkinson of Access and Countryside Management Ltd, is the approach to ecological mitigation in the form of the proposed visual barrier fencing. I have seen no reasoned justification as to why the SWCP could not be effectively diverted into the site and away from the ecologically sensitive roost whilst being designed in such a way that it would not become unattractive for recreational use, including for dog walking and whilst still providing uninterrupted views out of the site and across the estuary, or that this would not be the most effective ecological mitigation in combination with effective signage and community engagement/wardening, provisional of appropriate public open space for exercising dogs off a lead and potential CSPO restrictions in relation to the environmentally sensitive areas to the and associated enforcement/wardening. If this is not possible, due to viability issues to which I am not privy, and in light of the comments made by Stephen Jenkinson I would also suggest that consideration is again given to the potential of providing an appropriate soft landscape screen. This was previously discounted on the basis that establishment of soft landscaping with species needed to achieve the necessary minimum height of 1.8metres could not be achieved but in light of the comments from Stephen Jenkinson I consider that clarification on the potential of his suggested approach is sought and which would need both ecological and landscape input as to whether appropriate screening could be achieved with a lower height of using Phragmites species. A secondary concern, though that I accept the LVIA findings that any difference in building height between building height of 5 and 6 storey development will have little noticeable change to the assessment of landscape and visual effects of the proposed development is the impact of such tall buildings on the character of the site. This is of course a very nuanced design consideration within the context of the whole proposal, but given the appearance of the taller buildings within the photomontages provided for the nearby viewpoints previously discussed (22 – 24) and how they will effect the appearance of the development in terms of extending the extent of the development towards the estuary and becoming the focus of new views as the highest points of the skyline within the development I would suggest that if there is any way that these building heights can be reduced, whilst not unduly effecting the overall viability of the scheme then this too should be

Page 121 Agenda Item 5

explored with the applicant but I would expect that this may have already formed part of your negotiations. Planning Policy The site is within the Coastal and Estuarine Zone where Policy Unit ST09 will apply. Although the site lies beyond the extent of the defined settlement of Fremington / Yelland, paragraph 4.39 clearly Reply Received recognises that large previously developed sites form part of the 4 April 2019 ‘Developed Coast’. This is further clarified in the ‘Glossary’ to the Local Plan which states that the Developed Coast is defined as Edited ‘Areas within the Coastal and Estuarine Zone with a predominantly developed character, which are the areas within development boundaries as identified on the Policies Map; the principal built form and sites allocated for development in defined Settlements without development boundaries; Rural Settlements; Defence Estate sites; and large previously developed sites or those parts of sites with a substantial level of permanent structures such as sewage treatment works and the developed part of static caravan sites’.

Therefore, from a policy perspective although the site is within the coastal and estuarine zone it does form part of the developed coast where the principle of development is acceptable. Whilst the site does not fall within the AONB, the AONB extends to the southern part of Braunton Burrows on the opposite side of the estuary. The setting and special character and qualities of the AONB should be considered against policies ST14(e) and DM08A. In respect of potential impacts upon the setting of the AONB, the overall height of the development (4 storeys), its design and its proximity to the estuary frontage are likely to be relevant factors.

DCC - Strategic Landscape Development Although the site itself is locally degraded by past land uses, the Control wider landscape context within the Taw Torridge Estuary is highly sensitive to change given the development would be prominent in Reply Received views from a wide area including parts of the North Devon AONB, 29 April 2016 the South West Coast Path and the Tarka Trail. Whilst the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment accompanying the submission is very useful in understanding where changes to views are likely to be significant, it lacks photomontages that would convey what the predicted nature and scale of such change would be. Without this it is not possible to judge the scale, massing and design of the proposals in context and whether they would conserve and enhance the views experienced from the AONB and contribute positively to the character of the area, or detract from it. Given potential significant harm to the quality of views experienced from highly sensitive locations mentioned above, the County Council recommends that photomontages are requested from viewpoints where significant effects are predicted, including viewpoints 6, 16, 20 and 21. It is noted that the existing viewpoint photos are not presented according to current best practice guidance promoted by the Landscape Institute (LI Advice Note

Page 122 Agenda Item 5

01/11). Whilst these are useful to show context their small scale and lack of guidance to the viewer on how to use them should be addressed. It is very important that decision-makers can rely on technically competent photomontages that accurately convey the scale and nature of impacts. In providing the above response the County Council is having due regard to the purposes of AONB designation (to conserve and enhance natural beauty) and therefore fulfilling its statutory duties under s.85 of the CROW Act.

NB no further comments received since the LVIA was updated in line with these comments

North Devon The proposal is for a major development on a prominent estuary AONB Service site close to the southern part of the AONB at Crow Point. In our opinion, a successful application would result in new Reply Received development, increased activity, lighting and noise in an area 25 February that is highly sensitive to development. 2019 The proposal is an amended design from the 2015 application Edited scheme in a number of respects. The overall height of the development has been reduced and the building line is set back further from the estuary. An updated wildlife report has been submitted. It should be noted that the resubmitted LVIA addresses the concerns we raised previously on the level of information and assessment provided.

Landscape Effects – Affecting the Setting of the Braunton Burrows and Northam Burrows sections of the AONB

The broad tidal river and saltmarsh behind it form a distinctive setting to the AONB in the area around Crow Point and Braunton Burrows. Panoramic views of the estuary are framed by surrounding hills, existing trees and green space connect the hills to the south to the water’s edge. Existing development is an element of the landscape, but settlements are separated by broad swathes of countryside and are distant from the Burrows and Crow Point. The existing quay and industrial site at Yelland are prominent elements in the landscape – but there is little movement or activity on the site. Consequently, there is a strong sense of tranquillity in the local area.

The development would be a prominent new element in views upstream from the Lighthouse. The balance of developed and undeveloped land would be noticeably altered and the extent of undeveloped land at the water’s edge noticeably reduced. Despite re-positioning the development appears close to the edge of the estuary – similar to Appledore, Instow and Chivenor where built up areas have a direct visual connection with the water.

Page 123 Agenda Item 5

In our judgement, the quality of tranquillity in the area would be noticeably reduced as a result of development. Panoramic views and the diversity of scenery in the local area would be noticeably changed. The baseline situation would be noticeably changed and this change would be permanent. The extent of the change would be over a limited area - less than 10% of the setting of the AONB in the area of Braunton Burrows.

The Landscape and Visual chapter of the ES assess the Estuary landscape / seascape area as having high sensitivity to change from the development and the sensitivity for the dunes and beach character areas in the AONB as being very high. It assesses the magnitude of change to these character areas as Low adverse. Our own assessment, using the same criteria, places the magnitude of change as slightly higher than this – due to the effects being permanent; the introduction of development elements that erode characteristic qualities of tranquillity and that adverse effects are not fully mitigated. However, we agree with the overall assessment that effects are of minor adverse significance

The effects on the setting of Northam Burrows would be of a lesser extent – there would be less impact on tranquillity (the proposal is at a greater distance) and the alteration to panoramic views would be less noticeable. Overall the development would result in a minor alteration to the qualities of tranquillity and panoramic views in the setting of the AONB. Change would be permanent and would be limited in extent.

We agree with the assessment of visual impacts on viewpoints within the AONB – of minor adverse significance in views from Northam and of moderate adverse effect to visual receptors at Crow Point.

Our own assessment and that of the LVIA agree that the development will lead to harm to the special qualities of tranquillity and panoramic views within the setting of the AONB. It would therefore be at odds with policies A2, A4 and I4 of the AONB Management Plan.

We note that factor that contribute to the harm are:

• Proximity of development to the waterside: Although the proposal has been set back into the site, perceptually it is still perceived as being close to the water – impinging on the tranquil character of the AONB setting in this location. • Scale and Character of Development: The proposals pictured in the photomontages present an unbroken façade onto the estuary. In views from Crow Point and Broadsands it takes up most of a single view. The impact on the setting of the AONB could be reduced by breaking up the scale of development and allowing

Page 124 Agenda Item 5

green infrastructure to visually connect the estuary to the surrounding hillsides.

Conclusion We recommend that the application is refused for the following reasons: The development will lead to harm to the special qualities of tranquillity and panoramic views within the setting of the AONB. It would be at odds with policies A2, A4 and I4 of the AONB Management Plan.

For the above reasons, we do not believe that the application complies with paragraph d of Local Plan Policy FRE02 and consequently, should be refused.

North Devon We commented in detail on the proposals in our letter of 25th AONB Service February 2019.

Reply Received Landscape and Visual Effects on the setting of the AONB: 23 March 2020 We note that the revised layout has taken some of our comments into account in that the proposal does not seem to present such an Edited unbroken face to the AONB as the original scheme. Additional green infrastructure and the reduced height of buildings closest to the AONB will reduce the impact of the development slightly. However, the perceived proximity of development to the AONB will in our opinion remain unchanged and we are still anticipating an overall minor adverse effect on the setting of the AONB when viewed from the Crow Point and Broad Sands areas and moderate adverse visual effects from the same locations, both of which are located within the designated AONB. These adverse effects would in our opinion be contrary to policies A1, A2, A4 and I4 of the current AONB Management Plan 2019-2024.

Our original objection to the application still stands and in line with Policy A4 which recommends that no development should be permitted inside or outside the AONB that would harm the natural beauty, character or special qualities of the AONB and so we continue to recommend refusal of this application.

North Devon Having studied the plans, we believe that there has been no AONB Service substantive change to the building and landscape layout on the riverfront, which were the areas of concern from a landscape point Reply Received of view. 13 July 2020 Our concerns remain about the adverse landscape and visual Edited effects of the proposal on the setting of the AONB in an area where there is currently no major waterside development upstream of Instow.

Page 125 Agenda Item 5

Our objection to the proposals, therefore, is as a result of the predicted adverse landscape and visual effects on the setting of the North Devon AONB, as set out in our previous comments.

The Biosphere Our objection is based on the following points; Service Landscape Impact: the size and scale of the development is incongruous with the location. The height of the buildings partly Reply Received forced by the artificial elevation of the land and the economics of 22 July 2019 developing the site mean that the visual mass of the proposal is unacceptable for its impact in proximity to the AONB and on the estuary landscape. At this part of the estuary the "big skies" and open views are important, as well as saving the rural identity of the landscape. The fact that a power station was built there before does not mean that the same despoliation of the landscape should be allowed again.

CONCLUSION: Arboricultural and Landscape and Visual Impact

8.53 The site is prominent from a number of surrounding locations including from a section of the AONB. Development will be clearly seen in some of these viewpoints. As set out above the development will lead to harm to the special qualities of tranquillity and panoramic views within the setting of the AONB. It would therefore be at odds with policies A2, A4 and I4 of the AONB Management Plan.

8.54 However it should be taken into consideration that development is not by default harmful. Good quality design which responds to its location, creates a new sense of place and employs place-making principles and is designed to be read with its surroundings will enhance its surroundings. The proposed development has been designed to be seen and to have an active harmonious frontage and interface with the river. The layout plan by reducing the scale of the development as you enter the site from its edges will not be overbearing or dominant but will be seen.

8.55 It is recognised that the site cannot be effectively screened but the landscape measures have been designed to retain strategic groups of trees (G1/2) where the access works allow, to help integrate the new development into its setting by softening the site edges and approaches and by creating new areas of green infrastructure and open space.

8.56 The consultees have highlighted that the conclusions within the ES in respect of the magnitude of change and nature of the effects cannot be considered as moderate change or likely to result in a moderate adverse effect. The proposal is likely to result in a significant adverse effect in that the development will be prominent or form the focus of the view, extending development toward the estuary and or obscuring distant views from the SWCP and changing the character of the SWCP in the vicinity of the site. As the site is allocated for development within the current local plan such impacts will be largely unavoidable.

Page 126 Agenda Item 5

8.57 Whilst this has been discussed in the ecology section the impact on the SW coastal path has been carefully considered. The developer will not reroute the whole stretch within the site as this would impact on plots facing the new lagoon and would introduce two public interfaces rather than private space to the rear. The responses to ecological mitigation is in the form of the proposed visual barrier fencing plus planting. The fence at 1.2m is considered to allow open views out onto the estuary whilst reducing the line of sight to wintering birds. As this is required as the first phase of development it will establish before the development and the buildings are provided this offering a degree of mitigation.

8.58 The proposal will result in a new self-contained settlement that is quite distinct and separate from existing development and is likely to result in moderate adverse landscape and visual impacts on a large number of receptors and significant adverse impact on the receptors identified above, including many with a high sensitivity, within the estuary and over a wide area due to the prominence of the sight within the estuary setting and the open views provided by the surrounding landscape. The development will not fully accord with policies ST14 and DM08A of the NDTLP and the AONB Management Plan and this will need to be considered in the balance.

9.0 Impact on Heritage Assets

9.1 Local planning authorities have specific duties to make informed planning decisions in line with para 189- 190 of the NPPF on how development impacts on Heritage Assets and their settings. If harm is likely to be caused by a proposal, paragraphs 193-196 of the NPPF will need to be applied

9.2 In considering to grant planning permission which affects a listed building or its setting the Local Planning Authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest which it possesses in accordance with Section 66 of the Listed Building Act.

9.3 Policies ST15 and DM07 of the NDTLP require development to ‘preserve and enhance’ heritage assets and great weight should be afforded to such protections. A designated heritage asset can be a listed building (including curtilage listed building), Conservation Area, Registered Park or Garden or Scheduled Ancient Monument.

9.4 Chapter 8 of the ES covers Archaeology and Cultural Heritage (revised July 2020). The ES is supported by an Archaeology & Heritage Assessment (YQL 18965-AHA dated June 2015) and the Results of a Heritage Assessment (report no 200415 dated 15th July 2020).

9.5 The site does not contain any designated heritage assets. The land was either agricultural or marshland before the power station was built in the 1950’s.

9.6 A scheduled prehistoric stone row does lie circa 500 metres to the north east of the site (HER 5507). This alignment is now submerged beneath accumulating tidal silts, but is likely to have been the focus of prehistoric ceremonial or ritual activity.

Page 127 Agenda Item 5

It is thought to have originally consisted of nine pairs of stones with two metres between each pair and a total length of over fifty metres. This indicates the possibility of buried prehistoric land surfaces and environmental deposits in areas bordering the river and these areas of the site are adjudged to be moderate, and some form of mitigation for investigation of these areas would be appropriate.

9.7 Para 8.4.28 of the ES concludes that: According to the Geomorphological assessment of the site by the JBA group (2019). The proposed development will not cause any significant changes to the current geomorphology of the Taw Estuary, and as there are no planned alterations to the face of the existing defence and the gradient maintained, the existing defences are unlikely to cause increased scour or deposition on the salt marsh in the wider estuary, despite its evident increase in the 20th century presumed to have resulted from the historic realignment of the flood defences. There will therefore be no effect upon the now buried stone row.

9.8 Where archaeological remains do survive in such an estuarine environment, they can have higher archaeological potential as they may preserve organic material which typically would not survive in most other archaeological contexts. However, construction of the East Yelland Power Station may have had a substantial adverse effect on any earlier remains and thereby reduce the site’s archaeological potential. It is certain that construction of the main turbine hall has led to removal of several metres of ground. Piling of waste ash from the power station has also led to a re-profiling of the former marshland to the east of the site, with an unintended consequence being the gradual silting over of the Scheduled stone row.

9.9 Archaeological monitoring and recording is recommended.

9.10 Listed Buildings within the rural setting at Braunton Marsh, the Grade II cider mill adjacent to West Yelland Farm, Chapple Farm and the Old Windmill (ruin) have been assessed with the impact to their settings being restricted to of their immediate surrounding of buildings and fields.

9.11 The historic cores of both Fremington to the east and Braunton to the north of the Taw are designated as conservation areas and contain numerous listed buildings, but these areas lie approximately two and three kilometres away from the site respectively. Each designated area is surrounded by later built developments and growth. To the west of the site, the historic cores of both Instow just over a kilometre south west of the site and Appledore are also designated as

Page 128 Agenda Item 5

conservation areas. Instow is focused westwards, across the Taw to Appledore, and south-west along the Taw towards Bideford.

9.12 The only sites where there might be the potential for an appreciable impact are the Grade I Listed Churches of St. Augustine, St. Brannock, and St. John the Baptist; Grade II* Listed Church of St. Peter (all negative/minor); and the Scheduled Double Stone Row (negative/moderate to negative/minor).

9.13 Assessment of historic, cartographic and photographic sources indicate that the site was enclosed in the 19th century, remaining as agricultural land until the 1950s when the East Yelland Power Station was constructed; and decommissioned in 1984. Subsequent demolition and decay has seen the majority of the structures being removed or fall into disrepair, the site inspection identifying that only the jetty, switch-house and one of the pump-houses survive as upstanding structures; the boiler- and turbine-house as basement levels; and the remainder of the buildings only as concrete footprints. On that basis the archaeological potential of much of the site is adjudged to be low.

9.14 The ES Summary is that:

• No pre-19th century remains have previously been identified within the site which is likely to have had a long history as marshland before being used for more regular agricultural use in the 19th century. • There are no other known archaeological remains in the western part site. • The existing Yelland Stones to the east of the site will be retained; but is not currently visible. • The surviving power station structures are of low value, but they will be demolished as part of the scheme. This loss and any potential sub-surface archaeological remains can be mitigated through archaeological investigation (watching brief) in advance of and during construction. • The potential slightly adverse effect on the wider setting of any heritage assets could be further reduced through the sensitive use of materials. • The power station’s jetty will be retained, and its long-term future secured as part of the proposals and this represents a minor beneficial effect.

9.15 The Report concludes that: There is likely to be some cumulative harm arising from existing developments along the Taw Estuary, though this is mitigated by the proposed development utilising a brownfield site. However, this potential ‘less than substantial harm’ can be mitigated through appropriate detailed design of the development’s structures in the mixed landscape of the Taw Estuary.

9.16 With this in mind, the overall impact of the proposed development can be assessed as negligible to negative/minor. The impact of the development on any buried archaeological resource may be permanent and irreversible but can be mitigated through an appropriate programme of archaeological investigation and recording.

Page 129 Agenda Item 5

9.17 Consultation Responses

DCC - Historic The proposed development site lies in an area of archaeological buildings Officer potential with regard to known prehistoric activity in the vicinity, the preserved waterlogged palaeo-environmental deposits on the Reply Received foreshore and with regard to the surviving industrial remains 14January 2019 associated with the former power station. and 29 June 2020 Because of the impact of the development upon the surviving industrial remains on the site and the potential for the development (edited) to expose or otherwise impact upon any below ground archaeological deposits on the foreshore associated with the known prehistoric activity in the vicinity I would advise that any consent granted by your Authority should be conditional upon a programme of archaeological work to be implemented in mitigation for this impact. 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: i) An appropriate record of all extant remains and structures associated with the former power station along with the collation of any relevant documents associated with the former power station, ii) An appropriate programme of work to allow for the identification, investigation and recording of any archaeological or palaeo- environmental deposits that may be affected by the proposed development.

DCC - Historic Reconsulted on revised ES and Results of a Heritage Assessment Environment Team No further comments from me thanks

Reply Received 14 January 2021 Heritage & This application proposes a significant amount of development on Conservation the site of the former Yelland Power Station. There are no Officer designated heritage assets on this site, therefore the proposal will not have a direct physical impact on the fabric of heritage Reply Received assets. 28 February 2019 The site is, however, prominent in the wider landscape as it lies on the southern side of the River Taw, opposite Braunton Marsh. The valley of the River Taw is a feature in many views from the ranges of hills to the north and south. It is an open landscape, with the villages of Yelland, Fremington and Bickington being set inland to the south, and Braunton, Ashford and Heanton to the north, behind undeveloped natural river banks, fringed with farmland. The valley

Page 130 Agenda Item 5

of the Taw forms the backdrop for many heritage assets which are set on the hills to the north and south – among these are the landmark church of St Augustine in Heanton, which is listed grade I, and the Church of St Peter in Ashford which is listed grade II*. Both Ashford and Heanton villages have Conservation Areas and include many listed buildings. The river valley is part of the wider setting of these heritage assets and forms part of the context in which these buildings are experienced.

There have inevitably been changes to specific parts of the river valley over time, but its essential undeveloped character is a feature of the landscape setting. The development proposed within the application is relatively intensive, related to this context, and will provide a sizeable domestic settlement in a location close to the water’s edge. Full details are not provided, as the application is a hybrid, but it has to be assumed that the development will have a transformative effect on this part of the river bank. This will in turn have an effect on the significance of those heritage assets which have the river valley as part of their wider landscape setting, such as the two aforementioned churches, and the Conservation Areas.

It is difficult to say quite what this effect will be, without detailed plans, but it is likely to be in the ‘less than substantial harm’ bracket, and so the public benefits of the scheme will need to be taken into account when the decision is made, under the terms of paragraph 196 of the NPPF.

Heritage & Please see my consultation response of 28.2.19, which still stands. Conservation Officer

Reply Received 26 February 2020 Heritage & Thank you for sending these documents through, I have no further Conservation comments to add. Officer

Reply Received 27 January 2021 Historic England Historic England generally agree with the summary presented in the Archaeology and Heritage Impact Assessment, however, we Reply Received believe that this document fails to fully address certain aspects of 3 February 2019 the impact of the proposed development on the historic environment, including both designated and non-designated (edited) heritage assets.

Primarily, we are concerned that the potential hydrographic impacts of the intensification of use and flood defences on the

Page 131 Agenda Item 5

nationally important Scheduled Monument 'double stone alignment on Isley Marsh 535m north of Lower Yelland Farm (NHLE 1003847; OCN DV173)' have not been adequately investigated.. This monument is currently on the Heritage at Risk Register as a result of it's loss to silting over the years. It has not been possible to locate the monument for over ten years and geophysical survey in 2018 failed to accurately locate it. It is for this reason that it is considered at risk. Any development with the potential to alter silting patterns on the adjacent marsh should be accompanied by a detailed consideration of the issues and potential mitigation if necessary.

Although no longer visible, the stone rows at Isley Marsh survived well in 1983, having been preserved under tidal silt deposits for many years. They will contain important archaeological and environmental evidence relating to the construction, use and landscape context of the monument. They may also represent part of a much greater expanse of early prehistoric activity, which cannot be observed or formally assessed because it is submerged in the extensive silt deposits of this important estuary.

We are also concerned that the impact on the settings of Braunton Great Field and other Listed Structures has not fully considered the impacts of the resultant intensification of use of the site. This will be apparent in the far greater vehicular movements and in light pollution. Whilst we do not consider these to be major issues we do believe them to be enough to result in a potentially moderate level of harm to the setting of heritage asses.

In addition to the hydrological assessment of impact on Isley Marsh we would advise that the application does not contain any environmental benefits to the historic environment which could be taken into account in your assessment of the planning balance in order to outweigh any potential impacts. As has been noted, the Yelland Stone Row Scheduled Monument is recorded on the Heritage at Risk Register and any proposals that would assist in determining the location, survival and extent of the monument, such as targeted excavation, could be considered worthwhile.

Recommendation Historic England has concerns regarding the application on heritage grounds. We consider that the issues and safeguards outlined in our advice need to be addressed in order for the application to meet the requirements of paragraphs 189, 190, 192, 194, 196 and, 200 of the NPPF.

Historic England Historic England have little to add to the advice given previously on the 3rd February 2019. We would reiterate the importance of a full understanding of the hydrological implication of the proposals on

Page 132 Agenda Item 5

Reply Received the Yelland stone row Scheduled Monument (SM DV173, NHLE 25 April 2020 1003847), not only in normal conditions but during and as a result of flood events. This monument has been on the Heritage at Risk (edited) register for some time due to silting of the area and the proposals have the potential to exacerbate that impact. We would welcome a full hydrological impact study and any proposals for public gain through S106 for location and/or investigation of the monument that would aid its removal from the register.

9.18 Impact on Heritage Assets: CONCLUSION

9.19 The development of this site, by its very nature will alter the estuary setting of adjacent heritage assets. The site will form only part of any views from most designated receptors which are similarly influenced by other developments in the estuary corridor. The assessment concludes that the impact on heritage assets will not be at ‘any perceptible level’.

9.20 Historic England advise that ‘Whilst we do not consider these to be major issues we do believe them to be enough to result in a potentially moderate level of harm to the setting of heritage assists’. The Authority’s Conservation Officer advises that it ‘is difficult to say quite what this effect will be, without detailed plans, but it is likely to be in the ‘less than substantial harm’ bracket, and so the public benefits of the scheme will need to be taken into account when the decision is made, under the terms of paragraph 196 of the NPPF’. This is addressed in the planning balance.

9.21 A range of mitigation is being argued in that the proposed development by utilising a brownfield site is replacing built forms, through appropriate detailed design of the development’s structures in the mixed landscape of the Taw Estuary and through the use of conditions relating to the sensitive use of materials to blend the development in with the surrounding mixed landscape. Historic England argue that there are no ‘environmental benefits to the historic environment which could be taken into account in your assessment of the planning balance in order to outweigh any potential impacts’ and that they ‘would welcome a full hydrological impact study and any proposals for public gain through S106 for location and/or investigation of the monument that would aid its removal from the register’.

9.22 The impact of the development on any buried archaeological resource may be permanent and irreversible but can be mitigated through an appropriate programme of archaeological investigation and recording. The Yelland Stones are not directly affected by this development and any heritage s106 contributions would be considered within the Heads of Terms. Retention of the eastern part of the site as public open space will protect the setting of the scheduled stone row to the east

9.23 Archaeological conditions based on model Condition 55 as set out in Appendix A of Circular 11/95 relating to site investigation and monitoring of geotechnical test pitting and analysis of borehole results are recommended in the ES in accordance with Policy DM07 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011 - 2031 and paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

Page 133 Agenda Item 5

9.24 The works are not considered to conflict with policies DM07 or ST15 and in that the harm to heritage assets is with the less than substantial, the test is whether the public benefit outweighs the harm.

10.0 Transport and Movement

10.1 Policies ST10, DM05 and DM06 of the NDTLP require development to safe and suitable access for all road uses, providing sufficient access to alternative modes of travel to reduce the use of the private car, to safeguard strategic routes and provide appropriate transport infrastructure across the area to ensure the above is achieved.

10.2 Chapter 10 of the ES covers Transport and is supported by a Transport Assessment (0146 Rev E dated 23/12/19) and the following drawings:

 ATR01C Site Access Junction  ATR 02B Bus Stop Tracking Plan  PHL 01 E Proposed Site Access  PHL 02D Preliminary Highway/Cycleway Alignment  PHL 03D Preliminary Access Road Alignment  PHL 04C Preliminary Highway Profile  PHL 05A Closure of Existing Tarka Trail crossing

10.3 FRE02 criteria (l) requires improvements to the existing road junction with the B3233. Access to the proposed site is achieved via a re-designed priority junction on the B3233. This will provide adequate visibility in each direction. The junction will contain a right turn lane and two crossing points and the relocated bus stop.

10.4 The site is then approached from the existing private road (650m in length) which already has a carriageway width of 6m wide allowing two HGVs to pass. Approximately 410m into the site the route diverts from its existing alignment with branch to the gas depot and proposed car park to serve the Tarka Trail.

Page 134 Agenda Item 5

10.5 The design of the internal street network would be subject to Reserved Matters

10.6 A 3m wide cycleway/footway will be provided along the east side of the realigned access. Pedestrian and cycle access would also be available from the Tarka and South West Coast Path. The South West Coast Path extends along the northern site boundary and connects to the Tarka Trail both east and west of the site. The Tarka Trail provides a high quality, fully surfaced and traffic free walking and cycling route between Barnstaple and Bideford. The trail extends both east and west, serving Braunton and Great Torrington.

10.7 How the access road will cross the Tarka Trail has been considered in detail and a preliminary layout is provided. The crossing will feature staggered barriers to reduce cycle speed leading up to the junction. The section crossing the carriageway will be positioned on a raised plateau at which the carriageway will rise to meet the cycle/footway, providing a level crossing from one side of the Tarka Trail to the other. The lighting of this crossing is discussed above.

10.8 A route to the jetty will be retained for HGV access, with set-down and storage areas at the jetty itself, to allow for future commercial operation.

Traffic Impact

10.9 The TA has been criticised as being ‘out of date’ but it looks at the impact that this development, in combination with the developments listed below, will have on the functioning of the B3233. The TA was also undertaken on the basis of 300 units rather than the 250 now proposed. The traffic surveys were undertaken in 2019 and are likely to capture an element of the committed development traffic as much was under construction/occupied. The analysis takes account of the traffic from 1,993 consented dwellings and the survey traffic so is considered robust.

56054 Allenstyle 53 55479 Glenwood Farm 92 54762 Larkbear 820 56351 North Lane 65 50265 Sampson’s Plantation 37 Phase 2 53881; Tews Lane 350 57663 West Yelland 135 60985 Berryfields 61

Page 135 Agenda Item 5

60234 Taw View Phase 1 61 62783 Taw View Phase 2 44 53147; Fremington Barracks 1,993

10.10 It needs to be recognised that the access road serves the existing employment area. The existing traffic turning onto or from the access road associated with the existing employment land was surveyed as 58 vehicles in the AM peak and 23 vehicles in the PM peak.

Construction Phase

10.11 The maximum number of daily construction vehicle movements likely to be experienced is 87. The routing of construction traffic is anticipated to be to the west of the development via the B3233 to the A39 avoiding the villages of Yelland, Fremington & Instow. The impact of construction traffic (which would temporary) is expected to be minor adverse and not significant. Through the implementation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan and Delivery Management Procedure it is anticipated that the impact could be mitigated to negligible negative, over a relatively short space of time in the context of the development as a whole.

Operational Phase

10.12 Table 10.10 shows a maximum increase in traffic flows of 14% in the AM peak and 16% in the PM peak. Whilst this is not a view supported by the community, in traffic modelling terms it is also considered that the existing traffic flows on the B3233 are in modelling terms low, therefore a development of this size is likely to cause a large percentage increase on the network given the limited volume of traffic already using the route but it is still concluded that the impact of the development on driver delay on the B3233 is to be minor negative and low Sensitivity.

Table 10.10 – Percentage impact of development traffic on the B3233 (West) AM Peak PM Peak

2025 Base + Committed Traffic 683 797

Development Traffic 114 159

% Change 14% 19%

Table 10.10 – Percentage impact of development traffic on the B3233 (East) AM Peak PM Peak

2025 Base + Committed Traffic 641 677

Development Traffic 94 103

% Change 14% 15%

Page 136 Agenda Item 5

10.13 The functioning of the B3233 and its junctions have consistently been raised as issues of concern each time a residential development is promoted within this highway corridor. The TA has modelled the following junctions:

 A39 Westleigh Signalised junction  Fremington Barracks signalised junction  Cedars roundabout;  Sticklepath Hill / Bickington Road / Old Torrington Road mini-roundabout

10.14 The A39 Westleigh Junction and Fremington Army Barracks junction assessment shows that with the addition of development traffic, there are not anticipated to be any significant changes in capacity or delay. The traffic impact assessment completed for the Cedars Roundabout junction demonstrates that there is not expected to be a significant change in driver experience as a result of development traffic. Again whilst this will not be a view supported within the community in traffic modelling terms the impact is not severe.

10.15 With regards to the Sticklepath Hill Mini-Roundabout junction, results indicate that the junction operates over capacity under baseline plus committed conditions. However a comparison of the ‘with proposed development’ and ‘without proposed development’ scenarios shows that the addition of proposed development traffic is not expected to result in a significant change in performance. Again the functioning of this roundabout continues to be a concern of the community.

10.16 Following the assessment of these junctions the TA concludes that the development traffic is not anticipated to cause any significant changes. A development of this scale will result in additional traffic but the issue is whether the highway network will continue to function in an acceptable manner. Appeals on other sites have determined that the tests of severe harm are not met by these individual developments (West Yelland, Mead Park and Army Camp). The residential commitments on mass have been assessed and the Highway Authority have not raised objections subject to mitigation.

Pedestrian/Cyclist

10.17 There are four Public Rights of Way and two long distance walking routes associated with the site. These include:

 Fremington Footpath 64: runs along the northern boundary of the site to the Isley Marsh RSPB reserve;  Fremington Footpath 70: runs along the eastern boundary of the site linking the Tarka Trail to the coast;  Instow Footpath 15: runs along the northern boundary of the site from the end of Fremington Footpath 64;  Instow Footpath 9: The only Public Right of Way to enter the application site. It runs ‘around the biodiversity pond’; also  The South West Coastal Path bounds the site to the east and north; and

Page 137 Agenda Item 5

 The Tarka Trail Long Distance Route runs along the southern boundary of the site, which is a traffic-free walking and cycling path and forms part of the Devon Coast to Coast Cycle Route.

10.18 Policy FRE02 requires at criteria m) improved pedestrian and cycle links through and around the site and from the B3233 to the Tarka Trail; and at criteria (n) appropriate traffic management measures where vehicular traffic crosses the Tarka Trail to reduce conflict with, and improve safety for, pedestrians and cyclists using the Tarka Trail.

10.19 It is anticipated that the internal layout of the proposed development will include 2m footways throughout the site to assist the movement of pedestrians. The side and residential roads within the development could also have continuous raised footways across them to demonstrate to road users that pedestrians are the priority mode, with implied right of way at junctions.

10.20 The existing cyclepath along the site access road to the Tarka Trail will be improved to provide 3m cycle/footway to the trail. Pedestrian crossings have also been provided at the proposed site access and where the Tarka Trail crosses the access road to improve pedestrian access

10.21 The existing Tarka Trail which runs through the proposed development is to be retained and raised above the designated flood level. This will involve the trail being raised and the existing crossing relocated.

10.22 The impact of the fence on the SW Coast Path is discussed at length in the above section of the report. To reiterate, the design has been amended to ensure that those using the path can still have views out over the estuary.

10.23 The site access includes three designated pedestrian crossings providing improved access for pedestrians and cyclist from Yelland to the south of the site access and improvements to the virtual Pedestrian access.

10.24 Within a 5 minute walk, residents at the site would be able to reach bus stops and employment space. Within 10 minutes cycling time, there is the opportunity to reach various retail facilities in the villages of Fremington and Instow. Secure cycle parking will be provided within the demise of each residential property and in the public zones.

Car Parking

10.25 The application is in outline and the design of the car parking would be a reserved matter. Each type of use would need to provide the requisite amount of car parking. Paragraph 105 of the NPPF recognises that parking standards for residential and non-residential development should take account of a number of factors including ‘the need to ensure an adequate provision of spaces for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles’, this is again re-iterated at paragraph 110(e). Also, the National Design Guide which is intended to support paragraph 130 of the NPPF sets out that in a well-designed place, an integrated design process brings the ten characteristics together in a mutually supporting way in

Page 138 Agenda Item 5

order to create an overall character of place. Included within these ten characteristics is ‘Movement’ where development should seek to deliver parking which is attractive, well-landscaped and sensitively integrated into the built form so that it does not dominate the development or street-scene but also paragraph 87 recognises the need to consider electric vehicle spaces that are suitably located, sited and designed to avoid street clutter.

10.26 In terms of the adopted Local Plan, Policy DM06(1) clearly sets out that development proposals will be expected to provide an appropriate scale and range of parking provision to meet anticipated needs. Paragraph 13.51 sets out that ‘recognising the transition to a low carbon economy and a move to low emission transport, regard should be given, as part of the provision of an appropriate range of parking, to providing electric vehicle charging infrastructure’. A requirement to deliver electric vehicle charging infrastructure is implied within policy by recognising the requirement to meet ‘anticipated needs’ which as I have set out above the clear intention of Government is to pursue a rollout of electric vehicles across the UK. Therefore, such provision should be delivered by the developer as trips to services and facilities at Fremington, Barnstaple/Bideford town centre and employment opportunities are relatively short and suitable for a low energy electric vehicle and from a policy perspective such provision should be appropriately conditioned as part of any outline approval.

10.27 FRE02 Criterion (k) supports the provision of a public car park for users of the Tarka Trail. The car park is shown on land outside of the allocation to the south of the Tarka Trail. Currently vehicles park on the private road leading to the site on a permissive basis. Given the increase use of this access particularly during construction such on road parking may need to be restricted.

10.28 To minimise conflict during the construction phases it is recommended that this is provided as one of the first phases of development. The applicant has shown an access off the private road. Whilst this is acceptable during the construction phase, in the long term it is recommended that access be provided off the adopted highway.

10.29 A new car park should be off the new road in to the development, avoiding conflict with cyclists and pedestrians which appear to be encouraged to use the footpath to the west in order to access the Tarka Trail. The applicant has been asked to revise his plan in this respect. The Planning Committee are requested to support this request.

10.30 The layout shows that this car park would access to the Tarka Trail as now.

Public Transport

10.31 The closest bus stops to the site are located adjacent to the site access on the B3233 West Yelland. There is a frequent service stopping close to the site, offering regular services to Bideford and Barnstaple. Journey time to Barnstaple is between 14-25 minutes, and to Bideford approximately 15 minutes. The 21(A) service also serves Barnstaple station directly, in time for the first train to Exeter at

Page 139 Agenda Item 5

07:00. Three school bus routes also stop at Welch’s Lane – the 815, 821, and 921. These serve Newport Park School and Pilton Community College

Travel Planning

10.32 A full travel plan for the site, based on the content of national planning practice guidance, will be completed upon occupation of the development. The developer will be responsible for ensuring a Travel Plan Coordinator (TPC) is in place for the residential development at first occupation. For the employment space, a TPC will need to be assigned within each business. The responsibilities and timescales for implementation and monitoring the progress of the measures included within the Travel Plan are set out in an Implementation Strategy Table, (Appendix K of the TA).

10.33 Consultees

Planning Policy Criterion (k) supports the provision of a public car park for users Unit of the Tarka Trail. However, I question the proposed location of the public car park south of the Tarka Trail, outside of the site Reply Received allocation when this should be located within the proposed site 19 February boundary. Also, it is unclear what is proposed for future use for the 2020 remainder of this land to the south of the car park within the red line of the application site, because additional built development in edited this location will not be acceptable in landscape terms.

DCC - The proposed development is acceptable to the Local Highway Development Authority on the basis the highway works and contribution Management requirements are secured. If this is not the case, this Highways Authority will need to formally reconsider its consultation response In addition to the delivery of the Highway Works identified upon the Reply Received planning application submission the additional works and/or 6 February 2020 contributions are sought 1) The sum of £611,952.00 to be directed towards improvements at the Cedars Junction (A3125/B3233) and/or ESSO Garage/ Wrey Arms Junction (Old Torrington Road/A3125); 2) The upgrading of the virtual footway, to a formal footway, on the B3233 for a distance from the application site junction to Estuary View to the west; 3) The extension of footway provision into the site from the B3233 on the western frontage; 4) The provision of a Bus Shelter at the site entrance with a commuted sum of £1000 5) The sum of £20,000 being a commuted payment to cover the maintenance costs of the proposed pedestrian crossing facility; 6) The sum of £5000 to cover any associated Traffic Regulation Order requirements; 7) The sum of £250 per dwelling to be utilised for Public Transport vouchers; and

Page 140 Agenda Item 5

8) The sum of £50 per dwelling to be utilised towards cycle provision.

Conditions are also recommended DCC - As you will appreciate, I do not believe it is for this Authority to Development prioritise the contributions being offered when considering the Management competing interests of the respective Highways and Education Highways functions. This is a matter I am happy to remain at the discretion of the LPA, however, my objection, is given on the basis of the earlier Reply Received indicated intention for the highway contribution to be removed, as a 7 April 2021 result of the developers Viability Assessment. The reason for refusal is:

The planning application does not propose neither mitigation measures nor contributions towards the A3125/Old Torrington Road/ESSO Garage junction to address existing highway capacity issues during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak periods. As a consequence, the proposed development is likely to unacceptably exacerbate the operation of the junction and is, therefore, considered to be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), in particular, Paragraph 108 (c) and Paragraph 109 as the residual cumulative impacts on the road network will be severe.

DCC - Strategic comments: The transport implications of the proposed Development development have been taken into consideration in assessing the Control planning application. The highway network serving this site, notably the Bickington Road Corridor, is constrained and will require Reply Received improvement to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development. 29 April 2016 Without these improvements, and/or contributions towards them, the development cannot be supported by the Highway Authority. Section 106 contributions: (See DCC Highway response 21/4/16)

DCC - Public I draw your attention to comments made regarding previous Rights Of Way applications dated 19/04/2016 and 08/01/2019, that the application will have serious consequences for a number of footpaths in the Reply Received area, of which sections provide the route of the South West Coast 9 June 2020 Path National Trail. The proposed development will also have (edited) serious ramifications for the Tarka Trail Cycleway. Therefore I refer you to my comments cited against the earlier applications, as those concerns, (and the objection) would still stand. Finally, I would remind the applicant that should the application be successful, that Planning Permission does not grant the right to close, alter or build over a Public Right of Way in anyway, even temporarily. Therefore, the applicant must ensure that the way(s) remains open and available to the public at all times, including during the period of construction activity such as with buildings materials, or spoil and contractors vehicles and plant etc. Should it be necessary to permanently divert the path to enable development to take place, this can be achieved by the Local

Page 141 Agenda Item 5

Planning Authority through section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If a temporary diversion or closure is required during construction works then the applicant may apply to DCC for a temporary closure order. The South West As a designated National Trail, the SWCP is a nationally Coast Path important recreational infrastructure facility which is one of the Association major income generators for the South West, bringing in some £500 million per year to the region and sustaining c.11,000 jobs. It Reply Received is identified in the recently adopted North Devon and Torridge 12 February Local Plan (Fig 4.5) as a Strategic Recreational Route in 2019 northern Devon. Paragraph 10.185 of the statutory development Plan identifies the South West Coast path as a key green Edited infrastructure corridor along the estuary providing good sustainable travel options towards Barnstaple and Bideford.

Section 6 of the application Form to Application reference 60823(dated 16th March 2016) confirms that the major coastal development proposed by the application will include alterations to public rights of way together with diversions/extinguishments to these in accordance with details set out in 'Engineering Drawings'. Notwithstanding, a search of all the published drawings did identify Drawing No.Y029 18 501J(Development Edges Sections).This Drawing shows the construction of a physical barrier in the form of a 1825mm high 'Timber Screen' to the SWCP which is to be erected immediately adjacent to a very substantial frontage of the designated Coast path.

The Sectional Detail to the above noted drawing is annotated "Timber Screen with hit and miss with viewing elements" and also "Proposed Timber Screen to western edge of South West Coastal Footpath to Ecologists recommendations". These details show the extensive length of the proposed barrier and the attempt to mitigate what will be a very significant change in the function and value of the SWCP by proposing restricted ‘Viewing Areas’. The number and location of these viewing areas appear to be otherwise unspecified but the need to provide these emphasises the negative change resulting from what will be a profound change from open to enclosed National Trail.

The loss of the present openness with its extensive far reaching views across the estuary to the UNESCO designated Biosphere Reserve at Braunton Burrows and open estuary beyond will be exacerbated by the scale, density, nature and proximity of the major development immediately adjacent to the SWCP. The experience of walkers and users of the SWCP will overwhelmingly change from that associated with an open remote estuary to one associated with an enclosed urban experience and will unacceptably diminish the experience of users of the SWCP National Trail and value of this substantial section of the SWCP.

Page 142 Agenda Item 5

In its previous response on the outline application 60823, dated 9th May 2016, the SWCPA made it clear that it wished to see that both the physical integrity of the National Trail and views of the estuary from it are maintained. From the foregoing, it is seen that this is not the case and the SWCPA therefore makes the following representations.

Representation: the formal response of the South West Coast Path Association (SWCPA) is therefore one of OBJECTION to the principle and the detail of the application for the following reasons:

1. The proposal will affect the physical integrity of the SWCP by the proposed construction of a substantial built structure between the SWCP and the coast. The construction of such a permanent artificial barrier will unacceptably diminish the environmental quality o the SWCP and such will result in a fundamental conflict with the purpose of the designated coast path. 2. The quality of SWCP as experienced by all users of the coastal path will be significantly and adversely affected by the proposed development and rather than enhancing that experience and the public value of this nationally, regionally and locally important amenity the proposed barrier will materially detract from the accessibility and attractiveness of the SWCP along this section of the presently undeveloped coast in fundamental conflict with the SWCP designation. Following on from the above concerns, the present application is in clear conflict with a number of statutory planning policies of the North Devon Council's recently adopted North Devon and Torridge Local Plan against which the present planning application 60823 must be determined and in particular in conflict with the following polices: 3. The proposed development is in material conflict with following policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2013-2031: (i) Policy ST04: Improving the Quality of Development as the proposal fails to demonstrate inclusive design that will improve access and experience of users of the SWCP and fails to respond to the open estuarine character of the site. (ii) Policy ST09:Coast and Estuary Strategy and in particular Criterion 7 which requires all new development to safeguard the unspoilt character of the coast and estuary and Criterion 11 which requires the continuity of the South West Coast Path to be protected and improved with enhancements to coastal and estuary access as part of any regeneration proposal. (iii) Policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets and in particular Criterion h and Criterion J' increasing opportunities for access, education and appreciation of all aspects of northern Devon's environment, for all sections of the community'.

Page 143 Agenda Item 5

(iv) Policy FRE: Fremington and Yelland Spatial Vision and Development Strategy and its requirement to secure an enhanced network of footpaths. (v) Policy FRE02:Yelland Quay and in particular Criterion m which requires improvements to pedestrian links through and around the site and also the supporting text to the above policy insofar as it relates to the policy requirements to enhance the green infrastructure network and secure improved accessibility and visitor experience (10.206 and 10.208)

It is anticipated that the LPA will assess the present proposal against the provisions of the strategies relevant to the application site. These include strategies and management plans relating to the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Strategy, the Taw Torridge Estuary Management Plan, the Shoreline Management Plan and the Taw-Torridge Coastal management Study.

The South West As you will be aware, an OBJECTION to the above referenced Coast Path application has already been submitted on behalf of the South Association West Coast Path Association. This application does not adequately acknowledge or consider the significance of this designation and/or Reply Received the strategic importance of the National Trail. 6 February 2020 To reiterate the main concerns; Edited 1. The proposal will affect the character and physical integrity of the SWCP National Trail by the proposed construction of a substantial man-made structure between the SWCP and the presently open coast and estuary. The construction of such a permanent artificial barrier will unacceptably diminish the environmental quality of the SWCP and as such will result in a fundamental conflict with the Aims and Objectives of the nationally designated South West Coast Path. 2. The quality of SWCP as experienced by all users of the coastal path will be significantly and adversely affected by the nature, extent, proximity, scale, height and massing of the development noted above. Rather than enhancing that experience and the public value of this nationally, regionally and locally important amenity the proposed residential, industrial and commercial development with its associated perimeter barrier and engineering works will instead detract from the accessibility and attractiveness of the SWCP along this section of the presently undeveloped coast in fundamental conflict with the SWCP designation and its Aims and Objectives. 3. With particular regard to the material conflict with the Aims and Objectives of the SWCPA, the proposed development is also in material conflict with the following policies of the adopted North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2013 - 2031: (i) Policy ST04: Improving the Quality of Development as the proposal fails to demonstrate inclusive design that will improve

Page 144 Agenda Item 5

access and the experience of users of the SWCP and fails to respond and enhance the open estuarine character of the site. (ii) Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy and in particular Criterion 7 which requires all new development to safeguard the unspoilt character of the coast and estuary and Criterion 11 which requires the continuity of the South West Coast Path to be protected and improved with enhancements to coastal and estuary access as part of any regeneration proposal. (iii) Policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets and in particular Criterion h and Criterion J ‘increasing opportunities for access, education and appreciation of all aspects of northern Devon’s environment, for all sections of the community’. (iv) Policy FRE and its requirement to secure an ‘enhanced network of public footpaths’ and securing high quality design ‘that will capitalise on the sites coastal setting within the Taw-Torridge estuary’. (v) Policy FRE02: Yelland Quay and in particular Criterion (d) which requires buildings and structures to be sited and designed ‘to address their visual impact on the open landscape setting of the estuary’ and Criterion (m) which requires improvements to pedestrian links through and around the site. The development is also in conflict with the supporting text to Policy FRE02 in respect of the requirement for development to be designed to complement its sensitive and open landscape setting of the estuary (paragraph 10.202), to enhance the green infrastructure network (paragraph 10.206) and to secure improved accessibility and visitor experience (paragraph 10.208).

Finally, it is to be trusted that the LPA will assess the present proposal against the provisions of other strategies relevant to the application site. These include strategies and management plans relating to the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Strategy, the Taw Torridge Estuary Management Plan, the Shoreline Management Plan and the Taw-Torridge Coastal Management Study.

10.34 Conclusions

10.35 There are considered to be good opportunities for journeys from the site to be made by sustainable modes of travel and it is therefore considered that the site would provide an accessible location for development and take up the opportunities for sustainable transport as required by the NPPF and ST01 and ST10. Connections to and from the Tarka Trail and South West Coast Path are integral to the design. The enclosure of the coast path has also been addressed.

10.36 With regards to driver delay the TA has been concluded that the B3233 and various off site junctions included in the scoping by DCC would not experience any severe impacts. On all the issues the assessment demonstrated that the residual adverse impacts are at worse, negligible

Page 145 Agenda Item 5

10.37 DCC have advised that if £611,952.00 to be directed towards improvements at the ‘Cedars’ Junction (A3125/B3233) and/or ‘ESSO Garage/Wrey Arms’ Junction (‘Old Torrington Road/A3125) is not collected that they would be minded to recommend refusal of the application but have yet to provide the reasoning for this recommendation.

10.38 The application does secure the following Heads of Terms  Provision of the virtual footway and the extension of footway provision into the site from the B3233 on the western frontage  Provision of car park to serve the Tarka Trail  The provision of a Bus Shelter at the site entrance with a commuted sum of £1000  The sum of £20,000 being a commuted payment to cover the maintenance costs of the proposed pedestrian crossing facility  The sum of £5000 to cover any associated Traffic Regulation Order requirements.

10.39 Planning Conditions will need to be applied to resolve the design of the roads, footpaths, cycle provision within the site itself as well as standard engineering drawings in line with DM05 and DM06. The concerns of the SWCPA are addressed with the ecology and landscape sections of the report. The management of construction traffic will be essential in respect of localised impacts. Whilst there will be an increase in traffic on the network the test of severe harm is not met subject to mitigation.

11.0 Flood risk and Water Quality

11.1 The NPPF at para155 states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk but that where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

11.2 NDTLP Policy ST03 requires that development takes account of climate change and should be located and designed to minimise flood risk. The site is within flood zone 3.

11.3 Policy FRE02 criteria (f) requires provision of adequate flood alleviation measures with design and distribution of uses to manage minimise and mitigate against any risks from flooding

11.4 Chapter 9 of the ES deals with Flood Risk, Water Resources and Water Quality. It is supported by Flood Risk Assessment 0146 Dated 19 December 2019, Yelland Quay Wave and Overtopping Assessment (August 2018) and a Preliminary Drainage Layout 0146 PLL-100 Rev H.

Flood Risk

11.5 The existing engineered ground level is in the range of 5m to 6m above ordnance datum (AOD). The site is currently defended by an existing flood defence bank which varies in level between 6.1m and 6.6m AOD

Page 146 Agenda Item 5

11.6 Because of the exposed nature of the site and the fact that Crow Point on the Northern side of the Taw Estuary is being allowed to naturally erode, the EA required a more detailed assessment of the wave impact on the Yelland Quay site. This has been used to design the defences.

11.7 EA guidance defines a design life of 100 years for residential (or residential-led mixed-use) developments. Therefore the 1 in 200 year return period tidal flood level in 2120 has been calculated as being 1.11m above the current still water level of 5.75m AOD. The 2120, 1 in 200 year still water level (SWL) is therefore 6.86m AOD.

11.8 Given the existing ground level of much of the site is in the range of 5 to 6m AOD, whereas the 2120 1 in 200 year still water level is 6.86m AOD, a potential flood depth of up to 1.86m could be experienced if the current defence were to be breached or rounded. To address this risk, it is proposed to locally reinforce / raise the flood defences and also raise the development significantly above the existing ground levels. It is proposed to raise the site on a series of plateaus, with the level of each plateau determined by the flood risk and vulnerability of the proposed use. This approach is similar to that adopted at Anchorwood Bank.

11.9 The waterfront residential properties to the west of the site will be raised to a level of 8.6m AOD. These properties will also be set back to allow for the spray generated by extreme waves to be less than 1 l/s/m and designed to address the exposed maritime location. Similarly, the waterfront residential properties to the north will be raised to a level of 8.0m AOD and will be set back by 5-10m. Further inland residential properties will be set at minimum 7.16m AOD, to provide a minimum 300mm freeboard (the height of the watertight portion of a building or other construction above a given level of water in a river) above the 1 in 200 year still water level in 2120.

11.10 Commercial buildings proposed within the development will be set at minimum 6.6m AOD, to provide minimum 300mm freeboard above the 1 in 200 year still water level in 2080 (60-year design life).

11.11 To ensure that safe access and egress can be afforded at all times throughout the residential-led developments 100 year design life, the main access road to the south will be raised to a minimum level of 6.86m AOD, ensuring that it is accessible in up to the 1 in 200 year flood occurring in 2120

11.12 The Revised FRA has been updated with the UKCIP18 at a level of detail necessary for an outline design. The outline design takes account of the current and future flood risks, with sufficient freeboard to accommodate the recent changes to climate change guidance.

Page 147 Agenda Item 5

Sequential Test

11.13 Before determining the application the flood risk Sequential Test has to be satisfied. The North Devon Local Plan and the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan both recognised this as a site in need of regeneration. The site allocated in the joint Local Plan were sequentially tested with the aid of a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment,

11.14 Whilst the site might technically fail the sequential test when considering its individual components, it is considered that the only way the wider objectives set out in Local Plan can be delivered and the site regenerated is through the provision of a mix of development and as such, this proposal offers wider sustainability benefits which outweigh the failure of the Sequential Test.

Water Quality – Construction and Operational Phases:

11.15 The Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will contain measures to manage and control all ground works, including management of wastewater and the storage of fuel and chemicals. The CEMP will detail the procedures and methods that are to be followed by the construction workforce in order to minimise the potential effects of construction on the site on the water environment.

11.16 The implementation of a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) in the form of strategically located ponds, rain gardens and a lagoon will mitigate the potential impact associated with increased surface water run-off. The use of SuDS will also ensure that no significant residual or cumulative impacts, in terms of deterioration in water quality, groundwater recharge, and impacts associated with an alteration to the drainage regime, will affect any sensitive water resource receptors, during either the construction or operation.

11.17 Any surface water discharges from private and communal car parking areas and high risk areas (i.e. major highway junctions) should incorporate appropriate pollution control measures (i.e. trapped gullies, manholes with catch pits etc) to minimise the risk of polluted surface water runoff entering the adjacent SSSI site and underlying aquifer. The proposed development will utilise SuDS in the form of grass lined detention basins and ponds. The use of these features will help to reduce the potential impact of point source pollution incidents and can help improve the quality of surface water discharges by allowing the removal of suspended matter prior to discharge.

11.18 Consultee Responses

Planning Policy The whole site (excluding the capped former ash beds) is within Unit flood zone 3, where national policy and Local Plan policy ST03 require flood risks to be managed and reduced. The exceptions Reply Received test informed by a site-specific flood risk assessment would need 4 April 2019 to be applied to reduce flood risks, which could include raising ground levels and other mitigation measures to ensure a secured Edited

Page 148 Agenda Item 5

means of escape. It is also necessary to ensure that flood risks elsewhere are not increased as a result of the development.

Environment Environment Agency position: The development will be acceptable Agency provided that conditions are included on any permission granted in respect of: Reply Received • The detailed design of the flood defences; 16 May 2016 • Details of phasing, final site levels and landscaping; • Implementation of recommendations of the Ecological Impact For comments Assessment; re biodiversity see ecology Before determining the application your Authority will need to be content that the flood risk Sequential Test has been satisfied in accordance with current Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) if you have not done so already. As you will be aware, failure of the Sequential Test is sufficient justification to refuse a planning application.

The suggested wording for the recommended conditions is set out below together with advice on flood risk, contaminated land, biodiversity and pollution prevention. Advice - Flood Risk The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) by AWP dated 10/12/2015 and associated drawings/documents are acceptable to demonstrate that the proposed development, including its access and egress route, will be designed to be safe from flooding over its The details in drawings 0146PDL100 rev D and Y025 13 40 showing the proposed flood defences, ground and floor levels, together with sections 3.18-3.22 of the FRA, demonstrate that the site itself will be safe from flood risk. Furthermore, the raised access road (at 6.8mAOD) provides a safe access and egress route. We consider that the information submitted is sufficient to support this hybrid planning application. The inclusion of the above-mentioned conditions will ensure that detailed design of the flood defences, site levels and landscaping, as well as the phasing of work, will be agreed prior to the commencement of development.

Environment The development will be acceptable provided that conditions are Agency included on any permission granted in respect of: • The detailed design of the flood defences; Reply Received • Details of phasing, final site levels and landscaping; 30 January • Implementation of recommendations of the Ecological Impact 2019 Assessment;

For comments The suggested wording for the recommended conditions is set out re biodiversity in our previous letter dated 06 May 2016. Updated advice on this see ecology proposal is set out below.

Advice – Flood Risk

Page 149 Agenda Item 5

We have reviewed the revised Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) (Rev E Nov 2018) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and consider that these are acceptable. We recommend that the conditions related to flood risk we previously recommended are still included within any permission granted.

To satisfy the conditions on detailed design of the flood defences and site levels/landscaping, the FRA/Wave study will need to be updated to consider the recent changes to the climate changes guidance (UKCIP18), and address any changes in flood risks to the site. Whilst we consider that it would be unreasonable to require the current FRA and design to be updated at this stage to reflect this new guidance, we advise that the different results should be considered at the detailed design stage. We expect that any changes will be minor and can be accounted for in the design freeboard already used. As part of the detailed design of the levels/landscaping, we also require further details on the basement car parking. We consider that the current phasing plan is acceptable for the current level of design, which can be updated with the detailed design.

Environment The development will be acceptable provided that conditions are Agency included on any permission granted in respect of: • The detailed design of the flood defences; Reply Received • Details of phasing, final site levels and landscaping; 19 February • A scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of 2020 the site; • Implementation of recommendations of the Ecological Impact For comments Assessment; re biodiversity • Any unsuspected contamination subsequently found to be see ecology present on the site; and • A Construction Environment Management Plan. We have updated the wording for the two flood risk related conditions (below). The suggested wording for the recommended conditions remains as set out in our previous letter dated 06 May 2016. Updated advice relating to flood risk and contaminated land is also set out below.

Advice - Flood Risk We consider that the updated Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) version G (Dec 2019 and updated EIA are acceptable and we have no flood risk objections to the proposal. The outline design takes account of the current and future flood risks, with sufficient freeboard to accommodate the recent changes to climate change guidance.

To satisfy the required conditions, the FRA/Wave study will have to consider the most up to date climate changes guidance (inc. UKCIP18 and any update to this) and address any changes to the

Page 150 Agenda Item 5

flood risk affecting the site that result from the updated climate change allowances.

The Revised FRA has been updated with the UKCIP18 at a level of detail necessary for an outline design. The updated flood risk analysis may mean that the subsequent detail design will need to be altered, including changes to the site and minimum floor levels, and the frontage flood defences. We expect that any changes will be minor and can be accounted for in the design freeboard (conservative) already used.

The current phasing plan is acceptable for the current level of design, which should be updated with the detailed design. The abovementioned conditions should ensure that the detailed design and phasing is informed by the most up to date information on climate change to ensure that the development will be safe over its lifetime.

Conclusions: Flood Risk and Water Quality

11.19 The updated flood risk analysis may mean that the subsequent detail design may need to be altered, including changes to the site and minimum floor levels, and the frontage flood defences but any changes will be minor and can be accounted for in the design freeboard (conservative) already used and through the detailed conditions recommended by the Environment Agency.

11.20 The development is considered acceptable in respect of flood risk and maintaining water quality providing conditions are applied relating to

 The detailed design of the flood defences;  Details of phasing, final site levels and landscaping;  A scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site;  Implementation of recommendations of the Ecological Impact Assessment;  Unsuspected contamination  A Construction Environment Management Plan.

12.0 Drainage Surface Water and Foul

Surface Water Disposal

12.1 Policy ST03 requires a reduction in surface water run off rates and the adoption of effective water management including SuDs. Policy DM04 requires development to 'provide effective water management including Sustainable Drainage Systems, water efficiency measures and the reuse of rain water

12.2 This is allied to water quality set out above.

Page 151 Agenda Item 5

12.3 Due to existing contamination, the use of infiltration drainage has been disregarded. Instead, on-site attenuation with discharge to surface water is being promoted.

12.4 Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) can be used to reduce the amount of rainfall collected at source and can be used to improve water quality. The EA have also confirmed that the use of SuDS as a means of reducing surface water runoff is a sustainable and cost-effective solution.

12.5 The implementation of a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) in the form of strategically located ponds, rain gardens and a lagoon will mitigate the potential impact associated with increased surface water run-off. The use of SuDS will also ensure that no significant residual or cumulative impacts, in terms of deterioration in water quality, groundwater recharge, and impacts associated with an alteration to the drainage regime, will affect any sensitive water resource receptors, during either the construction or operation.

12.6 Any surface water discharges from private and communal car parking areas and high risk areas (i.e. major highway junctions) should incorporate appropriate pollution control measures (i.e. trapped gullies, manholes with catch pits etc) to minimise the risk of polluted surface water runoff entering the adjacent SSSI site and underlying aquifer. The proposed development will utilise SuDS in the form of grass lined detention basins and ponds. The use of these features will help to reduce the potential impact of point source pollution incidents and can help improve the quality of surface water discharges by allowing the removal of suspended matter prior to discharge

12.7 Runoff from the highway will drain via adoptable highway gullies, with connections to a dedicated highway drain.

12.8 Consultee responses

DCC - Lead Recommendation: Our objection is withdrawn and we have no in- Local Flood principle objections to the above planning application at this stage, Authority assuming that pre-commencement planning conditions are imposed on any approved permission. Reply Received 31 January Observations: At detailed design stage, consideration should be 2019 given to the design of the attenuation basins to ensure they have a suitable freeboard, 300 m, above the design water level. We would also recommend that the sides slopes of the basins are no more than 1 in 3 for health and safety requirements. We are pleased to see the inclusion of either a shallow bund or a cut off ditch to the south of the site to route exceedance flows away from the Tarka Trail. The bund/drain feature should be included within the detailed design for any future application. The applicant has produced a feasible surface water drainage strategy encompassing the use of above ground basins to attenuate the surface water runoff prior to discharge into the tidal River Taw. The basins will provide attenuation of peak flows,

Page 152 Agenda Item 5

treatment of the runoff as well as ecology and amenity benefits to the wider area.

Oil interceptors should be used to treat runoff from car park areas at the site as indicated in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment.

DCC - Lead Recommendation: We have no in-principle objections to the Local Flood above planning application, from a surface water drainage Authority perspective, at this stage. We would still recommend the conditions listed on my previous response. Reply Received 22 March 2019 Observations: The applicant should confirm that with the change in layout there is still sufficient space within the layout for the required attenuation volumes. If there is any change in impermeable areas this should also be reflected within the surface water calculations although this could be undertaken at detailed design stage.

DCC - Lead At this stage, we object to this planning application because we Local Flood believe it does not satisfactorily conform to saved Policy ST03 Authority linking to climate change of North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (2011 - 2031). The applicant will therefore be required to submit Reply Received additional information in order to demonstrate that all aspects of 5 March 2020 the proposed surface water drainage management system have been considered.

Observations: Full Application The full application section of the above hybrid planning application comprises 'the highway infrastructure to the site'. As a result we would require information on how the proposed highway will be drained. The applicant has submitted attenuation calculations for the wider site but no specific details on how it is proposed to drain the highway.

Outline Application We would require confirmation of the existing runoff rates from the site and the proposed runoff. This doesn't appear to have been included in the Flood Risk Assessment dated Nov 2019. The applicant should also indicate what level was used for the tidal locking scenario and how this is represented within the Micro Drainage outputs. We are supportive of the use of no infiltration due to contamination at the site. We are supportive of the use of basins/ponds and rain gardens to treat the runoff and would like to see this carried through to the reserved matters stage

DCC - Lead Our objection is withdrawn and we have no in-principle Local Flood objections to the above planning application at this stage, Authority assuming that the pre-commencement planning conditions are imposed on any approved permission Reply Received

Page 153 Agenda Item 5

19 March 2021 Full Application The applicant has submitted the following information in support of the proposed full application: Yelland Quay Preliminary Highway Profile 0146 PHL04 Rev C Preliminary Access Road Alignment Plan 0146 PHL03 Rev D Email from Chris Yalden AWP to Devon County Council LLFA dated 4th March 2020

The aforementioned FRA indicates that the runoff from the road will drain into the proposed western pond as part of the wider surface water management strategy for the site. The site wide strategy will attenuate the flows based on the tidal locking scenario in the proposed basin which will offer benefits such as treating the runoff as well as biodiversity and amenity benefits. We would encourage the use of the oil interceptor as indicated in the FRA.

Outline Application We are in agreement that due to the contamination on the site that infiltration is not advisable at this location. We are supportive of the use of above ground lined basins and rain gardens at the site and would encourage these features to be carried forward into the detailed design. We welcome the inclusion of a bund to direct exceedance flow routes away from the existing Tarka Trail.

Foul Water Drainage

12.9 South West Water (SWW) records identify no adopted sewers within the application site. The development will require a new foul pumping station to transfer foul only flows from the proposed development site to the existing SWW pumping station, approximately 600m inland from the quay. SWW have previously confirmed that this pumping station has capacity to deal with the additional foul flows generated by the proposed development.

Potable Water Supply

12.10 There are no existing SWW potable water distribution mains located within the vicinity of the site. The nearest potable water supply is located in Yelland Road to the south of the site.

12.11 Consultee responses

South West I refer to the above application and would advise that South West Water Water has no objection and would confirm that foul drainage capacity within the public sewer network has been confirmed. Reply Received 9 January 2019 South West The development will drain to the Yelland sewage pumping station Water which pumps foul flows direct to the drainage network in Bideford and will not impact on the sewer network serving Instow.

Page 154 Agenda Item 5

Reply Received 1 February 2019 South West I refer to the above and would advise that South West Water has Water no comment.

Reply Received 22 January 2020 South West I refer to the above application and would advise that South West Water Water has no comment.

Reply Received 9 June 2020

12.12 Conclusions

12.13 There are no issues supplying this site with water or making provision for foul waste. With appropriate conditions as suggested by DCC Lead Flood Risk Authority it is considered that surface water can be disposed of in an acceptable manner both in the construction and operational phases of this development. No additional mitigation is required.

13.0 Social and Economic Impacts

13.1 Chapter 16 of the ES deals with Cumulative Effects of this development in association with committed applications in the vicinity of the site. The main conflicts which could arise would be during the construction phases albeit the listed developments other than North Road Bickington, are now quite advanced. Through an agreed CEMP the impacts could be managed. Other chapter specific affects are dealt with in the relevant sections (above).

13.2 Chapter 17 of the ES (Social Impact on the Local Population) argues that the development will be providing Yelland with additional services such as shops and restaurant/cafes as well as additional employment space. The application is proposing a mix of uses including community space and public open space.

13.3 The public car park next to the Tarka Trail will be of benefit to those using the trail as parking on the private road is currently only permissive.

13.4 The mixed use development will create a new social hub along the Tarka Trail linking Instow with Fremington Quay and will provide facilities not readily available within Yelland.

13.5 Chapter 18 considers Economic Impacts. Hardisty Jones Associates were instructed to provide a headline assessment of gross direct economic impacts arising from strategic residential led mixed-use development at Yelland Quay. The application is also supported by a Regeneration Statement.

13.6 Total construction costs were estimated at approximately £67 million though this has since been updated to £82 million based on the Gates consultants

Page 155 Agenda Item 5

Construction budget v5. Based on ONS data, this level of investment into the construction sector would support 305 person years of employment in the construction period. On the basis of ONS detail this would generate earnings of around £9 million and Gross Value Added (GVA) of more than £20 million across the construction period. These would be temporary economic benefits.

13.7 The operational assessment indicated the potential for more than 50 FTE (full time equivalent) jobs within the development. Based on official ONS data for earnings and GVA, once fully occupied the site would support annual earnings in excess of £1 million and GVA of almost £2 million per annum (excluding wider operational impacts e.g. through the expenditure of residents, the on-going maintenance and intermittent resale of homes, the on-going everyday expenditure in the local area in terms of food, clothing, leisure and travel, and, public service provision funded through the council tax and other taxes paid by residents.)

13.8 Whilst these economic benefits have been challenged by the local community, employment is created by the building trade and the future commercial uses will result in places of employment and hence jobs. The site is allocated for a mixed use development and the scheme is delivering this. Phasing conditions will be required to ensure the commercial and community spaces are delivered alongside the housing to ensure that a balance and sustainable community results.

13.9 The letters of objection highlight that this scheme will have an adverse impact on tourism. This would be hard to quantify in that a very small part of the Tarka Trail and South West Coast path would be affected by the development during the construction phase and that the effect on users would be short term and for the duration that they were passing the site.

13.10 The development will be visible from the viewpoints identified above but the scheme will be read in a similar manner to other riverside settlements. This is a very small but prominent part of the estuary and whilst tourists do not come to an area to witness development it is not considered that their enjoyment of Instow, Braunton Burrows or Fremington Quay would be harmed. The views from the AONB are at a distance and again the landscape has a degree of capacity to absorb a small amount of development whilst still retaining the image of green hills behind and the waterfront in the foreground.

Conclusion: Social and Economic benefits

13.11 The scheme will have both economic and social benefits by delivering a mixed use scheme in line with FRE02.

14.0 Infrastructure

14.1 This part of the report considers the request from the consultees not captured within the specific chapters of the report.

Page 156 Agenda Item 5

Affordable Housing

14.2 Part 5 of the NPPF supports the approach of requiring an element of Affordable Housing as part of proposals that seek to deliver open market dwellings. Where there is an identified need for AH LPAs must ensure the provision of AH unless there is a robust case for doing otherwise.

14.3 The scheme is required to deliver 30% affordable housing in order to accord with Policy ST18 of the NDTLP.

14.4 As part of the resubmission the applicant offered 10% affordable housing. Following challenges about whether the scheme would be viable a review was undertaken (see below). The offer now before the Committee is no affordable housing.

14.5 Consultee Reponses

Housing Devon Home Choice shows there are 199 households living in the Enabling Officer parish of Fremington registered as being in housing need as of October 2018. Not all households tend to register themselves on Reply Received the housing register as they don’t think that they will have the 28 January opportunity to be housed so this figure is often significantly higher. 2019

Edited Housing I refer to my response dated 28 January 2019 to your previous Enabling Officer consultation.

Reply Received The applicant's Supporting Statement states on page 51 ("The 30 January Proposal") - "The proposal will include the following: 250 dwellings 2020 incorporating a mixture of 1-5 bed dwellings including 10% Affordable housing provision" and on page 61 ("Supplementary Documentation Section 106 Heads of Terms") - "An accompanying Commercially confidential Viability Statement has been produced outlining the headline figures of the development proposal" and that this includes "10% Affordable Housing Provision (Tenure to be agreed)".

As I stated in my response dated 28 January 2019, as the site (FRE02: Yelland Quay) is allocated in the Local Plan, the affordable housing requirement would be 30%. For 250 dwellings this equates to 75 affordable dwellings. The applicant's viability statement will need to be reviewed by our independent consultant at the applicant's cost.

In accordance with policy, the affordable housing tenure mix would need to be at least 75% social rent (for 75 affordable dwellings this equates to 57 dwellings for social rent) and the remainder intermediate (shared ownership, intermediate rent or discounted sale).

Page 157 Agenda Item 5

Those who are allocated or buy the housing would need a local connection to the parish of Fremington in the first instance, then adjoining parishes then ultimately after a specific timeframe to the whole district of North Devon.

The affordable homes should be pepper potted throughout the site in clusters of no more than 6-10 units.

The affordable homes should be designed and of the same material and construction as the open market - including car parking.

Property sizes for affordable housing should aim to meet or exceed the "Technical housing standards - nationally described space standard", which can be accessed at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/technical-housing- standards-nationally-described-space-standard (see "Table 1 - Minimum gross internal floor areas and storage (m2)" of the Department for Communities and Local Government document).

The attached table shows the policy requirement for dwelling mix & occupancy levels. Registered providers require housing to be built to National Space Standards; these are indicated on the attachment to this response.

3% of our housing register require wheelchair accessible housing. Therefore, we would expect 3% of the affordable housing to be provided as wheelchair accessible housing. These should be built to comply with the requirement M4 (3) (2) b of the Building Regulations 2010 Approved Document M: Access to and use of buildings. These should be provided as Social Rent. This would be detailed as a planning condition. I would request that the applicant contacts Housing Enabling at the pre-app stage at reserved matters to get the most up to date housing need for disabled adapted properties so that this can be factored into the design appropriately.

Devon Home Choice (DHC) shows there are 160 households living in the parish of Fremington registered as being in need of affordable housing for rent as of July 2019. Not all households tend to register themselves on the housing register as they don't think that they will have the opportunity to be housed so this figure is often significantly higher.

It should be noted that although DHC data identifies the number of households living within the parish in housing need, it does not always provide sufficient information to firmly establish how long households have been resident in the parish or if they wish to

Page 158 Agenda Item 5

remain in the parish; it is a snap shot in time and people's circumstances can change extremely quickly. In addition, some households may seek affordable home ownership options (shared ownership/discounted sale) and must register an application

Housing We would like to make a bid for affordable housing to feature within Enabling Officer the £1,417,869 being offered. At present there are 250 open market homes on the table all out of reach of the majority in need Reply Received of affordable housing for sale - £260-310k just for a 2b. Half a 8 April 2021 million for the 4-beds and ¾ million for the 5-beds! All the housing is huge – 50m2 plus above national space standards. I’m just wondering if this has been considered in the viability work i.e. if affordable housing could be offered if the footprint of the homes were smaller. I’m not sure the dwelling mix matches are HEDNA requirements for our housing even the OM sizes required.

As of January 2021 we have nearly 2500 on the waiting list for rented affordable housing alone so it seems criminal to be delivering 250 very expensive open market homes with no affordable housing and with those sizes and prices not even within reach of the average local person. They will just all become second homes and holidays lets for others to enjoy.

Public Open Space

14.6 Policy DM10: Green Infrastructure Provision: Development is required to provide new accessible green infrastructure, including public open space and built facilities, to meet the green infrastructure quantitative and accessibility standards, as set out in Table 13.1 and Infrastructure Delivery Plan of the Local Plan.

14.7 In order to comply with Policy DM04 and DM10 of the NDTLP, open space provision on and off-site must be secured at outline stage via a section 106 agreement. Criterion (h) of Policy FRE02 requires the provision of a new football pitch with associated facilities.

14.8 The masterplan indicates the following:  1000sq.m NEAP  400 sq. m LEAP  1.6ha Green Space within Development

14.9 Parks confirm that the capped ash beds combined with the 1.6ha green open space within the development would meet the informal open space requirements.

14.10 This application does not provide a sports pitch and associated facilities to meet the requirements of Policy FRE02. The Parks Team indicate that without availability of alternative suitable land an off-site contribution would not help achieve this requirement. There is a shortage of playing pitches in Fremington and none in Yelland, and this development is going to create additional demand. An off-site contribution of £561,600 is requested to meet the shortfall.

Page 159 Agenda Item 5

14.11 Consultee Reponses

Planning Policy Criterion (h) of Policy FRE02 requires the provision of a new Unit football pitch with associated facilities. I note from the proposed plans that such provision has not been provided. If provision Reply Received cannot be provided on site then you should seek a financial 19 February contribution towards new or upgrading of sports facilities elsewhere 2020 on an identified site elsewhere within Fremington / Yelland to meet the needs of the local community. edited Open Space I attach a new open space calculation in accordance with DM10, Officer following the adoption of the new local plan in 2018. I have based this on 250 x 3-bed units, as an indicative figures at this stage. Reply Received 20 January Management of Open Space - Will a management company be 2020 responsible for the on-site open space?

Edited Open Space If we assume the ash beds are not going to contribute to providing Officer a sports pitch and associated facilities then the proposals fail to meet the requirements of Policy FRE02; and without availability of Reply Received alternative suitable land being provided in the Fremington/Yelland 21 January area, an off-site contribution could not help achieve this 2021 requirement. We already have a shortage of playing pitches in Fremington and none in Yelland, this development is going to create demand that cannot be catered for. And the Local Plan clearly states that this development should provide the pitches and associated facilities. Assuming suitable land could be identified for the sports pitches and facilities to be provided off-site to ensure the policy requires of FRE02 can be achieved (which is a big if) and using the example calculation provided by Lucy on the 20/1/20 which assumes 250x3bed dwellings (same calculation as provided by Lucy on 20/1/20); we have the following comments. 1) Minimum requirements for a LEAP is 400sq.m – we would request that one 400sq.m LEAP is provided instead of 2 x 200sq.m. 2) A NEAP is minimum 1,000sq.m 3) Assuming the capped ash beds can/should only be consider informal open space, then the ash beds combined with the 1.6ha green open space within the development would meet the informal open space requirements. 4) In assuming the capped ash beds are informal open space, that cannot be considered sports pitches and therefore proposals do not include the pitches or community building and therefore an off-site contribution will be sought of £561,600. However without a suitable site in proximity to the development to invest this capital I don’t see how the application can be considered compliant with FRE02.

Page 160 Agenda Item 5

Education

14.12 Appropriate infrastructure in accordance with Policy ST23 of the NDTLP is required which includes contributions towards education facilities.

14.13 Devon County Council have requested the following contributions towards Education Infrastructure:  SEN contribution of £36,391  Primary contribution of £840,417  Early Years contribution of £62,500  Primary School Transport of £334,993  Secondary School Transport of £143,568

14.14 Consultee response

DCC - Children’s Regarding the above planning application, Devon County Council Services has identified that a development up to 250 family type dwellings will generate an additional 62.5 primary pupils and 37.5 Reply Received secondary pupils which would have a direct impact Fremington 30 January 2020 Community Primary & Nursery School, Instow Community Edited Primary School and Bideford College. Special Educational Needs (SEN) Provision: Approximately 1.5% of the school population require a specialist school place. This development is likely to generate 1.5 pupils who will have a Special Educational Need (SEN). DCC will therefore request for additional primary and secondary SEN provision that will be required as a result of the development. The SEN contribution sought is £36,391 (based on the DfE new build secondary rate of £24,261 per pupil) equivalent to 0.94 primary pupil and 0.56 secondary pupils. This equates to a per dwelling rate of £145.56.

Primary Provision: When factoring in both approved but unimplemented housing developments we have forecast that local primary schools have not got capacity for the number of pupils likely to be generated by the proposed development. Therefore, Devon County Council will seek contribution towards additional education infrastructure to serve the address of the proposed development. DCC will not seek additional primary contributions on SEN pupils and therefore will only seek a contribution towards the remaining 61.56 pupils expected to be generated from this development. The primary contribution sought is £840,417 (based on the DfE expansion rate of £13,652 per pupil). This equates to a per dwelling rate of £3,361.67. The contributions will be used towards the expansion and/or enhancements of primary provision.

Early Years Provision: A contribution towards Early Years provision is requested to ensure delivery of provision for 2, 3 and 4 year olds. The Early

Page 161 Agenda Item 5

Years rate is £250 per dwelling, or a total of £62,500 to mitigate 250 dwellings. This contribution will be used to provide statutory early years places in the area.

Secondary: A development of 250 family type homes can expect to generate an additional 37.5 secondary school pupils. When factoring in both approved but unimplemented housing developments we have forecast that the designated secondary school has got capacity for the number of pupils likely to be generated by the proposed development. Therefore, a contribution towards secondary education infrastructure is not sought.

Primary School Transport: The nearest primary provision to the development is Instow Community Primary School. Instow Primary is at capacity and occupies a constrained site. The next nearest school is Fremington Primary School. As the distance from Yelland Power Station to Fremington Primary School is beyond the statutory walking distance for primary pupils, contributions are required for school transport costs. Public Service 21 currently operates between Yelland to Fremington at a cost of £4.03 per pupil, per day. Therefore a total primary transport contribution of £334,993 is requested. £4.03 per passenger x 190 academic days x 7 school years x 62.5 pupils = £334,993

Secondary School Transport: The nearest & designated secondary provision to the development is Bideford College. As the distance from Yelland to Bideford College is beyond the statutory walking distance for secondary pupils, contributions are required for school transport costs. Public Service 21 currently operates between Yelland to Bideford at a cost of £4.03 per pupil, per day. Therefore a total secondary transport contribution of £143,568 is requested. £4.03 per passenger x 190 academic days x 5 school years x 37.5 pupils = £143,568. All contributions will be subject to indexation using BCIS, it should be noted that education infrastructure contributions are based on March 2015 rates and any indexation applied to contributions requested should be applied from this date. DCC request legal costs DCC - Children’s We have considered this request and are willing to reduce some Services of the education contributions subject to your confirmation of the viability issues:- Reply Received 14 January 2021 1/ We will remove the request for primary transport contributions Edited of £334,993. Whilst the majority of the Yelland Quay site is beyond the statutory 1.5 miles walking distance, the east side of the development does fall within 1.5miles to Fremington Primary School.

Page 162 Agenda Item 5

2/ We will remove the request for early years contributions of £62,500 as our policy on this is now that we will only seek early years contributions with new school provision

3/ We will also discount the 10% affordable homes (25 dwellings) from the primary contribution total. This equates to a reduction of £84,041 from the total primary contributions requested.

The above would reduce the total education request by £481,534, although I appreciate this probably falls short of what you require.

Should you need to prioritise education contributions, I would advise the following 1/ SEN contribution, 2/ Secondary Transport, 3/ Primary contributions

Health

14.15 FRE02: Yelland Quay in the Local Plan identifies that contributions are required towards the expansion of Fremington Medical Centre.

14.16 As set out below 45.2m2 of additional floor space is required. The cost of provision would be £103,915.

14.17 Consultee Response

NHS Devon The response has been informed by the Devon Health Clinical Contributions Approach: GP Provision Commissioning (https://www.devon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policies/other-county- Group (Devon policy-and-guidance) which was jointly prepared by NHS England s106 Dept) and Devon County Council. In preparing this response, it is noted that policy FRE02: Yelland Quay in the Local Plan (10.201) Reply Received identifies that contributions towards the expansion of Fremington 21 February Medical Centre will be required. 2020 The current position in Yelland is that there is one practice in the Edited area, Fremington Medical Centre. The surgery is approximately 2.3 miles from the proposed development.

This proposal includes 250 dwellings. Government occupancy figures for North Devon are 2.26 people per household. The dwellings proposed are therefore estimated to yield 565 people. The current patient list for the surgery is 7,095. Adding the additional 565 patients from the development would take the list to 7,660 patients.

The current Gross Internal Area (GIA) of the Fremington Medical Centre is 559.67m2. In terms of their numbers of patients, the surgery is towards the upper end of the size standards included in the Devon health contributions approach for GP provision. This identifies a GIA per patient of 0.08m2 for a practice with 7,095

Page 163 Agenda Item 5

patients. Applying this figure to the additional 565 patients resulting from the development means there will be a requirement for 45.2m2 of additional floor space. The cost of additional floor space is identified to be £2,299 per m2. Applying this cost to the additional 45.2m2 of floor space generates a total cost of £103,915. This sum is sought by NHS Devon CCG in order to mitigate the impact of the development in question.

In addition to the contribution figures quoted above, NHS England wishes to recover legal costs incurred as a result of the preparation and completion of the s106 agreement which will most likely be required. The financial contributions requested in this response should be index linked to adjust for inflation on the date of payment, where relevant, in accordance with any increase in Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) all in tender price index.

14.18 Conclusion

14.19 No affordable housing is proposed

14.20 The scheme delivers on site open space but does not make provision for a football pitch.

14.21 Education contributions are requested and have been prioritised.

14.22 Contributions towards health facilities are requested.

14.23 The request from all the consultees need to be considered within the following part of the report.

15.0 Section 106 Heads of Terms

Scheme viability

15.1 Plymouth City Council were appointed to advise NDC on the viability position and section 106 contributions in line with the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance on Viability. Their report is attached.

15.2 The site has considerable exceptional and abnormal costs related to the presence of the former power station as well as the proximity of river. These conditions are not typical, are site specific and have a material impact of the delivery of the scheme. Abnormal costs are in the region of £19million.

15.3 A range of interventions are needed to allow for development to take place here and are as follows:  Raising level to site generally - £9.7m  Enhanced piling for structures - £1.8m  Demolition and clearance of power station - 0.5m  Fill to existing power station turbine basement - £2.25m  Formation of lagoon; lining, draining and petrol interceptor £1.2m

Page 164 Agenda Item 5

15.4 As the development will be delivered over a significant period of time one result could be the inclusion of a review mechanism. To avoid a review mechanism the advice we have received is that the applicant should agree to make a material contribution as part of the Section 106 agreement. Following negotiations this was agreed to be in the order of £1.5million. This amount is effectively coming off the development profit. Plymouth City Council are of the view that this amount would exceed any amount achieved through a review mechanism. Furthermore the Council can negotiate payment of this amount far earlier than would be achieved from a review process and therefore their advice is that this would be an appropriate outcome providing best value to the Council and be in accordance with Planning Practice Guidance.

15.5 As set out within the report the total requests amount to £3.5 million.

15.6 Further negotiations have been undertaken to ensure that the biodiversity impact of the development is addressed. The total offer from the developer is now £1.7 million as set out below.

15.7 The consultees have also been asked to consider their position in respect of their request. DCC Education have considered the viability issues are have reduced the total education request by £481,534.

15.8 DCC Highways have been asked to reconsider their and have maintained their request for the full highway package.

15.9 The Housing Enabling Officer has asked that part of the s106 package be redirected to affordable housing.

15.10 The table below sets out those aspects of the development that are considered required. To deliver affordable housing would have to come off the Education package. This would be a decision for members to take.

Totals £3,492,892 £1,742,932 Affordable 75 units or 30% of which None offered Housing 75% should be social rent and 25% intermediate

Highways The sum of £611,952 to be Nil directed towards improvements at the Cedars Junction (A3125/B3233) and/or ESSO Garage/Wrey Arms Junction (Old Torrington Road/A3125); The upgrading of the virtual Agreed footway, to a formal footway, on the B3233 for a distance from the application site

Page 165 Agenda Item 5

junction to Estuary View to the west; The extension of footway Agreed provision into the site from the B3233 on the western frontage; The provision of a Bus Required - £1000 - Agreed Shelter at the site entrance with a commuted sum of £1000 The sum of £20,000 being a Required – £20,000 - Agreed commuted payment to cover the maintenance costs of the proposed pedestrian crossing facility; The sum of £5000 to cover Required £5000 - Agreed and associated Traffic Regulation Order requirements; The sum of £250 per dwelling The benefit is to the occupier of to be utilised for Public the development and whilst this Transport vouchers; £62,500 may influence transport choices The sum of £50 per dwelling would not be a priority - Nil to be utilised towards cycle provision £12,500 Highways £712,952 £26,000 plus physical works - Total agreed Provision of Required - Agreed car park to serve the Tarka Trail – the management of which to be secured by s106 Heritage any proposals for public gain Nil through S106 for location and/or investigation of the monument that would aid its removal from the register - unquantified Education Special Educational Needs £36,391 – Required - agreed (SEN) Provision: £36,391 Primary Provision: £840,417 We will also discount the 10% affordable homes (25 dwellings) from the primary contribution total. This equates to a reduction of £84,041 from the total primary contributions requested.

Page 166 Agenda Item 5

NB No affordable housing is offered £840,417 Required - Agreed Early Years Provision: DCC will remove the request for £62,500 early years contributions of £62,500 as our policy on this is now that we will only seek early years contributions with new school provision

Primary School Transport: DCC will remove the request for £334,993. primary transport contributions of £334,993. Whilst the majority of the Yelland Quay site is beyond the statutory 1.5 miles walking distance, the east side of the development does fall within 1.5miles to Fremington Primary School Secondary School £143,568 – Required - agreed Transport: £143,568 Education £1,417,869 £1,020,376 Required - agreed Total Health NHS Devon CCG Nil request £103,915 in order to mitigate the impact of the development in question Braunton 250 x £100 = £25,000 £25,000 required - agreed Burrows SAC contribution Ecological Biodiversity off setting costed £608,431 Required - agreed Mitigation at £608,431 Ecological Warden for a minimum two Annual cost would be approx. oversite mornings a week from Sept - £2525.00 per annum – required – March (26 weeks) for 25-year agreed (£63,125) period to monitor the high tide roost Public Open £561,600 Nil Space – off site Management Management Company and Agreed Maintenance agreement of Maintenance of on-site standards POS, Suds, Flood Defence works Totals £3,492,892

Page 167 Agenda Item 5

Developer £1,742, 932 Offer

Conclusion: Section 106 Heads of Terms

15.11 The S106 agreement will provide the highway works in and around the site entrance to facilitate the development. Small sums towards maintenance of the new bus stop/crossing and associated traffic orders are secured.

15.12 The on- site public open space will be delivered and thereafter maintained in line with the requirements for ecological management and delivering open space for both the proposed residents and existing residents to enjoy.

15.13 As the key constraint with this site is ecology, the full mitigation package is met including payments towards future part time wardening as requested by the Biosphere Service. In light of the Duty (see above) with regards to the natural environment these monies must be secured.

15.14 The request of Education is not met in full but has been prioritised.

15.15 There is no contribution to Health (moneys towards the expansion of the GP practise). It should be noted that the application proposes a mixed use development with a range of community/service opportunities. Their delivery would be secured via phasing of the development

15.16 Similarly there is no contribution to off-site recreation. Given the amount of the site being provided as public open space this contribution would not be a priority. The application already offers significant public open space.

15.17 Other unquantified requests (Heritage) are also not secured,

15.18 The key policy issue is that the scheme provides no affordable housing. If it is considered that this is required then the Education contribution is the only pot that it can be taken from as the other figures are needed to make the development acceptable.

15.19 Whether this results in a sustainable and socially inclusive development will be discussed in the Planning Balance.

16.0 Planning Balance

16.1 The NDTLP has allocated this site for development and its status as a brownfield site should be recognised. There is a detailed policy that controls how this site should be delivered. Policy FRE02 has allocated this site for a high quality, mixed- use development. The following criteria are either met by the application or can be controlled by conditions at the reserved matters stage.

16.2 Criterion (a) requires redevelopment in a comprehensive manner in accordance with an agreed master plan which has been submitted to and robustly scrutinised by the Design Review Panel on two separate occasions.

Page 168 Agenda Item 5

16.3 Criterion (b) requires approximately 250 dwellings, which is the number applied for.

16.4 Criterion (c) requires approximately 6,000 square metres of economic development and community facilities, compatible with its waterside location including business development, tourism and leisure uses. The application proposes up to 3000sqm employment space, 250sqm retail floorspace; up to 2000sqm restaurant/café and up to 500sqm of community and service space. A mix of uses are proposed.

16.5 This is an outline application. Criterion (d) buildings and structures will be sited and designed in accordance with an agreed 'Design Code' to address their visual impact on the open landscape setting of the estuary and to avoid any harm to the protected biodiversity value of the Site of Special Scientific Interest and other designated habitats in the locality. A design Code has been provided which would be conditioned and would inform the reserved matters. The Code addresses the National Design Guide the recommendations set out by the independent design review panel and Building for a Healthy Life requirements

16.6 Criterion (e) requires the retention of the existing jetty and wharf and provision of associated operational land, including a safeguarded vehicular access to it. The Masterplan shows this along with a lay down area.

16.7 Criterion (f) requires provision of adequate flood alleviation measures with design and distribution of uses to minimise and mitigate against any risks from flooding. The site levels will be raised and flood protection works provided.

16.8 Criterion (g) assessment and remediation, prior to commencement of redevelopment, of any site contamination arising from historic uses. Detailed reports have been provided and recommendations made in respect of how best to deal with contamination. These can be reasonably dealt with by conditions.

16.9 Criterion (h) requires contributions to and enhancement of the green infrastructure network within and adjoining the site. The Masterplans shows the provision of both green and blue (water based) areas of biodiversity. The part of Criterion (h) not met is the provision of a new football pitch with associated facilities. The Masterplan shows that there will be provision of informal open space on the site of the former ash beds and play areas within the site. The public use of the ash beds (currently permissive only) would be of significant public benefit.

16.10 Criterion (i) provision of a net gain in biodiversity through enhancement of existing habitats. Biodiversity offsetting (approx. +12%) to accommodate the built areas are being met by way of financial contributions sought via the s106. The site landscaping masterplan shows how areas within the site will be planted and these can be further enhanced for the benefit of biodiversity at the reserved matters stage in line with comments from the consultees.

16.11 Criterion (j) requires contributions towards a wider study on the potential impact of increased recreational pressure on the SSSI and nesting birds in the estuary.

Page 169 Agenda Item 5

This work has already been undertaken and the results used to inform the ES and the design of the ecological mitigation.

16.12 Criterion (k) requires the provision of a public car park for users of the Tarka Trail. This is shown on the Masterplan and its future operation and maintenance would be secured within the s106 agreement. It will be provided as one of the first stages of development to allow ready access to the Tarka trail. This is a significant public benefit as the access road is currently private and parking that occurs is permissive.

16.13 Criterion (l) requires improvements to the existing road junction with the B3233. The plans are detailed in this respect and show a redesigned junction which is acceptable to the Highways Authority.

16.14 Criterion (m) requires improved pedestrian and cycle links through and around the site and from the B3233 to the Tarka Trail. The layout plans show that such links will be provided.

16.15 Criterion (n) requires appropriate traffic management measures where vehicular traffic crosses the Tarka Trail to reduce conflict with, and improve safety for, pedestrians and cyclists using the Tarka Trail. The crossing point is shown in detail and is acceptable to the Highway Authority.

16.16 Criterion (o) requires the provision of a 10 metre landscape buffer along the developable site frontage alongside the Tarka Trail. The ecological requirements for a dark corridor are shown on the Masterplan. The layout plan shows this.

16.17 Criterion (p) opportunities for the generation of renewable energy. All buildings will meet Building Regulations compliance utilising a mixture of a ‘Fabric First’ approach complemented by either Air Source Heat Pumps, Ground Source Heat Pumps, PV systems with additional Battery Storage and Solar Hot water. At detailed design stage we will consider orientation of each unit to mitigate solar gain but allow for light penetration through the building. Thermal mass will also be considered utilising mass concrete internal walls and flooring to assist with heat loss through the units.

16.18 Other than the lack of provision of the football pitch, the scheme adheres with FRE02.

16.19 As set out in the report the development encroaches onto the ash beds but the layout results in a 60m set back on the western site edge to address impact on the estuary. The site is primarily on brownfield land and removes the residual power station use and will regenerate a degraded central core.

16.20 Landscape impacts are considered to be adverse in part particularly in respect of how the site is viewed from the South West Coast Path and in relation to views out from the AONB. There is some conflict with ST14, ST16, DM04, DM08 and DM08A. It is recognised that due to the scale of the development complete screening is unrealistic but the Landscape Strategy for the site shows how tree

Page 170 Agenda Item 5

planting will be used to soften the development. The LVIA shows that the impact is lessened as trees mature although this would not be for many years.

16.21 At paragraph 108 of the framework new development should ensure that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all road users, and significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree. This is reflected through polices ST10 (Transport Strategy) DM05 (Highways and DM06 (Parking) of the NDTLP. The design and location of the access proposed is considered to be acceptable. In highway terms the development would result in additional pressures to the highway network which can’t be mitigated through contributions towards upgrading the highway network. . Paragraph 109 is clear that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on the highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the highway would be severe. The Highway Authority have recommended refusal on the basis that the scheme would exacerbate issues at the A3125/Old Torrington Road/ESSO Garage junction during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak periods.

16.22 Paragraphs 170 and Paragraph 175 of the framework indicate that when determining applications, if harm to biodiversity resulting from the development cannot be avoided then it should be adequately mitigated. Policy DM14: Enhancing Environmental Assets of the NDTLP expects new development to protect the quality of northern Devon’s natural environment, to contribute positively towards providing a net gain in biodiversity. Effective ecological mitigation can be secured along with replacement habitat in accordance with policies ST14 and DM08 and with paragraph 170 and 175 of the framework .The ecological impacts from development can be mitigated through appropriate construction management, and monitoring along with green infrastructure provision on and off site, controls over construction and lighting combined with the wardening and the new PSPO powers.

16.23 The NPPF at paragraph 127 states that planning should always seek to secure a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of land and dwellings. Policy DM01 a) of the NDTLP supports development where it would not significantly harm the amenities of any neighbouring occupiers or users. Policy DM04 i) supports development where the scheme ensures the amenity of existing and future occupiers are safeguarded. The amenities of local residents can be appropriately safeguarded through the detailed design process and conditions imposed in relation to noise, land contamination and construction measures.

16.24 The site can appropriately deal with surface water run-off in accordance with Environment Agency and DCC Flood Risk advice and national requirements over the life time of the scheme.

16.25 Paragraph 196 is clear that where developments will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The site would result in less than substantial harm of heritage assets in the locality identified as sharing their setting

Page 171 Agenda Item 5

with the site and significant weight is afforded to this matter, albeit very limited impact is identified.

16.26 Policy ST01 indicates that ‘Councils will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF.

16.27 The Plan identifies the site as a strategic site for growth within the settlement of Fremington and Yelland, which is categorised as a Local Centre within Policy ST06: Spatial Development Strategy for northern Devon.

16.28 The economic benefits of the proposal would be strong, including the creation of jobs, the addition of spending power to the local economy and the new homes bonus and would result in the regeneration of this semi derelict site.

16.29 Social benefits would include meeting general housing needs but would not meet affordable housing needs. It is recognised that affordable housing is a pressing issue but the viability of the scheme has been fully tested and only the financial package is available. The delivery of housing in itself must be given significant weight. Housing development on this allocated brownfield site would help contribute towards the Council’s 5 year housing land supply. 16.30 Environmentally the impact of development would be adverse in landscape terms, however mitigation exists which would reduce these impacts over time and beyond a local context, but not negate them entirely.

16.31 The location of the site and offers the potential for reductions in car use, which would be an environmental benefit.

16.32 Planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole. Given the above discussion it is considered, on balance, that the identified harm in landscape terms and on the highway network, which would not outweigh the substantial benefits attributed from the provision of much needed housing, public open space, car parking for the Tarka Trail, employment and community facilities. Substantial weight is given in favour of the scheme as it is an allocated run down brownfield site which can be delivered to a high design standard, addressing biodiversity, amenity, contamination, drainage and flood risk. As such considered as a whole, the site is sustainable in NPPF terms. With the imposition of appropriate conditions and S106 obligations the balance in this instance falls in favour of the proposal.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

The provisions of the Human Rights Act and principles contained in the Convention on Human Rights have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report. The articles/protocols identified below were considered of particular relevance:

Article 8 – Right to Respect for Private and Family Life THE FIRST PROTOCOL – Article 1: Protection of Property

Page 172 Agenda Item 5

Recommendation

Approve Legal Agreement Required: Yes – Heads of Terms set out above

The following are DRAFT conditions. Due to the complexity of the site, the conditions will be circulated to the consultees to ensure that they have captured their recommendations. The EA and EH for example have recommended similar conditions re contamination which need to be resolved. Delegated authority is sought to agree the precise wording of all conditions and to add any conditions arising from this review process.

Conditions

1. FULL APPLICATION - for raising of ground levels, site access works and highway infrastructure, car park to serve the Tarka Trail and construction of bat building

The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

OUTLINE APPLICATION - new sea defences, 250 dwellings (Use Class C3(a)), up to 3000sqm employment space(Use Class E(g)(i) and E(g)(ii) was Use Class B1). Retail Space of up to 250sqm gross floorspace (Use Class E(a) was Use Class A1); Space for the Sale of food and drink of up to 2000sqm Gross floorspace (Use Class E(b) Was Use Class A3); Service and Community Space of up to 500sqm Gross floorspace (Use Class E(d) E(e), E(f) and F1(a), F1(b), F1(e), and F2(b)was Use Class D1 and D2); (C) .

a) In the case of the first reserved matter, application for approval must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted

b) All other reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of 8 years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted; and

c) The development to which the permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date on which this permission is granted.

Reason The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of Section 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and in recognition of the scale of the site which will require more than one reserved matters to be submitted.

2. Approval of the details of the internal site layout/scale/appearance based on the parameter plans agreed as part of condition * below and the detailed landscaping of the site based on the strategic site landscaping plan referred to below (hereinafter called the ‘reserved matters’) shall be obtained from the Local

Page 173 Agenda Item 5

Planning Authority in writing before any development other than the works hereby granted full permission is commenced and thereafter the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed details and the terms and conditions of this permission.

Each reserved matters application shall be supported by a Sustainability Statement and a phase specific Building for a Healthy Life Assessment which shall set out precisely how the reserved matters are complying with the aspirations for the site set in respect of sustainable construction and the use of renewable energy as set out in the framework documents referred in to in condition * below.

Reason To ensure adequate information is available for the proper consideration of the detailed proposals.

3. As part of the reserved matters application, scaled drawing(s) showing existing levels on the site and proposed finished floor levels of each phase of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with such drawings.

Reason To ensure that the amenities of the area are not adversely affected by reason of the size and scale of the proposed development in compliance with Policies DM01, DM02 and DM04 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

4. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a phasing programme (‘the programme’) has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the programme; always providing that all the works comprised in any one phase of the development shall be completed prior to the commencement of any subsequent phase. This programme shall demonstrate how areas of public open space, public realm and the non-residential aspects of the scheme are to be delivered.

Reason In the interests of highway safety, amenity and to ensure the proper development of the site in accordance with Policies DM01, DM04, DM05 and DM06 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

5. The full application hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans/details and the reserved matters shall be informed and shall adhere with the following plans/details unless an alternative scheme is agreed or as required by the conditions:

Y029 18 201C Location Plan received on the 15/01/20 Y029 18 202C Block Plan received on the 15/01/20 Y029 18 203A Site Plan Existing received on the 06/01/20 Y029 18 203A Site Plan received on the 11/01/19 Y029 18 204V Site Plan Proposed received on the 07/04/21

Page 174 Agenda Item 5

Y029 18 205P Infrastructure Delivery Plan received on the 07/04/21 Y029 18 206I Storey Plan and Design Code Proposed received on the 07/04/21 Y029 18 207F Proposed Lighting Plan received on the 26/03/21 Y029 18 209 Access to Site received on the 06/01/20 Y029 18 210 Section to Buried Asbestos Chamber received on the 06/01/20 Y029 18 211A Location of Asbestos Site Plan received on the 06/01/20 Y029 18 215 Initial Infrastructure Works received on the 26/03/21 Y029 18 216 Land and Scale Analysis received on the 26/03/21 Y029 18 217 Access Arrangements received on the 26/03/21 Y029 18 301C Bat Box House received on the 06/01/20 Y029 18 501Q Development Edge Sections received on the 07/04/21 Y029 18 510A Development Edge Sections received on the 05/06/20 10655 P18D Landscape Strategy received on the 08/04/2021 ATR-01C Site-HGV Tracks received on the 05/02/20 ATR-02B Site-Bus Stop Tracking received on the 05/02/20 0146 PHL 01E Site Access Proposed received on the 05/02/20 0146 PHL 02B Highway Cycleway Alignment Plan received on the 30/03/16 0146 PHL 03D Access Road Alignment Plan received on the 09/03/20 0146 PHL 04C Preliminary Highway Profile received on the 09/03/20 PHL 05A Highway Profile 2 Proposed received on the 30/03/16 4012-ID-DR-1001P02 Lighting Plan received on the 11/01/19 4012-ID-DR-1002P02 Lighting Plan received on the 11/01/19 4012-ID-DR-1003P02 Lighting Plan received on the 11/01/19 PDL-100G Preliminary Drainage Layout received on the 11/01/19

Email from Chris Yalden AWP to Devon County Council LLFA dated 4th March 2020 Building for Healthy Life Assessment & Design Code March 2021 Rev B Supporting Statement Environmental Statement including Appendices (as updated)

('the approved plans and documents').

Reason To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans which set the framework for the delivery of a development which addresses flood risk, landscape and visual impact, ecology and design in the interests of proper planning and adherence with the Environmental Statement, the policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan and the National Design Guide.

6. 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 This is a pre-commencement condition to ensure, in accordance with Policy DM07 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011 - 2031 and paragraph 199 of the

Page 175 Agenda Item 5

National Planning Policy Framework (2019), that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development.

7. Site investigation and remediation (EA) No development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), shall take place until a scheme 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 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.

Reason To protect controlled waters and public health when undertaking a development on a site with known contamination which requires additional investigation to ensure that the designed remediation strategy is fit for purpose.

8. Contaminated Land Condition (EH) a) Prior to the commencement of the development, a contamination investigation phasing plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The plan shall set out a phased area based approach to the further contamination investigation of the site. The report shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced competent person and have regard to relevant standards and guidance. b) Following approval of the phasing and further investigation plan, the local planning authority shall be provided with a report detailing the results of the further intrusive contamination investigation works for each area. For the avoidance of doubt and where relevant, the reports shall include: the results of the further investigations; details of all investigative works and sampling on

Page 176 Agenda Item 5

site together with the results of analysis, risk assessment of potential receptors and remediation measures required.

Where remedial measures are recommended, the Local Planning Authority shall approve such works and any post remediation verification measures prior to remediation works commencing on site. The works shall be of such a nature as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end-use of the site and surrounding environment including any controlled waters.

Prior to occupation of the development hereby permitted:

(c) Approved remediation works shall be carried out in full on site under a Quality Assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance.

(d) If during the works contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate supplementary remediation scheme shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing.

(e) A verification report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The verification report shall include details of the proposed remediation works and Quality Assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved methodology. Details of any post remedial sampling and analysis or other verification works to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the verification report together with the necessary waste transfer documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site.

(f) A certificate signed by the developer shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority confirming that the agreed works have been undertaken as detailed in the verification report. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other off-site receptors in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

9. The site of the former pump house shall be marked out on site during the construction process and the implications of undertaking work within the demarked area shall be communicated to all site workers. Thereafter the area shall be appropriately capped in accordance with the details required by conditions *.

Reason To ensure that a known contamination hot spot is not disturbed during the construction phase.

10. Unexpected contamination

Page 177 Agenda Item 5

If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

Reason To protect controlled waters

11. Details of works of site raising Prior to the commencement of development a detailed scheme including details of updated phasing, final site levels, road levels (including the access/egress route) and landscaping shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The updated phasing and detailed scheme should be informed by an update Flood Risk Assessment, which incorporates the latest guidance on climate change.

Prior to occupation of the development it shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that the scheme has been completed in accordance with the details and timetable agreed. The scheme shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason To ensure that the development is designed and phased appropriately to reduce the risk of flooding over its lifetime.

12. Detailed Design of Flood Defences The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as the detailed design of the flood defences has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The detailed design should be informed by an update Flood Risk Assessment, which incorporates the latest guidance on climate change. Prior to occupation of the development it shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that the flood defences have been completed in accordance with the details and timetable agreed. The flood defences shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason To reduce flood risk to the development over its lifetime.

13. No development hereby permitted shall commence until the following information has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

(a) A detailed drainage design, network model outputs, based upon the approved Yelland Quay Regeneration Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) 0146 dated December 2019 Rev G. This should include confirmation that the tidal level,

Page 178 Agenda Item 5

used as the downstream boundary condition within the model, is agreeable with the Environment Agency.

(b) Detailed proposals for the management of surface water and silt runoff from the site during construction of the development hereby permitted.

(c) Proposals for the adoption and maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage system.

(d) A plan indicating how exceedance flows will be safely managed at the site. The proposed road should not be operational until the above information have been approved and implemented in accordance with the details under (a) - (d) above.

Reason The above conditions are required to ensure the proposed surface water drainage system will operate effectively and will not cause an increase in flood risk either on the site, adjacent land or downstream in line with SuDS for Devon Guidance (2017) and national policies, including NPPF and PPG. The conditions should be pre-commencement since it is essential that the proposed surface water drainage system is shown to be feasible before works begin to avoid redesign / unnecessary delays during construction when site layout is fixed.

14. Outline application - Prior to or as part of the Reserved Matters, the following information shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

(a) A detailed drainage design, network model outputs, based upon the approved Yelland Quay Regeneration Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) 0146 dated December 2019 Rev G. This should include confirmation that the tidal level, used as the downstream boundary condition within the model, is agreeable with the Environment Agency.

(b) Detailed proposals for the management of surface water and silt run-off from the site during construction of the development hereby permitted.

(c) Proposals for the adoption and maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage system.

(d) A plan indicating how exceedance flows will be safely managed at the site. No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until the works have been approved and implemented in accordance with the details under (a) (d) above.

Reason The above conditions are required to ensure the proposed surface water drainage system will operate effectively and will not cause an increase in flood risk either on the site, adjacent land or downstream in line with SuDS for Devon Guidance (2017) and national policies, including NPPF and PPG. The conditions should be pre-commencement since it is essential that the proposed surface water drainage

Page 179 Agenda Item 5

system is shown to be feasible before works begin to avoid redesign / unnecessary delays during construction when site layout is fixed

15. Construction Environmental Management Plan Condition

No development shall take place (save such preliminary or minor works that the Local Planning Authority may agree in writing) until a detailed Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) which cross references the Construction Ecological Management Plan (CEcoMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These Plans shall include details of all permits, contingency plans and mitigation measures that shall be put in place to control the risk of pollution to air, soil and controlled waters, protect biodiversity and avoid, minimise and manage the productions of wastes with particular attention being paid to the constraints and risks of the site. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and any subsequent amendments to the CEMP/CEcoMP to manage impacts during the life of the work and to reflect the phasing of development shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

For the avoidance of doubt and where relevant, the CEMP shall include:- a) measures to regulate the routing of construction traffic; b) working hours and the times within which traffic can enter and leave the site; c) details of any significant importation or movement of spoil and soil on site; d) details of the removal /disposal of materials from site, including soil and vegetation; e) the location and covering of stockpiles; f) details of measures to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site / wheel- washing facilities; g) control of fugitive dust from demolition, earthworks and construction activities; dust suppression and having regard to recommendations contained in the approved air quality assessment report; h) a noise control plan which details hours of operation and proposed mitigation measures relating to the specific working practices proposed and having regard to recommendations contained in the approved noise impact assessment report; i) location of any site construction office, compound and ancillary facility buildings; j) specified on-site parking for vehicles associated with the construction works and the provision made for access thereto; k) a point of contact (such as a site manager) and details of complaint handling procedures. l) Measures relating to the identification and suitable treatment of asbestos and other contamination of the site making reference to the site specific specialist recommendations contained in contamination assessment reports m)uses of lighting, location of temporary floodlights. Lighting to be switched off when not required specifically for construction activities or required for health and safety or security. Glare to be minimised by ensuring that the main beam angle of all luminaires are directed away from any potential observer into the centre of site wherever possible, and angled at less than 70 degrees from the horizontal. Light spill to be minimised by avoiding poorly sited luminaires located at the boundary of the development. Sky glow to be minimised by

Page 180 Agenda Item 5

using modern flood lights with good photometric control, angled at less than 70 degrees from the horizontal and by using additional shields as appropriate. The selection of luminaires, including those required for night- time security, that are designed to minimise any obtrusive light n) The Contractor(s) will be required to sign up to the "Considerate Constructors Scheme"

The details so approved and any subsequent amendments as shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be complied with in full and monitored by the applicants to ensure continuing compliance during the construction of the development.

Reason To minimise the impact of the works during the construction of the development in the interests of highway safety and the free-flow of traffic, and to safeguard the amenities of the area. To protect the amenity of local residents from potential impacts whilst site clearance, groundworks and construction is underway. The CEMP should be informed by the EA comments letter dated 30 January 2019.

16. No development shall take place (including demolition. ground works and vegetation clearance) until a construction ecological management plan (CEcoMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEcoMP shall include the following:

(a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities (b) Identification of ‘biodiversity protection zones’ (c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices - see notes re lighting) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features (e) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works (f) Responsible persons and lines of communication (g) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person (h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.

Noise contour maps of background noise levels and predicted construction noise levels shall be provided to indicate more clearly where the significant impacts are likely to be and when. A noise management plan can then be produced to ensure that construction and operational noise levels are within background levels and where any significant increases are predicted at ecological receptors, with the 2.5m high acoustic screen in place, then additional measures may be required.

The most sensitive period for the overwintering birds is September to March inclusive. Drawing Y029 18 205N Infrastructure delivery plan details April to August inclusive for timing of works for the lagoon, land raising, screen and rock armour. The Construction period for the ground raising, rock armour and lagoon and relevant building phases are likely to require additional mitigation to that

Page 181 Agenda Item 5

proposed if carried out during September to March inclusive. This would include use of the jetty to bring in materials during construction.

The approved CEcoMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason In the interests of Highways, Amenity and Ecology in compliance with Policies DM02, DM05, and DM08 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

17. Construction Hours Condition During the construction phase no machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site outside the following times: a) Monday - Friday 07.30 - 19.00, b) Saturday 08.00 - 13.00 c) nor at any time on Sunday, Bank or Public holidays.

Reason To protect the amenity of local residents and visitors.

18. As part of the CEMP/CEcoMP required by conditions * above details of an 2m acoustic construction barrier/site hoarding on the estuary boundary shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be erected on site in accordance with an agreed timetable. The acoustic barrier is increased to a height of 2.5m on the western side of the construction works. The location of the acoustic barriers are shown on Figure 13.8. The acoustic barrier should be constructed from close boarded, overlapping timber with a minimum thickness of 15mm. The barrier should be suitably treated to prevent warping and rot due to weathering during the construction of the development. There must be no cracks or gaps in the barrier. As stated in BS5228 the overall attenuation will be limited by transmission over and around the barrier, provided that the barrier material has a mass per unit of surface area in excess of 7 Kg/m2 and there are no gaps at the joints.

Reason To minimise the construction noise effects on birds at the Isley Marsh Nature Reserve by reducing construction noise at the estuary by 5 to 10 dB(A) based on the guidance in BS5228.

19. The proposed roads, footways, footpaths, verges, visibility splays, junctions, cuttings, embankments, sewers, drains, service routes, car parking/garage spaces, access drives, construction traffic roads, construction staff car parking and construction site compound shall be laid out, constructed and completed in accordance with a detailed programme that is to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before any part of the development commences.

Reason

Page 182 Agenda Item 5

To ensure the proper development of the site.

20. No other part of the development hereby approved shall be commenced until the access road has been laid out, kerbed, drained and constructed up to base course level for the first 20 metres back from its junction with the public highway with the ironwork set to base course level, the visibility splays required by this permission have been laid out, the footway on the public highway frontage required by this permission has been constructed up to base course level and a site compound and car park have been constructed in accordance with details previously submitted for approval.

Reason To ensure that adequate on site facilities are available for all traffic attracted to the site during the construction period, in the interest of the safety of users of the adjoining public highway and to protect the amenities of adjoining residents.

21. The fencing of the site and footpath from the estuary and foreshore as detailed on drawing number ****shall be undertaken as part of the first phase of development (or as agreed by the phasing condition *). A precise method statement detailing the width of the planting area and the planting specification within, the volume of soil / planting pit requirements and how will this be delivered in conjunction with path/rock armour and the start and end point of the planted screen shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be delivered in line with the agreed timetable for these works.

Reason The early delivery of this planting and fencing is required to minimise the disturbance impact on roosting birds on the estuary from users of the coast path and to restrict dogs from accessing the foreshore in the interest of biodiversity.

22. The reserved matters shall indicate the siting, design and external appearance, including materials of construction of all walls, fences and other means of enclosure to be used in the development and shall be carried out as approved.

Reason To ensure adequate information is available for the proper consideration of the detailed proposals.

23. At the same time as the reserved matters a detailed external lighting design shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall be based on the following agreed documents:

• Details of Bollard Luminaires with Low Upward Light Output • Indicative Lighting Strategy 4012-ID-DR-1001 P03/1002 P03/1003/P03 • Lighting Strategy Access Road BB 4012 • Proposed Lighting Plan Y029 18 207E

The lighting strategy should be informed by industry best practice https://www.bats.org.uk/news/2018/09/new-guidance-on-bats-and-lighting

Page 183 Agenda Item 5

Reason To ensure that lighting is designed with regard to dark skies and ecological impact

24. The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Ecological Impact Assessment by ACD Ecology and the Biodiversity Net Gain Matrix. As part of the reserved matter the following details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority the detailed design of the new habitat to be created and an audit to reflect any change that the layout may have on biodiversity areas. The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation of the development hereby approved.

Reason To protect biodiversity

25. No development shall take place until a detailed landscape and ecological management plan (LEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. National and Local policy expects new development to contribute to a ‘net gain’ in biodiversity and the LEMP, through the use of the DEFRA metric 2/Biodiversity Impact Assessment Calculator, shall demonstrate how the development proposal will contribute to a net gain. The content of the LEMP will address the implementation and management of all landscape and biodiversity avoidance, mitigation and enhancement measures of the development as set out within the [Design and Access and Statement / Environmental Statement / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) etc.] and shall include:

(a) Proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc.); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc.); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant (b) Soft landscape works shall include planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants (noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities); implementation and management programme (c) A description and evaluation of landscape and ecological features to be created managed and ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management (d) Aims and objectives of management (e) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives (f) Prescriptions for management actions (g)Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a 10- year period) (h) Details of the body or organization responsible for implementation of plan (i) Ongoing landscape and ecological monitoring and implementation of any necessary remedial measures

Page 184 Agenda Item 5

(j) Means of reporting of landscape and ecological monitoring results to [Natural England and the Local Planning Authority] and provisions for seeking written agreement to any changes to the management actions and prescriptions that may be necessary to ensure effective delivery of the aims and objectives of the LEMP over time. (k) the number, location and wording of signage setting out the ecological aspirations for the site

The LEMP shall also include details of the mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery. The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning landscape and biodiversity objectives of the scheme. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason In order to protect and enhance biodiversity on the site in accordance with the aims of Policies ST14 and DM08A of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

26. In this condition 'retained trees, hedges and shrubs' means an existing tree, hedge or shrub, which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars [insert drawing no’s]; and paragraphs (a) and (b) below shall have effect until the expiration of 5 years from [the date of the occupation of the building for its permitted use].

(a) No retained tree, hedge or shrub shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any tree, be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the local planning authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998: 2010 Tree Work - Recommendations.

(b) If any retained tree, hedge or shrub is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree, hedge or shrub shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the local planning authority.

(c) The erection of protective barriers and any other measures identified as necessary for the protection of any retained tree, hedge or shrub shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of the development, or in accordance with an approved method statement and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written consent of the local planning authority.

Page 185 Agenda Item 5

Reason To safeguard the appearance and character of the area in accordance with Policies ST04, ST14, DM04 and DM08A of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

27. Provision, implementation and maintenance of detailed landscape proposals

i) full details of both hard and soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority at the same time as the reserved matters and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc.); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc.); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant.

ii) Soft landscape works shall include planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants (noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities); implementation and management programme.

iii) the provision of a geotextile membrane shall be provided to all soft landscape areas

Reason To assimilate the development into the landscape and to safeguard the appearance and character of the area in accordance with Policies ST04, ST14, DM04 and DM08A of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. Consideration should be given to amending the proposed landscaping in the fields south of the Tarka Trail so that the trees are planted along the new access road rather than the eastern and southern field boundaries. This would help to maintain the open aspect/sight lines required by the water birds identified as using the fields opportunistically for foraging.

28. Prior to the laying out/construction of the areas of public open space within any phase of the development precise details shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include where applicable to that phase:

a) the precise design, position and layout of the LAP/LEAP(S) including surface treatment, 5 pieces of play equipment, seating, signage and means of enclosure b) the precise planting schedule, means of enclosure of the areas of informal open space c) the position of seats, dog bins and signage within the informal public open space

Page 186 Agenda Item 5

d) the provision of a geotextile membrane

The works shall thereafter be carried out as agreed and completed on site alongside the phase of development to which they relate and terms of the Section 106 agreement unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Prior to the transfer of the public open space to the responsible management party, post development monitoring of the ecological site interest shall be carried out, the results of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The site shall thereafter be managed in accordance with the agreed LEMP and in accordance with any further recommendations resulting from the monitoring studies.

Reason In the interest of providing appropriate recreational areas for the development in accordance with Policies DM04 and DM10 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

29. The proposed estate roads, footways, footpaths, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, road maintenance/vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses, car parking and street furniture shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before their construction begins. For this purpose, plans and sections, indicating, as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.

Reason To ensure that adequate information is available for the proper consideration of the detailed proposals.

30. The occupation of any dwelling in an agreed phase of the development shall not take place until the following works have been carried out to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority: i) the spine road and/or cul-de-sac carriageway including the vehicle turning head within that phase shall have been laid out, kerbed, drained and constructed up to and including base course level with the ironwork set to base course level and the sewers, manholes and service crossings completed; ii) the spine road and/or cul-de-sac footways a d footpaths which provide that dwelling with direct pedestrian routes to an existing highway maintained at public expense have been constructed up to and including base course level; iii) all visibility splays have been laid out to their final level; iv) the street lighting for the spine road and/or cul-de-sac and/or footpaths has been erected and commissioned; v) the car parking and any other vehicular access facility required for the dwelling by this permission have been completed; vi) the verge, service margin and vehicle crossing on the road frontage of the dwelling have been completed with the highway boundary properly defined; vii) the street nameplates for the spine road and/or cul-de-sac have been provided and erected.

Reason

Page 187 Agenda Item 5

To ensure that adequate access and associated facilities are available for the traffic attracted to the site.

31. When once constructed and provided in accordance with condition ** above, the carriageway, vehicle turning head, footways and footpaths shall be maintained free of obstruction to the free movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and the street lighting and nameplates maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason To ensure that these highway provisions remain available.

32. Within twelve months of the first occupation of the first dwelling in an agreed phase of the development all roads, footways, footpaths, drainage, statutory undertakers' mains and apparatus, junctions, access, retaining wall and visibility splay works shall be wholly completed to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason To ensure that the access arrangements are completed within a reasonable time.

33. Provision shall be made within the curtilage of each dwelling for the disposal of surface water so that none discharges onto the highway.

Reason In the interest of public safety and to prevent damage to the highway.

34. The reserved matters shall be supported by a car and cycle parking strategy setting out the car and cycle parking standards for both the residential units and commercial and service uses. The car parking provision shall include electric car charging points. For the residential parts of the scheme this shall be related to the size of the dwelling proposed with adequate visitor space being provided in communal parking areas. Secure cycle parking shall be provided within the public realm parts of the site. The design, layout, drainage, materials of construction and external appearance of this provision shall be included in the reserved matters.

Reason To ensure that adequate off street parking facilities are available for all the traffic attracted to the site.

35. The car park to the south of the Tarka Trail shown on drawing number *** shall be provided as the first phase of development. Access shall be from the private road to the east. Once the development is constructed or as shown on the phasing programme (condition *) access to this car parking area shall be provided from the main highway leading to the site.

Reason The private access road will be unable to accommodate parked vehicles from those using the Tarka Trail so alternative provision will need to be made to ensure that the community can continue to access this resource.

Page 188 Agenda Item 5

36. No dwelling shall be occupied until the means of enclosure and the bin storage area for that dwelling have been provided in accordance with the approved plans submitted as part of the reserved matters.

Reason To ensure adequate facilities are available to occupants of the dwellings in accordance with Policy DM04 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

37. Before the commercial units hereby permitted are occupied a scheme shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating any commercial extraction or ventilation provisions.

Reason To allow the Local Planning Authority to be consider that there will be no detriment to the amenity of the area due to noise breakout through the structure from operations carried out therein in accordance with Policies DM01 and DM04 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

38. The Bat Roost building and heron platforms shall be provided as the first phase of development or as agreed in the phasing condition *. Prior to each residential unit being brought into use, a bird box shall be sited on either the south or west elevation of the building, where a residential unit does not have a suitable elevation more than one bird box will be placed on adjoining properties until a total of 250 boxes are provided. This provision shall be retained thereafter. The area surrounding the bat roost should be managed specifically for the bats and fenced off to prevent paths and other activities developing in this area. This level of detail shall be set out within the LEMP required by condition *.

Reason To achieve net gains in biodiversity in compliance with Policy ST14 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

39. Before any part of the development is occupied details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of how physical restrictions (bollards/gates etc.) will be installed to prevent the use of the jetty for the launching or mooring of any form of recreational pleasure craft including paddle boards, ski jets, canoes etc.

Reason To limit the impact on water based birds sensitive to recreational pleasure craft.

40. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order) the development hereby permitted shall be restricted to uses within Class ***** of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) and for no other purposes whatsoever.

Page 189 Agenda Item 5

Reason Only the proposed use is appropriate and any other use would need to be the subject of a separate application to be considered on its merits.

OTHER CONDITIONS: to be drafted

Removal of Permitted Development rights (as appropriate) Travel Planning - condition requested by DCC not detailed Waste Management - condition requested by DCC not detailed Materials Management Plan and Validation of materials used in site levels raising Conditions resulting from outstanding Noise Report

Appendices A. Application Submission Changes January 2020 B. Environmental Statement – Volume 3 Non Technical Summary C. Building for Healthy Life Assessment & Design Code March 2021 Rev B D. Design Review Panel 17th May 2019 E. Design Review Panel 21st August 2019 F. Response to Contamination queries Date 13.05.20 V2 G. Natural England Consultation response dated 20th June 2020 (15 pages) H. Sustainability Officer 20 February 2020 I. Viability Report (Appendices have been circulated separately)

Page 190 Application 60823 Yelland Quay Regeneration Agenda ItemJan 2020 5 Appendix A ES Discipline Jan 2019 Resubmission Jan 2020 Resubmission Proposed hybrid planning application (a) full application for the HYBRID PLANNING APPLICATION (A) FULL APPLICATION FOR THE raising of the ground levels, site access works and highway RAISING OF THE GROUND LEVELS, SITE ACCESS WORKS & HIGHWAY infrastructure to site together with erection of bat house INFRASTRUCTURE TO SITE, (B) OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR 250 building. (B) outline application for 280 dwellings (use class c3); DWELLINGS (USE CLASS C3). SPACE OF UP TO 3000SQM 50 bed hotel (class use c1) space of up to 3000 sq.; employment EMPLOYMENT (USE CLASS B1). SPACE OF UP TO 250SQM (A1) GROSS (use class b1) space of up to 1000 sq. gross floorspace; retail FLOORSPACE; SPACE OF UP TO 2000SQM (A3). GROSS FLOORSPACE; Application (use class a1) space of up to 2000sq.M, restaurant and café (use SPACE OF UP TO 250SQM (D1). GROSS FLOORSPACE; SPACE OF UP TO Description class a3) of up to 2000 sq. (c) all the associated infrastructure 250SQM (D2). (C ) ALL THE ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE including removal of any contamination, roads, footpaths, INCLUDING REMOVAL OF ANY CONTAMINATION, ROADS, cycleways, drainage (including attenuation works), flood defence FOOTPATHS, CYCLEWAY, DRAINAGE (INCLUDING ATTENUATION works, WORKS), FLOOD DEFENCE WORKS, LANDSCAPING, PUBLIC OPEN landscaping, public open space, utilities & vehicle parking also SPACE, UTILITIES & VEHICLE PARKING & INCLUDING DEMOLITION OF including demolition of buildings BUILDINGS

Maintain 60m setback to west and northern boundaries No Change Proposed alternative footpath through development. No Change Provision of Bat Building No change Provision of Timber Screen to South West Coastal Footpath to No change western edge Proposed Post and Wire fence to foreshore side of South West 6 Biodiversity Coastal Footpath Provision of 5 No. Heron Platforms No change Provision of Bird Boxes to buildings Provision of 10m Ecology Corridor along Tarka Trail No change Provision of 0.5 lux levels along Tarka Trail No change Provision of 0.5 lux levels along South West Coastal footpath No Change Provision of Ash Beds as Open Space No change

Integrated landscape opportunities out to key vistas / Church spires Focal Point of Development was North West corner of site Focal Point of Development is Jetty Social hub located within core of the site Social hub area moved to northern edge of site bisecting the jetty access point Building heights ranged from 2-4 storeys Building heights range from 1 storey to 6 storey’s – higher buildings set back into development Landscape and 7 Soft edge to the development proposal by positioning lower storey Visual Impact units to the edge set within larger areas of green space

Integrate landscape and ecology opportunities through site but virtue of green infrastructure linkages though the site with depressions, planting, elevated board walks. Site moved to east to accommodate integration. Access to development also moved to east. Provision of Green Infrastructure linkages and opportunities through the development site Provision of Power Station basement to be flooded Sunken piazza space as a ‘nod’ to the former power station basement Archaeology & Cultural 8 Heritage – this would act as an opportunity to have a space dedicated to the heritage of the site Provision of open feature surface water strategy No change 9 Flood Risk Provision of filling land to achieve appropriate Ground Levels Finished Floor Levels updated following review on climate change Dedicated Access off B3233 No change Provision of new road to development Provision of updated road to development over Tarka Trail 10 Transport Provision of Access to Yelland Quay Estuary Business Park No change Existing road terminated prior to Tarka Trail No change Provision of more pedestrian friendly Crossover to Tarka Trail 11 Lighting Provision of detailed lighting strategy for access road Provision of updated detailed lighting plan for access road Defendable line indicated to establish extent of Developable Provision of additional boreholes to confirm extending development area to the east is acceptable No change Confirmation that no development is located on top of Geotechnical / 12 Contamination Encapsulated Asbestos chamber or over former Ash beds land Provision of additional gas monitoring to confirm extending development to the east is acceptable Provision of 600mm minimum 'Fill' strategy to provide No change appropriate mitigation Provision of 2.5m acoustic hoarding to site boundary through No change 13 Noise construction period 14 Air Quality Provision of CEMP No change No change 15 Arboriculture Removal of existing trees to Northern and Western boundary. Replacement with new comprehensive landscaped proposal

Page 191 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5 Appendix B

Yelland Quay Regeneration Project

Yelland, North Devon

Environmental Statement - Volume 3

6 TULY STREET . BARNSTAPLE . DEVON . EX31 1DH tel: 01271 379050 email: [email protected] Page 193 Volume 3 – Non-Technical Summary Agenda Item 5 Appendix B

Yelland Quay

Environmental Statement Volume 3 – Non-Technical Summary

Updated March 2021

Client

Yelland Quay Ltd

Architect

Woodward Smith Chartered Architects LLP 6 Tuly Street Barnstaple North Devon EX31 1DH

Tel: 01271 379 050

Application Description

Hybrid planning application: (A) full application for the access, scale & layout of site including raising of the ground levels, site access works & highway infrastructure to site, together with purpose-built bat building. (B) outline application for 250 dwellings (Use Class C3(a)), Space of up to 3000sqm employment (Use Class E(g)(i) and E(g)(ii) was Use Class B1). Retail Space of up to 250sqm gross floorspace (Use Class E(a) was Use Class A1); Space for the Sale of food and drink of up to 2000sqm Gross floorspace (Use Class E(b) Was Use Class A3); Service and Community Space of up to 500sqm Gross floorspace (Use Class E(d) E(e), E(f) and F1(a), F1(b), F1€ and F2(b) was use Class D1 and D2); (C ) all the associated infrastructure including removal of any contamination, roads, footpaths, cycleway, drainage (including attenuation works), flood defence works, landscaping & appearance, public open space, utilities & vehicle parking & including demolition of buildings

Page 194 Volume 3 – Non-Technical Summary Agenda Item 5 Appendix B CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT THE SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLANNING POLICY POSITION BIODIVERSITY LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE FLOOD RISK INC WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY TRANSPORT LIGHTING IMPACT GROUND CONDITIONS (CONTAMINATION) NOISE AIR QUALITY ARBORICULTURE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SOCIAL IMPACTS ON LOCAL POPULATION ECONOMIC IMPACTS SUMMARY OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION

Page 195 Volume 3 – Non-Technical Summary Agenda Item 5 Appendix B Introduction

Overview This Environmental Statement (ES) is part of a series of documents that support an outline Planning Application for Yelland Quay Ltd. (the applicant) for a mixed-use development (the proposed development) on land to the north of Yelland Road, West Yelland, within the administrative area of North Devon Council (NDC). The extent of the Proposed Development is defined and described within ‘Chapter 5 The Proposed Development'. The Site, which is shown on Figure 1, extends to approximately 38.5 hectare (ha) of land in total and consists of an area of open space (ash beds) within the eastern section of the Site (approximately 12.4ha) and a developable area (approximately 11.7ha) in the western section of the Site. The Site is located approximately 4km west of Barnstaple Town Centre.

A brief description of the Site and surrounding area is provided in Sections 1.2 and 1.3 below.

The Proposed Development comprises:

• C3 250 residential units;

• E class use as application description

• Associated infrastructure and new highway Junction off B3233

• Flood Defence works and raising of the existing levels

• Landscaping and associated surface water attenuation.

All matters are reserved for future consideration except access, scale and layout.

Overview of the Existing Site and Surrounding Area

The Proposed Development Site

The Site represents land to the north of the B3233 and is currently accessed from this road. The Site is relatively level and currently comprises a former power station, ash beds and a commercial jetty. The full extent of the Site is approximately 38.5 hectares (including associated blue land), however; the Proposed Development area represents approximately 11.7 hectares and approximately 12.4 hectares within the Site comprises the ash beds.

The Site is subject to statutory protected site designations including:

• The Taw Torridge Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). • A local site important for birds (RSPB nature reserve).

Page 196 Volume 3 – Non-Technical Summary Agenda Item 5 Appendix B • The South West Coast Path National Trail / Tarka Trail. • The North Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Heritage coast. • The Caen Valley Bats SSSI.

The Surrounding Context

The surrounding area comprises open agricultural fields to the east and south, the existing residential dwellings associated with the village of Yelland to the south and south east. The Tarka Trail (a national trail) is located adjacent to the south of the Site. The River Taw is on the north boundary of the site.

Table 1 identifies the Project Team for the Planning Application, Preparation of the ES and supporting technical studies.

Table 1 Project Team

Company Role Yelland Quay Ltd Applicant

Woodward Smith Architect / Master planners Chartered Architects Environmental Statement (ES) Project Management, Co-ordination and Preparation Awcock Ward Partnership Civil Engineer including Drainage and Highways

Water Quality, Resources and Flood Risk Chapter of ES EAD Ecology Ecology Consultant

Ecology Assessment Chapter of ES Ruddlesden Geotechnical Geotechnical Consultant

Contamination Chapter of ES Tyler Grange Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Consultant

Landscape Chapter of ES Illume Design Lighting Consultant

Lighting Chapter of ES Entran Noise Consultant / Air Quality Consultant

Noise / Air Quality Chapter of ES ACD Arboriculture Consultant / Archaeology Consultant

Page 197 Volume 3 – Non-Technical Summary Agenda Item 5 Appendix B Arboriculture / Archaeology Chapter of ES

South West Archaeology Heritage Assessment Heritage Chapter of ES

Site Location Plan and Site Plan Figure 1 Site Location Plan

Page 198 Volume 3 – Non-Technical Summary Agenda Item 5 Appendix B Figure 2 - Masterplan

Approach to Assessment

Summary

• This outlines the strategy and format for the Environmental Statement • This views the main consultees during the evolution of this document including; o North Devon Council o Devon County Council o Environment Agency o Natural England o RSPB o AONB o Environmental Health • Outlines the formatting of the Environmental Statement

Page 199 Volume 3 – Non-Technical Summary Agenda Item 5 Appendix B The Site and Surrounding Area

Summary

• Site Located at former coal fired Power Station at Yelland Quay • Site Located Between Towns of Barnstaple and Bideford along B3233 • Largest Brownfield site in Northern Devon • Development site located within a cluster of Commercial and Industrial buildings bridging the existing Tarka Trail • Residential Development located within 100m

Figure 3 Site Location Plan (Google Earth)

Page 200 Volume 3 – Non-Technical Summary Agenda Item 5 Appendix B

Figure 4 Yelland Quay Power Station

The Description of the Proposed Development

Summary

• Development to be known as ‘The Waterfront’ Yelland Quay • Hybrid Application with access work and raising of levels in detail • 250 dwellings • Community Building • Restaurants • Café • Retail • Open Space • Inclusion of large water bodies to provide buffer to Overwintering birds to West of application site • Edge Development 2-3 storeys • Development further into site up to 5 storeys • Proposed Tarka Trail Crossing

Page 201 Volume 3 – Non-Technical Summary Agenda Item 5 Appendix B Planning Policy Position

Summary

• Site benefits from a Mixed-Use Allocation Adopted Local Plan 2011-2031 (Policy FRE02) • Development meets the aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework February 2019 • Site is on the Brownfield Register

Page 202 Volume 3 – Non-Technical Summary Agenda Item 5 Appendix B Biodiversity

Summary

• The following surveys have been completed by EAD Ecology; o Habitat Survey o Botanical Survey o Hedgerow Survey o Invertebrate Survey o Reptile Survey o Breeding Bird Survey o Wintering Bird Survey o Badger Survey o Bat Survey o Dormouse Survey o Local Recreational Study • Consultation has been undertaken with Natural England, RSPB, North Devon Council and the North Devon Biosphere Reserve to discuss the development proposals and agree mitigation / avoidance measures in respect of designated sites and protected and notable species. • Key measures to avoid or mitigate potential negative effects, and provide biodiversity enhancement, would include: o Retention of existing semi-natural waterbodies o Minimum 60m setback of the built development from the overwintering bird roost to the northwest of the site. o Introduction of 220m bird screen to protect overwintering bird roost and fencing along the whole estuary frontage to deter access to the foreshore by people and dogs. o Proposed informal waterbodies. o Proposed native tree/scrub belt. o Proposed wildflower meadow. o Proposed bespoke bat roost building and minimum 250 bat boxes to be integrated into new buildings and on retained trees. o Protection of a ‘dark’ corridor across the Tarka Trail and along the estuary frontage. o Wardening for a minimum 25-year period to monitor the high tide roost and visitor use, and liaise with residents and visitors. o Proposed 5 no. heron platforms adjacent to western pond, and minimum 75 bird boxes integrated into new buildings and on retained trees. o Offsite habitat creation to offset loss within the development. • Overall, the development would ensure that significant harm was avoided, and that long-term effects would be neutral or minor positive

Page 203 Volume 3 – Non-Technical Summary Agenda Item 5 Appendix B Landscape and Visual Impact

Summary

• A total of 31 viewpoints were agreed with AONB during pre-application consultation • Raising of Ground levels by up to 2.6m • 60m setback to western edge • Development seeks to protect the Riverbank and ridgelines from settlement intrusion and wherever possible keep the development below the heights of the existing tree line • 1,2 storeys on the periphery to the south west, west, north, east and south east • 3 – 6 storeys within the core • Development setback provides a soft undeveloped edge to estuary • Development opportunities are predominantly concentrated and contained to previously developed areas of the site • Minor effects on the setting of the AONB • Greatest effect on recreational users of the South West Coast Path

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

Summary

• No pre-19th century remains have previously been identified within the site which is likely to have had a long history of agricultural use or was marshland • There are no other known archaeological remains in the western parts of the site • The existing Yelland Stones to the east of the site will be retained • The loss of power station structures due to demolition and of potential sub-surface archaeological remains can be mitigated through investigation ahead of demolition and in advance of and during construction • The potential adverse effect on the wider setting of both the Instow windmill and Appledore church and conservation area could be prevented by sensitive use of materials which help the distant development to blend in with the surrounding mixed landscape • A small number of structures relating to the power station remain within the site and will be demolished as part of the proposals. In light of their limited local interest, suitable recording of their fabric ahead of demolition will reduce any adverse effect to negligible • The power station’s jetty will be retained and its long term future secured as part of the proposals and this represents a minor beneficial effect

Page 204 Volume 3 – Non-Technical Summary Agenda Item 5 Appendix B Flood Risk Inc Water Resources and Water Quality

Summary

• Temporary detention basins to be provided through the construction process • The proposed development will utilise SUD’s and will remain private • Attenuation basins will be proposed to improve the quality of the surface water runoff from the site • Surface water drainage system to be designed to attenuate on site for up to the 1 in 100 year + 40% (climate change) rainfall event • SWW have confirmed that the existing off-site foul sewage network has sufficient capacity to accommodate projected foul flows from the development • Agreement with SWW to an adoptable foul pumping station to transfer flows to adopted network

Transport

Summary

• Impact of development on driver delay is to be minor given the proximity between Barnstaple and Bideford and the opportunity to use either route • Additional junctions have been modelled in the surrounding area. These include: o A39 Westleigh o Fremington Army Camp o Cedar Roundabout o Sticklepath Hill / Bickington Road / Old Torrington Road Roundabout • Proposed Junction improvements along the B3233 with dedicated right-hand turn lane into development • Inclusion of three designated pedestrian crossings provide improved access for pedestrians and cyclists • New improved access road into development with enhanced cycleway facilities. • Good cycle links along Tarka Trail to wider facilities at Instow and Fremington • A level of onsite amenities will reduce the need to use cars to travel to areas outside the development

Page 205 Volume 3 – Non-Technical Summary Agenda Item 5 Appendix B Lighting Impact

Summary

• Lighting has been assessed against Environmental Zones E1 and E2. • Lighting scheme will have minor effect / not significant • Large parts of the site will remain unlit • Lit signage will only be installed on the Hotel element of the proposal • Dark Corridor maximum <0.5 lux along Tarka Trail • Dark Corridor maximum <0.5 lux along South West Footpath • Low Level downward bollard lighting utilised throughout the main development

Page 206 Volume 3 – Non-Technical Summary Agenda Item 5 Appendix B Ground Conditions (Contamination)

Summary

• Phase 1: Preliminary Geotechnical and Contamination Assessment Report has been undertaken • Phase 2: Preliminary Contamination Investigation and Environmental Assessment Report has been undertaken • Phase 2: Exploratory Contamination Investigation and Environmental Assessment Report has been undertaken • Ground Conditions Contamination Method Statement has also been produced • Phase 1 Report outlined that all uses could be accommodated on the site without risk to human health and/or the water environment • Phase 1 Report advised that there’d be no negative effects on human health especially because site levels are to be raised by 2m, no matter what use or uses the site is developed for, including residential uses • Phase 2 report outlined key areas including: o Buried Asbestos within the footprint of former pump house which has been encapsulated in concrete o Hydrocarbons o Arsenic o Lead • Phase 2 Additional Exploratory Contamination Investigation and Environmental Assessment Report • The proposals to raise site levels by up to 2m alone will be enough to ensure the safety of end uses, with no additional measures required o Where there are areas of the site are to be filled by 1m or less of inert material, it is recommended that a capping layer be installed within all soft landscaped areas, to reduce exposure to acceptable levels and to enable healthy plant growth. It is currently considered that a minimum depth of 600mm of clean, inert subsoil (typically 450mm in depth) and topsoil (typically 150mm in depth) within these areas of the site would be acceptable. • The cover system within affect soft landscaped areas will be underlain by a geotextile membrane, to act as a visual marker to discourage excavation and to prevent mixing of the clean soil with underlying contaminated soils.

Noise

Summary

• Three noise assessments have been carried out (July 2015, May 2017 and August 2018) • A Noise assessment was carried out in October 2015 regarding the Boat Arrival and Unloading noise • Construction noise predictions have also been predicted. • Noise levels during construction period over SSSI could be potentially significant. As a result of this an acoustic 2.5m high fence will be erected around the site to mitigate the noise disturbance from the effects of noise construction • Construction traffic deemed a negligible impact on the locality • Construction vibration deemed a negligible impact on the locality • Standard Double-Glazed units for residential dwellings are proposed • Outdoor noise levels area acceptable for outdoor living areas • Boat Activities acceptable to residential users

Page 207 Volume 3 – Non-Technical Summary Agenda Item 5 Appendix B Air Quality

Summary

• All results were negligible apart from one receptor along Bickington Road which was classed as ‘slight’ • CEMP should include outline measures for: o Wheel washing to reduce dust emissions o Equipment to be fitted with dust suppression techniques o Enclosed chutes to covered skips o Avoid bonfires o Water assisted dust sweepers to access roads • An assessment of the potential impacts during the construction phase has been carried out. This has shown that impacts associated with vehicle emissions are predicted to be not significant.

Arboriculture

Summary

• All trees on site classed as ‘C’ category (The lowest Category) • G1 are subject to a TPO as classed as landscape feature • G3 trees (nearest existing jetty) are to be removed as part of the development • G4 and G5 are also to be removed • G1 will be subject to localised removal of trees to facilitate the new access across the Tarka Trail • Enhanced landscape improvements throughout the development will mitigate the loss and provide an enhancement on the development

Cumulative Effects

Summary

• Cumulative Effects on development at Yelland Quay on the following surrounding developments: o West Yelland (David Wilson Homes) o Allenstyle o Sampson’s Plantation Phase 2 o North Lane o Mead Park o Fremington Army Camp • Development at West Yelland screens Yelland Quay when viewed from B3232 • There are no significant cumulative impacts as a result of this development on the surrounding developments.

Page 208 Volume 3 – Non-Technical Summary Agenda Item 5 Appendix B Social Impacts on Local Population

Summary

• Delivery of 250 new homes • Build out period between 5-15 years to mitigate impact on local network • Aging demographic in Fremington / Yelland – The Waterfront provides an opportunity for younger people to continue to live or move into the area • Proposal for a new Social Hub along the Tarka Trail • Proposed community facilities • Job Creation for local people • Open Space provision • Equipped Play Space provision

Economic Impacts

Summary

• Construction Costs circa £54 million • 305 Construction jobs over lifetime of the construction process • Earnings of over £9M throughout construction process • GVA of more than £20M throughout construction process • 200 FTE jobs as a result of the development • Earnings of over £5M throughout operation of development site • Operational GVA of £9M per year

Summary of Residual Effects and Mitigation

Summary

• It can be concluded that the development at Yelland Quay will not have a detrimental effect on the wider locality. • It can also be noted that the landscape impact is considered low when assessed • The development will actually provide a number of positive impacts within the immediate a wider locality around these four key areas, with ground conditions and biodiversity being the areas of positive impact.

Page 209 Volume 3 – Non-Technical Summary This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5 Appendix C

Yelland Quay Regeneration Project

Yelland, North Devon

Building for Life Assessment & Design Code

6 TULY STREET . BARNSTAPLE . DEVON . EX31 1DH tel: 01271 379050 email: [email protected]

Page 211 Agenda Item 5 Appendix C

Yelland Quay

Building for Life Assessment Updated March 2021

Client Yelland Quay Ltd

Architect Woodward Smith Chartered Architects LLP 6 Tuly Street Barnstaple North Devon EX31 1DH

Tel: 01271 379 050

Application Description Hybrid planning application: (A) full application for the access, scale & layout of site including raising of the ground levels, site access works & highway infrastructure to site, together with purpose-built bat building. (B) outline application for 250 dwellings (Use Class C3(a)), Space of up to 3000sqm employment (Use Class E(g)(i) and E(g)(ii) was Use Class B1). Retail Space of up to 250sqm gross floorspace (Use Class E(a) was Use Class A1); Space for the Sale of food and drink of up to 2000sqm Gross floorspace (Use Class E(b) Was Use Class A3); Service and Community Space of up to 500sqm Gross floorspace (Use Class E(d) E(e), E(f) and F1(a), F1(b), F1€ and F2(b) was use Class D1 and D2); (C ) all the associated infrastructure including removal of any contamination, roads, footpaths, cycleway, drainage (including attenuation works), flood defence works, landscaping & appearance, public open space, utilities & vehicle parking & including demolition of buildings

Revision Date Comments X 30.03.21 Initial Issue A 03.04.21 Updated following comments by Planning Policy B 06.04.21 Final comments relating to cycle parking

2 Page 212Building for a Healthy Life Assessment Agenda Item 5 Appendix C

CONTENTS

TABLE OF FIGURES INFORMING THE BUILDING FOR A HEALTHY LIFE ASSESSMENT BUILDING FOR A HEALTHY LIFE ASSESSMENT DESIGN CODE DEVELOPMENT FEATURES MASTERPLAN DESIGN CODE DRAWING

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1- Jan 2019 submission ...... 4 Figure 2- Site Constraints Plan ...... 5 Figure 3- Site Opportunities Plan...... 5 Figure 4- Site Masterplan ...... 18 Figure 5 - Design Code Sheet ...... 19

3 Page 213Building for a Healthy Life Assessment Agenda Item 5 Appendix C

Informing the Building for a Healthy Life Assessment

The proposal at Yelland Quay has been through two detailed sessions with the Design Review Panel. This rigorous cross examination process at times has ultimately benefited the final design proposal.

This Design Review process occurred part way through the planning process which is not the norm. It provided an opportunity to pause, reflect and reconsider the project in light of the comments raised in the sessions.

Figure 1- Jan 2019 submission

Whilst a formal Building for Life Assessment was not undertaken from the outset the matters raised in the assessment were all debated at length in these two sessions and months between with the Architect and Local Planning Authority. This formal Assessment has concluded this extensive process and most importantly has provided opportunity to see how far the design proposal has moved from the original site plan (fig 1.) to the plan currently being considered by the Local planning Authority. (fig 4.).

4 Page 214Building for a Healthy Life Assessment Agenda Item 5 Appendix C

This reflection process started with reviewing the constraints and opportunities of the site.

Figure 2- Site Constraints Plan

Figure 3- Site Opportunities Plan

5 Page 215Building for a Healthy Life Assessment Agenda Item 5 Appendix C

The supporting Statement provides a more detailed assessment of the design evolution prior, between and after the two Design Review Process Reviews. The formal Building for a Healthy Site Assessment

6 Page 216Building for a Healthy Life Assessment Agenda Item 5 Appendix C

Building for a Healthy Life Assessment

Considerations Evidence Score

Natural Through the independent Design Review sessions Connections one of the high-level key considerations was the assimilation of the natural and built development form.

This was further reinforced by the by views of the Panel that connection to the wider natural landscape could be achieved by creating viewpoints from the development out to key viewpoints.

The proposal provides connectivity through the development with further opportunities to link non- public green spaces. The development is permeated with green spaces and boardwalks that provide enhancements for habitats. IntegratedNeighbourhoods

Walking, cycling The proposal provides shared spaces with home zone and Public areas, with key car parking areas away from the transport homes to provide a pedestrian first design approach.

The Tarka Trail bounds the site with easy access to Barnstaple and Bideford.

There is a dedicated cycle way footpath to the development from the B3233 to the new bus stop provision on the junction of the site with the B3233.

7 Page 217Building for a Healthy Life Assessment Agenda Item 5 Appendix C

The B3233 has one of the best bus services in the area with a high-quality service with buses every 10- 15 mins.

The proposal at Yelland Quay has a new bus stop at the end of the junction with the B3233 proposed as part of the development works. There are also fantastic links to the Tarka Trail for cycling and walking.

The provision of electric charging points for vehicles will be provided to all dwellings. Communal electric charging areas will be aspired to.

Provision for a minimum of 2 cycles spaces will also be provided for all dwellings. Again, areas for cycle hire and communal cycle racks in public spaces will also be incorporated into the final design proposals.

Facilities and Through the Design Review Process, it was clear that Services a mixed-use scheme creating a new destination was the most appropriate response to the site.

The proposal seeks to provide a series of mixed-use spaces providing new social hubs within the development. These hubs will provide retail, restaurant, and community opportunities.

Several public squares and Piazzas will be created to offer further public and private event spaces and services linked to the development.

8 Page 218Building for a Healthy Life Assessment Agenda Item 5 Appendix C

Homes for The proposal will seek to provide 2–5-bedroom homes Everyone to meet the HEDNA mix in the North Devon Local Plan 2011-2031.

Due to the Viability Assessment, there will be no provision of affordable housing on the site.

The homes provided on site will be adaptable providing opportunity for longevity.

All apartments will have the provision of open space for relaxation and clothes drying.

Making the most The site is unique and as such the development and of what’s there architecture has formed from the site.

Distinctive Places

In conjunction with working with the Design Review Panel the site has evolved to focus out to the Estuary with the culmination of the experience at Yelland Quay being the Jetty.

There are distinctive zones of development providing opportunities for views in and out of the site.

Further opportunities around biodiversity have been provided with the inclusion of heron platforms, a new lagoon and dedicated new bat building.

A memorable The proposal has been considered by the Design character Review Panel and numerous hand sketch ideas have evolved from the initial iteration.

The original concept was reviewing coastal villages in the locality and wider and understanding the rational

9 Page 219Building for a Healthy Life Assessment Agenda Item 5 Appendix C

for how they generated and how they evolved. Taking on board this natural evolution how could this be interpreted in the C.21 with the added uniqueness of the site and working commercial jetty.

The areas of focus were the forming a nucleated settlement with attention to street geometry, key buildings, public spaces, and the opportunity to create a unique modern estuary development.

Historic village architecture traditionally had public focal points, the church, the inn, the square and the village shop with smaller development form around these spaces, towards the periphery of the village the larger homes could be found.

The proposal seeks to pay homage to the former use of the site as a Coal Fired Power Station but virtue of a building and public space build part of the footprint.

This monolithic aspirational structure seeks to provide a focal point both within the development with ground floor mixed use spaces and a sunken public square providing opportunity for interaction.

10 Page 220Building for a Healthy Life Assessment Agenda Item 5 Appendix C

This philosophy has driven the design proposals at Yelland Quay together with amalgamating the natural connections based on the site location and the culmination of the experience at Yelland Quay of the monolithic jetty to the north.

Further details of the site plan evolution can be found in the Supporting Statement.

Well defined The proposal has been developed based on primary, Streets and secondary, and tertiary network. This was a key desire Spaces of focussing on the streets that were vehicular, mixed street spaces and pedestrian. These streets also extended to how one arrives at the site from the south, east and west.

This network promotes active frontages with building and streets providing opportunities for key views out to local churches in the area.

Through the Design Review Process, it was also considered that perhaps some of the streets should be hidden and only none to those who lived there. This would naturally create private and public spaces as visitors would be less likely to venture off the primary and secondary network as they moved around the development.

Further details of the site plan evolution can be found in the Supporting Statement.

Easy to find your The key buildings to the proposal provide the way around opportunity to navigate through the development at Yelland Quay.

As indicated above framed views to vistas provide the opportunity for views in from the site with church spires

11 Page 221Building for a Healthy Life Assessment Agenda Item 5 Appendix C

being the visual framework when in the development site out to the wider landscape.

Further details of the site plan evolution can be found in the Supporting Statement.

Streets for all The proposal provides shared spaces with home zone areas, with key car parking areas away from the homes to provide a pedestrian first design approach.

There are several play spaces where public can sit, play and chat.

HealthyStreets

Cycle and Car Cycle storage is provided for all accommodation. Parking There are a range of parking solutions including the provision of a public car park, private car parking with garaging and areas of allocated car parking that is divorce from the accommodation allowing for the home zone area to be free from day-to-day traffic.

Example of hidden central car parking areas within development form.

There will be limited street parking to encourage these spaces to be users by pedestrians and cyclists.

12 Page 222Building for a Healthy Life Assessment Agenda Item 5 Appendix C

As discussed under Walking, cycling and Public transport opportunities for electric car charging will be provided. On other schemes in the area, we are also trialling battery cells in garaging which allow for electricity to be stored and used at night.

Green and Blue This is where Yelland Quay excels. Infrastructure The proposal provides opportunity for enhancements to habitat with the creation of a new drainage lagoon, dedicated green space through the development and the creation of enhanced wildflower meadows.

The potential ability of the site to provide integration and enhancement to the coastal area, adjacent to the SSSI will be the ultimate success of the scheme. The masterplan seeks to provide this catalyst by the provisions indicated above.

Back of The proposal seeks to provide active frontages that Pavement, front promote social interaction to the front garden spaces. of home High level balconies provide natural surveillance over public areas. Dedicated, hidden, bin areas will remove clutter from the front of the homes.

Further interaction at front of home level will be achieved by the public squares where development fronts onto and also utilising the green infrastructure through the site.

13 Page 223Building for a Healthy Life Assessment Agenda Item 5 Appendix C

It will be important to undertake another Building for a Healthy Assessment prior to the submission of the first Reserved Matters application should his application be approved in order to review against the aspirations of the outline application and reinforce the key objectives derived at this time.

14 Page 224Building for a Healthy Life Assessment Agenda Item 5 Appendix C

Design Code

Design codes are a distinct form of detailed design guidance. A design code is a set of written and graphic rules that establish with precision the two and three dimensional design elements of a particular development or area.

A Design Code has been produced for Yelland Quay. This is following the sessions with the Design Review Panel over the Summer of 2019. The design code will focus on the following areas and parameters • Zones of Development • Building types • Public Realm • Storey height • Roofscape • Street Character • Parking Strategy • Landmark / Vistas / Focal Point • Building Materiality • External Materiality / Landscaping / Play Space . • External lighting

The proposed Design Code will form part of the Planning Submission documentation. Drawing 206 outlines the above parameters in detail. The following pages summarise the findings in each area.

15 Page 225Building for a Healthy Life Assessment Agenda Item 5 Appendix C

Development Features

Four Zones of • Commercial Zones – providing destination areas for Development public and private assimilation. • Low Scale Residential – Detached dwellings set within green landscape providing the buffer to landscaped edge • High Scale Residential – The core of the Development proposals with feature bookend developments providing views in and out to key vantage points • Feature Residential – The new proposal forming part of the historic Basement footprint. Provides a key mixed use space with sunken piazza. Building types • Large, detached dwellings to development edge • Terrace dwellings and feature bookend Apartment block to development core • Low Level Commercial buildings screening westerly wind Public Realm • Open Piazza Spaces fronting Commercial zones providing opportunities for interaction • Green Space linkages through development utilising boardwalk, depressions and planting • Enhanced open space to east on former ash beds Storey height • Storey height ranges from 2 storey to Development edge up to 5 storeys within the core of the development. Commercial building scale is single Storey Roofscape • Use of either flat roof, mono-pitch or pitched roof typologies • A range of materials including Zinc, Copper, Sarnafil and Slate Parking Strategy • Low Scale Residential – Parking within existing curtilage • High Scale Residential – Parking within parking courts behind development and within GF of Apartment blocks. Street Character • Primary Street – Provide direct access to the Jetty utilising the integrated landscape as a key feature • Secondary Street - Utilising access to Residential Development forming the main ‘streets’ • Tertiary Street – Private streets to Low Scale Residential Zones

Landmark / Vistas / • Key Apartment blocks provide vistas into the site and Focal Point moving through the site

16 Page 226Building for a Healthy Life Assessment Agenda Item 5 Appendix C

• Feature Building forming mixed use space to former Power Station basement will provide the homage to the former site use

Building Materiality • Render • Stone • Timber / Composite Cladding • Glazed panel Systems

Lighting • Low Level Bollard lighting throughout to maintain dark areas.

17 Page 227Building for a Healthy Life Assessment Agenda Item 5 Appendix C

Masterplan

Figure 4- Site Masterplan

18 Page 228Building for a Healthy Life Assessment Agenda Item 5 Appendix C

Design Code Drawing

Figure 5 - Design Code Sheet

19 Page 229Building for a Healthy Life Assessment This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5 Appendix D The Design Review Panel www.designreviewpanel.co.uk

Site Yelland Quay, Yelland, Devon, EX31 3HB

Proposal Regeneration of Yelland Quay Power Station

Local North Devon Council Authority

Applicant Yelland Quay Ltd

Agent Woodward Smith Chartered Architects LLP

Review 17th May 2019 Date

This is the first time the Design Review Panel has reviewed a proposal for this site. The session was booked by Matthew Steart of Woodward Smith Chartered Architects LLP. The session included a site visit.

The expertise of Panel members for this site visit and design review panel session included two Chartered Landscape Architects, an Urban Designer, a Chartered Town Planner, an Ecologist and two Chartered Architects.

Paragraph 129 of the NPPF states: -

“Local planning authorities should ensure that they have access to, and make appropriate use of, tools and processes for assessing and improving the design of development. These include workshops to engage the local community, design advice and review arrangements … In assessing applications, local planning authorities should have regard to the outcome from these processes, including any recommendations made by design review panels.”

The Panel raised the following points: -

The extremely clear, comprehensive, and professional presentation was welcomed by the Panel. It is felt that this comprehensive and professional presentation was of benefit to the design review process. Notwithstanding how much work has already gone into the design proposals presented, it is noted that the design process is still at an early stage; it is considered this was the correct stage at which to engage with the design review panel process. Furthermore, it is considered that the site visit was an extremely useful exercise in helping the Panel to appreciate the unique site location and characteristics.

Generally, subject to the comments within this feedback document being addressed, the Panel is supportive of the applicants stated aspirations and the proposed extent of development. It is

The Design Review Panel_17th May 2019_ Yelland PageQuay, Yelland, 231 Devon, EX31 3HB_North Devon Page 1 of 5

Agenda Item 5 Appendix D The Design Review Panel www.designreviewpanel.co.uk

considered that the site is very special and unique and represents an exciting opportunity of both local and regional significance; that is to say the site deserves a very high-quality design response.

Notwithstanding the above, the Panel is not currently supportive of the design proposals, and there is a concern that the proposals presented are not yet doing justice to the site. It is felt that the design of the masterplan may have evolved as a response to a series of constraints rather than a positive response to the many opportunities that it is felt exist. It is considered it would be beneficial for the development to be a bolder and aspirational led development. It is also noted that the design review panel is only being asked to comment on the masterplan, scale and massing and it is felt that this may in itself demonstrate that the proposals are not currently well-rounded.

In a spirit of helpfulness, it is suggested the proposals would benefit from the production of a constraints and opportunities appraisal which would then lead to a clear and strong design concept, which may in turn inform and empower a better proposed layout rationale. It is suggested that aspects of the illustrative masterplan a parameter plan and key elements from the design and access document should inform a design code; that is to say it is considered that there is still a lot more information that should be produced in order to support a planning application. It is considered that a design code should now be produced.

It would be beneficial for landscape to play a more prominent role in the development of the design, and it is considered the proposals should to be landscape led. Furthermore, it is suggested that there may be an opportunity to provide innovative green buildings and an overlap between built form and landscape design. The stated aspirations regarding the proposed planting species palette is welcomed, however this is considered to be very vague. Generally, it is considered that another level of detail is required regarding proposed landscape.

The external lighting design should be coordinated with the landscape masterplan at an early stage, so as to ensure that the landscape is not compromised at a later stage.

The Panel is not supportive of the solid fence being proposed regarding bird protection, and it is felt that this approach would benefit from further consideration, as this would not be in keeping with the landscape character and may be detrimental. It is suggested that there may be a softer, greener way of achieving the same level of protection that may also incorporate glimpsed views, both inwards and outwards.

Regarding ecology, the Panel feels that the mitigation proposals are generally good. It is noted that dark corridors are proposed to be provided along the estuary frontage, which is supported. Notwithstanding the above, the proposed ecological measures may be too focused on one part of the site; it is suggested there may be an opportunity to integrate ecology and wildlife measures throughout the site more generally. Furthermore, it is suggested that careful consideration should be given regarding recreational access to the foreshore and the potential impact upon birds.

There is a concern that the potential large numbers of people that may utilise the area of open space may change the character of this space to more of a ‘parkland’. This aspect should be carefully

The Design Review Panel_17th May 2019_ Yelland PageQuay, Yelland, 232 Devon, EX31 3HB_North Devon Page 2 of 5

Agenda Item 5 Appendix D The Design Review Panel www.designreviewpanel.co.uk

considered to ensure overuse does not negatively impact upon the biodiversity management of this part of the site; wardening should be carefully considered and managed.

The stated aspiration to provide footpaths is supported, however it is felt that this is too generic, and it may be helpful to provide more specific proposals or a clearer statement of intent in this regard.

It is noted that the site does have an allocation and the Panel is supportive of the proposal to develop the site, however it is felt that it is not currently clear what the proposals are for; that is to say the Panel suggests it would be beneficial to take a step back and for the applicant to provide a clearer vision of what the place will be, and who it is intended will occupy the site.

It is considered that it would be beneficial to demonstrate credibility/viability of the proposals; for example, there is a concern that the proposed shop may not be viable, due to the size of the housing development? The proposal to provide a hotel is supported, however, in a spirit of helpfulness, the Panel suggests it is important to ensure that the completed development will be enough of a destination to be viable. The aspiration to provide wider community benefits for Yelland are supported, however it is suggested that it would be beneficial to demonstrate wider links and routes between the site and potential outside end users, to ensure the aspiration is practical.

If the aspiration is to create a new coastal village, there is a concern that the layout does not currently reflect this aspiration; it is felt that the imposed geometric shapes do not demonstrate an understanding of the site rationale. The Panel is supportive of the Silver Lake precedent, quoted by the applicants, however it is suggested that this may feel more like a resort than a village. If the aspiration is to create a tourist destination, then it is felt that this requires a clearer articulation within the proposals.

The Panel is supportive of establishing a link back to the use of the site as a power station. However, there is a concern regarding the proposed form and massing of the proposed central blocks that are proposed to be located on the former turbine hall footprint, in that it has not yet demonstrated any local distinctiveness. The Panel suggests that currently this may be being done in too literal a way (although the Panel recognises the early design stage). The Panel suggests that this aspect should be further developed in a more subtle way, for example using forms that are more perforate. It is suggested that another approach may be to reference to the industrial heritage in other ways, for example, such as through retention of salvage features from the site and re-use as play equipment.

It is suggested it may be beneficial for the proposals to take design and master planning cues from different settlements along the estuary, albeit interpreted in a contemporary way. The proposals would also benefit from demonstrating an understanding of the wider character area. Regarding the proposed typologies, it is considered that these are not yet leading to a distinct identity, and the proposals feel ubiquitous. As above

Whilst it is noted the proposals are at the master planning stage and the detailed architecture has not yet been developed, based upon the outline information presented, the Panel suggests it may be beneficial for the form and styling of the buildings to be approached with a lighter touch. As above, it is not yet clear what community the proposals are aimed at, and this lack of clarity is

The Design Review Panel_17th May 2019_ Yelland PageQuay, Yelland, 233 Devon, EX31 3HB_North Devon Page 3 of 5

Agenda Item 5 Appendix D The Design Review Panel www.designreviewpanel.co.uk

reflected in the design proposals; that is to say it is felt that the design should reference the unique sense of place, location, site and proposed function.

The provision of a storey height plan is welcomed by the Panel as is the emergence of intention regarding height variation across the site, and it is suggested this should be further developed. The Panel is supportive of the approached regarding horizontal layering, although it is suggested that there may be opportunities to also incorporate some vertical elements within the proposals so as to create a greater sense of robustness, using height scale and density. The historic height and massing uses on the site may provide design cues. Furthermore, it is suggested that it would be beneficial for the proposals to generate a greater sense of density and connection between the proposed built forms; currently there is a concern that the proposals feel like a series of unrelated individually developed sites.

It is noted that the existing jetty is outside of the proposal site redline area, however notwithstanding this, it is felt that this structure is significant and should be taken into account within any proposals. It is suggested that this may represent an opportunity in the long term; that is to say the Panel considers that the proposals should consider what alternative uses the jetty may provide in the long term should its current function become unviable.

In a spirit of helpfulness, the Panel suggests various potential opportunities that it may be beneficial to further consider: -

- sustainability; there may be an opportunity for the proposals to respond to solar orientation so as to benefit from passive solar gain - the layout of the proposal should not be dictated by road layouts - road layouts should not be overengineered - there may be an opportunity to incorporate combined heat and power - there may be opportunities to penetrate (visually) the existing boundary so as to utilise the fantastic outlook - there may be an opportunity to better address the Tarka Trail providing enhancements for end users - there may be opportunities to introduce leisure uses that are specific to the sites unique assets, such as facilities for eco-tourists, walkers’, cyclists, artists, twitchers etc

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS, (to be read in conjunction with the above).

In summary the main conclusions of the Panel are: -

- The Panel is supportive of the applicants stated aspirations & the proposed extent of development - The Panel is not currently supportive of the design proposals - There is a concern the design of the masterplan may have evolved as a response to a series of constraints, rather than a positive response to the many opportunities - A design code should now be produced

The Design Review Panel_17th May 2019_ Yelland PageQuay, Yelland, 234 Devon, EX31 3HB_North Devon Page 4 of 5

Agenda Item 5 Appendix D The Design Review Panel www.designreviewpanel.co.uk

- It would be beneficial for landscape to play a more prominent role in the development of the design - External lighting design should be coordinated with the landscape masterplan at an early stage - The Panel is not supportive of the solid fence being proposed regarding bird protection - The ecological mitigation proposals are generally good - There may be an opportunity to integrate ecology & wildlife measures throughout the site more generally - Ecological wardening should be carefully considered & managed - More specific proposals regarding footpaths should be incorporated - It would be beneficial to take a step back & for the applicant to provide a clearer vision of what the place will be - It would be beneficial to demonstrate credibility/viability of the proposals - There is a concern the proposed form & massing has not demonstrated any local distinctiveness - There is a concern the proposed typologies do not result in a distinct identity, & the proposal feel ubiquitous - The horizontal layering is supported, although there may be opportunities to incorporate vertical elements - The utilization of the old turbine hall footprint should be undertaken in a less literal way - The jetty structure should be taken account of within the proposals - It may be beneficial to further consider the various site opportunities that exist, not just the constraints

The Design Review Panel

NOTES:

Please note that the content of this document is opinion and suggestion only, given by a Panel of volunteers to the local authority, and this document does not constitute professional advice. Although the applicant, design team and Local Authority may be advised by the suggestions of the Design Review Panel there is no obligation to be bound by its suggestions. It is strongly recommended that all promoters use the relevant Local Authorities pre-application advice service prior to making a planning application. Further details are available on the Council’s website. Neither Design Review Ltd nor any member of the Panel accept any liability from the Local Authority, applicant or any third party in regard to the design review panel process or the content of this document, directly or indirectly, or any advice or opinions given within that process. The feedback and comments given by the Panel and its members constitutes the members individual opinions, given as suggestions, in an effort of helpfulness and do not constitute professional advice. The local planning authority and the applicants are free to respond to those opinions, or not, as they choose. The Panel members are not qualified to advise on pollution or contamination of land and will not be liable for any losses incurred by the Local Authority or any third party in respect of pollution or contamination arising out of or in connection with pollution or contamination.

The Design Review Panel_17th May 2019_ Yelland PageQuay, Yelland, 235 Devon, EX31 3HB_North Devon Page 5 of 5

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5 Appendix E The Design Review Panel www.designreviewpanel.co.uk

Site Yelland Quay, Yelland, Devon, EX31 3HB

Proposal Regeneration of Yelland Quay Power Station

Local North Devon Council Authority

Applicant Yelland Quay Ltd

Agent Woodward Smith Chartered Architects LLP

Review 21st August 2019 Date

This is the second time the Design Review Panel has reviewed a proposal for this site. The session was booked by Matthew Steart of Woodward Smith Chartered Architects LLP.

Paragraph 129 of the NPPF states: -

“Local planning authorities should ensure that they have access to, and make appropriate use of, tools and processes for assessing and improving the design of development. These include workshops to engage the local community, design advice and review arrangements … In assessing applications, local planning authorities should have regard to the outcome from these processes, including any recommendations made by design review panels.”

The Panel raised the following points: -

The extremely clear, comprehensive, and professional presentation was again welcomed by the Panel, and it is felt that this was of benefit to the design review process. Notwithstanding how much work has already gone into the design proposals presented, it is noted that the design process remains at an early stage; the Panel welcomes this second and continued thorough engagement with the design review panel process.

Generally, subject to the comments within this feedback document being addressed, the Panel remains supportive of the applicants stated aspirations and the proposed extent of development. As stated in the previous feedback document, it is considered that the sites special nature presents a unique opportunity to create a development of both local and regional significance; that is to say the site deserves a very high-quality design response.

The Panel acknowledges and welcomes the design team’s response to the previous design review panel feedback given. It is considered that the proposals are a significant improvement on those previously presented. The Panel supports the design process now being undertaken in response to

The Design Review Panel_21st August 2019_ YellandPage Quay, Yelland, 237 Devon, EX31 3HB_North Devon Page 1 of 6

Agenda Item 5 Appendix E The Design Review Panel www.designreviewpanel.co.uk

the concern that the previous scheme presented was not grounded in the landscape context. The recognition of the fantastic opportunity and value that the sites special setting offers, in terms of landscape, outward views, estuary birds etc is welcomed; it is considered that it will be beneficial for the proposals to refer back to and demonstrate an appropriate response to the landscape and geographical location and setting.

The Panel welcomes the clear brief that is now being given by the client in terms of their aspirations for the site. It is noted that the aim is to create a permanent new village (rather than a holiday village) and this is supported.

The design team’s investigation of other coastal communities as concept / design drivers, such as Instow and Appledore is supported. Notwithstanding this it is noted that the proposals are not trying to be a slavish / literal pastiche to a traditional coastal village, and this nonliteral approach is supported. The eco community references and precedents being used as inspiration are welcomed, as it is felt that these are grounded in the landscape and driven by landscape and ecology/biodiversity considerations. Furthermore, it is suggested that embracing the sites natural assets will result in a sensitive and well-designed scheme and may also represent a commercial benefit to the applicant, by creating a unique selling point for their development whilst ensuring that visitors will also be attracted. This will hopefully in turn result in a vibrant and prosperous sustainable community.

It is noted that, unlike traditional coastal villages, the proposed development does not yet appear to have any functional relationship with the water/sea/estuary. It is felt that the design proposals would benefit significantly from further exploring this aspect and the potential opportunities in this regard. In particular, it is suggested that there may be an opportunity to link the Tarka trail to the existing jetty/quay.

It is considered that the jetty/quay is a key existing element and should be treated as a key driver for the design proposals. The Panel considers that it would be beneficial to further consider the potential of integrating this aspect into the proposals in the short term, as well as demonstrating a consideration for the medium to long term opportunities that may exist regarding future uses of the jetty/quay.

It is felt that it would be beneficial to further explore the sense of arrival to the site in terms of sense of place, as well as to ensure that there is no conflict between cars, pedestrians and cyclists at what will be a key intersection. There may be an opportunity to vary the width of the carriage way at the entrance to the site, so as to create a sense of entrance and also demonstrate that pedestrians and cyclist become dominant at this point. The entrance to the site may also represent an opportunity regarding visitor management. It is suggested that, in terms of vehicle management within the site, it may be helpful to have regard for the approach taken by the ‘Living Village Trust’ in its Shropshire and projects (http://www.thelivingvillagetrust.com/). It would be beneficial to further consider the hierarchy of streets within the development, as this will inform the character and sense of place.

The Panel feels that the proposals would benefit from a clearer integration between ecology/biodiversity and landscape inspiring the urban form(s) being proposed. It is considered that,

The Design Review Panel_21st August 2019_ YellandPage Quay, Yelland, 238 Devon, EX31 3HB_North Devon Page 2 of 6

Agenda Item 5 Appendix E The Design Review Panel www.designreviewpanel.co.uk

on this site, this integration between ecology and landscape design will affect the appearance of the site as much as the massing of the buildings and will have an equal impact as the built forms on the end user experience. Whilst much improved, there is a concern that the proposals have yet to demonstrate how they are locked into the specific site; the unique identity of the proposals that relates to the site context would benefit from further design development.

It is suggested that it may be beneficial if, before proceeding further with the overall masterplan layout, the design team were to identify key areas within the site and investigate different iterations that explore the different conditions and surrounding interfaces. It is felt that each condition will require an individual design response rather than repetitive solution. It is suggested that it is these specific treatments to each of the individual conditions that will create a sense of character and unique sense of place. The proposals should further consider the relationship and boundaries between the public and private spaces. It is suggested that it would be beneficial for the private buildings to be orientated in such a way that they casually overlook the public space. There is a concern that otherwise the public space may be perceived as place that is unsafe to use and or somewhere where grass clippings and worse can be inappropriately deposited.

The Panel suggests that it may be beneficial to further consider the proposed relationship between the green space and build forms on the eastern boundary. It is felt that there may be an opportunity to reinforce biodiversity planting and interplay helping to better root the proposals within the landscape setting. It is suggested that the eastern edge could incorporate a more informal treatment.

There is a concern that the proposed central boulevard feels very urban, is of an inappropriate scale for a village and would benefit from being reduced in width and uniformity. It is suggested it may be beneficial to create a less formal central route incorporating level changes, varying building heights and changing vistas.

The Panel welcomes the consideration of links to surrounding landmarks and built features (such as church spires), and encourages further development of this so as to root the proposals in a wider setting, which may also aid better navigability for end users. The Panel is not supportive of the proposal to incorporate an iconic sculptural element; it is suggested that its contextual sensitivity may be its iconic unique identity

The Panel considers that there is an unresolved tension between the sense of enclosure and openness of the surrounding landscape; it is noted that historically settlements were usually clustered at the bottom of valleys for protection. It is therefore suggested that the proposals may benefit from capturing the transition between a dense human scale and the wider open views and landscape. Generally, it is suggested that it may be helpful to utilize environmental performance issues such as, solar gain, wind protection, form factors etc as potential form generators.

Regarding the proposed fence between the footpath and the foreshore, this is not supported by the Panel and it is suggested that it would be beneficial for a footpath to be taken through the site. It is felt that this may remove the need for the fence. Furthermore, it is considered that providing a new

The Design Review Panel_21st August 2019_ YellandPage Quay, Yelland, 239 Devon, EX31 3HB_North Devon Page 3 of 6

Agenda Item 5 Appendix E The Design Review Panel www.designreviewpanel.co.uk

footpath may represent an opportunity to provide a more attractive option for users, creating a sense of accessibility and community to the proposed development.

The Panel notes that the proposals are for an outline application, however it is considered it is important, especially for such a sensitive site, for an indication of the design aesthetic and building forms to be considered and indicated at this initial master planning stage. The Panel is not supportive of the house type precedents indicated, as it is felt that these are fairly uniform contemporary dwellings that could be anywhere; it is considered that the proposals would benefit from developing unique site responsive house types that reference and are informed by the site. Regarding materials; there are opportunities to incorporate green roofs and other ecologically sensitive materials help to make the proposals unique and may raise the design standard of the proposals compared to a normal national house builder scheme.

It is considered that, as the proposals are developed further, it would be beneficial for the design to be explored and presented in three dimensions so that the compression and expansion of spaces, density and heights can be more thoroughly considered and the design proposals more clearly justified to third parties. The Panel would welcome appropriately sited and designed taller buildings being brought back into the site. It is felt that the proposals would benefit from a variation of heights being evident when viewed from afar, as the design may then appear more organic.

Regarding the site heritage, it is considered that the previous iteration presented to the Panel referenced the old turbine hall too literally. In this iteration there is a concern that there may now be no reference to the sites historic use as a power station at all. The Panel suggests that it may be helpful to retain elements of this or incorporate subtle heritage references within the landscape design, perhaps through changes in level and or surfacing/materials, in particular it is suggested that there may be an opportunity to retain the switch building. The Panel feels that retaining a heritage link through the proposals may add value for end users.

The proposals would benefit from strategically considering the potential future evolution and expansion of the site in the long term; that is to say the proposals should demonstrate how it is envisaged the settlement may be able to extend, adapt and change, particularly at the site edges.

It is suggested that the design would benefit from considering the environmental opportunities that are offered by the site in a holistic manner. For example, it is suggested that environmental and climatic issues such as wind and the proximity to water may represent opportunities regarding renewable energy production and or sustainable tourism. There may also be potential on this site to utilize geothermal energy. Furthermore, it may be beneficial to consider district heating and power; it is suggested that this should be explored at this stage of the design process as it may inform the siting of buildings and infrastructure. It is further suggested that opportunity to attract sustainable tourism may also represent commercial opportunities to bring other uses into the site.

The Panel suggests that it may be beneficial for a Design Code to be produced and agreed with the local authority at this outline stage; it is suggested that this would give a framework for future detailed proposals to ensure that they remain reflective of the original exciting aspirations. Any design code

The Design Review Panel_21st August 2019_ YellandPage Quay, Yelland, 240 Devon, EX31 3HB_North Devon Page 4 of 6

Agenda Item 5 Appendix E The Design Review Panel www.designreviewpanel.co.uk

produced for this site should not be too prescriptive and should allow for diversity. As part of this exercise it may be helpful to explore contemporary and traditional village developments around the south coast, and to gather a library of images that can be deconstructed, in terms of forms and materials, to identify elements that may be appropriate for this site. There is a concern that the current architectural precedents regarding the proposed house types are not appropriate for the stated aspiration of this project. It is considered that they are reflective of U.S private gated individual units, which is not supported. It is felt that it would be beneficial for the proposals to create a greater sense of openness and interaction between the public and private realm, resulting in an interrelationship visually with the community.

In a spirit of helpfulness, it is suggested that ancillary buildings, material choices and boundary treatments may help to tie the architectural forms together, so as to result in a sense of unity and desired density usually found in more traditional desirable village locations.

The proposal should now consider details of maintenance, such as the management of refuse/bins at this stage of the design process. It is suggested that there may be an opportunity to incorporate centralized refuse collection. It is noted that consideration such as this can have a large impact on the overall character.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS, (to be read in conjunction with the above)

In summary the main conclusions of the Panel are: -

- The Panel is supportive of the applicants stated aspirations & the clear brief & vision given by the applicants - The response to the previous design review panel feedback given is welcomed - It is felt that embracing the sites natural assets will result in a sensitive & well-designed scheme - As a proposed coastal village, it is felt the design would benefit from providing a relationship with the water; there may be an opportunity to link the Tarka trail to the existing jetty/quay - It would be beneficial to further explore the sense of arrival & intersection between vehicles, pedestrians & cyclists - The proposals would benefit from more clearly showing how ecology/biodiversity & landscape have informed the urban form - The different conditions & responding design iterations should be explored for key areas within the site - The proposed relationship between the green space & build forms on the eastern boundary would benefit from further consideration - The proposed central boulevard feels very urban, is of an inappropriate scale for a village - There may be opportunities to consider links with other surrounding landmarks & visual links

The Design Review Panel_21st August 2019_ YellandPage Quay, Yelland, 241 Devon, EX31 3HB_North Devon Page 5 of 6

Agenda Item 5 Appendix E The Design Review Panel www.designreviewpanel.co.uk

- There is an unresolved tension between the sense of enclosure & openness of the surrounding landscape - It is felt that it would be beneficial for a footpath to be taken through the site, rather than along the foreshore - The Panel are not supportive of the house type precedents indicated - It would be beneficial for the design to now be explored & presented in three dimensions - It may be beneficial to incorporate subtle heritage references within the landscape design - The potential future evolution & expansion of site should be strategically considered - Environmental opportunities should now be considered at this stage of the design process - It is felt that the production of a Design Code at this outline stage would be beneficial to the applicant & local authority - The proposal should now consider details of maintenance, such as the management of refuse

The Design Review Panel

NOTES:

Please note that the content of this document is opinion and suggestion only, given by a Panel of volunteers to the local authority, and this document does not constitute professional advice. Although the applicant, design team and Local Authority may be advised by the suggestions of the Design Review Panel there is no obligation to be bound by its suggestions. It is strongly recommended that all promoters use the relevant Local Authorities pre-application advice service prior to making a planning application. Further details are available on the Council’s website. Neither Design Review Ltd nor any member of the Panel accept any liability from the Local Authority, applicant or any third party in regard to the design review panel process or the content of this document, directly or indirectly, or any advice or opinions given within that process. The feedback and comments given by the Panel and its members constitutes the members individual opinions, given as suggestions, in an effort of helpfulness and do not constitute professional advice. The local planning authority and the applicants are free to respond to those opinions, or not, as they choose. The Panel members are not qualified to advise on pollution or contamination of land and will not be liable for any losses incurred by the Local Authority or any third party in respect of pollution or contamination arising out of or in connection with pollution or contamination.

The Design Review Panel_21st August 2019_ YellandPage Quay, Yelland, 242 Devon, EX31 3HB_North Devon Page 6 of 6

Yelland Quay – Contamination Comments

Ruddlesden Geotechnical

Date 13.05.20

Consultee/Individual Nature of comment Response Environment Agency General Overall, the comments are only minor and amount to clarifications that can be satisfied with reference to work that has already been undertaken or will be undertaken as part of the planned further work; to be fair, the number and size of reports that have been undertaken over the years do not make reviewing them and finding the required content easy Regarding gaps within the reports and not defining areas of The potential sources outlined within the Phase 1 report

Page 243 Page contamination on a site plan. (ref: JF/SB/SR/11352/PGCAR/05; dated: December 2018) are identified on the plan appended to this report (Existing Site Layout and Features Plan, Dwg. No. 11352/02 (Appendix C)) and evaluated within section 5.2 of this report, as well as the Pictorial Sketch Conceptual Site Model (Dwg. No. 11352/04), Main Potential On-Site Contamination Sources Plan (Dwg. No. 11352/04), Historical Map Features Plan (Dwg. No. 11352/05), all presented within the Phase 2: Exploratory Investigation Report (ref:

CR/SR/11352/ECIEAR/04; dated July 2018). Appendix F Agenda Item 5

These potential sources of contamination were then the subject of targeted intrusive investigation (Phase 2: Preliminary Contamination Investigation and Environmental Assessment Report (ref: CR/JF/SR/11352/PCIEAR/02; dated July 2018) and Phase 2: Exploratory Investigation Report (ref: CR/SR/11352/ECIEAR/04; dated July 2018)). Proximity of Ash beds to Development proposal The ash beds have become more significant as the proposed development has changed and moved eastwards, encroaching into them. As a result, they were the subject of the separate investigation: Phase 2: Additional Exploratory Contamination Investigation and Environmental Assessment Report (ref: CR/SR/11352/AECIEAR/01; dated: December 2019). Need for Cross Sections to review Ground Profile Whilst the ground profile is relatively straightforward, due to the complexities and size of the site, including more than one sensitive receptor, for conservatism, groundwater flow is assumed to be directly towards the most critical receptors (on-site streams and River Taw estuary). Cross- sections are not therefore considered to be necessary or helpful. Ground water samples In the first instance, for conservatism, the tested groundwater samples are assumed at the receptor, with no

Page 244 Page attenuation, dilution or dispersion having taken place. To date, targeted sampling strategies have been undertaken.

Groundwater samples have been taken over preference to leachate testing, as leachate testing tests the quantity that is potentially leachable, whereas the groundwater tests the levels of contaminants actually present. If required, dioxins and furans could be analysed as part of the planned future, more intensive investigation. Appendix F

Controlled Waters The risks to controlled waters in both the short-term Agenda Item 5 (construction) and long-term (permanent) phases will be considered in all stages of the design of the development. REP_Spencer_190104 Events at other sites by other developers should not be seen as a reason for this site to not be redeveloped. The risks of harm from asbestos at this site are well understood by Ruddlesden and the client. The risks from asbestos should be seen by all stakeholders as a reason to support and not object to the redevelopment of the site, as the redevelopment will result in a reduced risk of exposure (see below).

Asbestos is only harmful to human health fibres are inhaled. Contamination risk assessment is underpinned by the source-pathway-receptor linkage model; whilst there might be a source of contamination and potential receptors, if the pathway is removed, there can be no risk of harm. When the site is redeveloped, it will be covered by around 2m of imported soil, thus removing the pathway and the risk of end users coming into harm from asbestos.

The composition and age etc. of the concrete that encapsulates concrete in the area former pump house in

Page 245 Page the north of the site is not relevant, though it is noted that it could not be broken with a 21-tonne tracked excavator. The concrete acts as a physical barrier between the source (asbestos) and receptor (end users), removing the pathway (inhalation), thus breaking the source-pathway-receptor chain. If there is no source-pathway-receptor chain, there can be no risk of harm. The top of this concrete is approximately 2m below ground levels; an additional 2m of clean soil on top of this, will make it even less likely than asbestos fibres will be able to be become airborne (only Appendix F Agenda Item 5 then can asbestos be harmful). It is also noted that asbestos is not soluble in water.

Notwithstanding the above, Mr Spencer’s fears are very real, even if scientifically unfounded, and other local residents may have similar illogical concerns. To allay these worries, if considered necessary, the concrete could be encased further, by sheet piles, for example, and further concrete.

It is acknowledged that construction workers may come into contact with asbestos containing materials (ACMs). However, appropriate mitigation measures carried out only by suitably qualified personnel will ensure that site workers do not come to any harm. Comment (136) – Hilary All imported soil will be verified as being suitable for use, Beechcroft most likely with the use of a Materials Management Plan (MMP), but also with in-situ testing on completion. The MMP will be signed off by a Qualified Person (QP) and the validation testing of imported soil in-situ following placement will be a planning condition and warranty provider requirement.

Page 246 Page The topsoil requirements are minimum requirements. Additional depths will be required for specimen trees etc., as advised by the arboricultural specialist. 20200210 App 60823 Contamination risk assessment is underpinned by the Objection – Love Braunton source-pathway-receptor linkage model; whilst there might be a source of contamination and potential receptors, if the pathway is removed, there can be no risk of harm. When the site is redeveloped, it will be covered by around 2m of imported soil, thus removing the pathway and the risk of

end users coming into harm from asbestos. Appendix F Agenda Item 5

The controlled waters risk assessments indicate that the levels of contamination are unlikely to cause significant pollution to the water environment.

Agenda Item 5 26 June 2020 Appendix G

Our ref: 318910 Your ref: 60823

Mrs. Jean Watkins Senior Planning Officer Strategic Development & Planning Customer Services Hornbeam House North Devon Council Crewe Business Park Electra Way Crewe Cheshire CW1 6GJ BY EMAIL ONLY [email protected] T 0300 060 3900

Dear Jean,

Planning consultation: Hybrid planning application (a) full application for the access, scale & layout of site including raising of the ground levels, site access works & highway infrastructure to site, together with purpose built bat building. (b) outline application for 250 dwellings (use class c3). Space of up to 3000sqm employment (use class b1). Space of up to 250sqm (a1) gross floor space; space of up to 2000sqm (a3). Gross floor space; space of up to 250sqm (d1). Gross floor space; space of up to 250sqm (d2). (c ) all the associated infrastructure including removal of any contamination, roads, footpaths, cycleway, drainage (including attenuation works), flood defence works, landscaping & appearance, public open space, utilities & vehicle parking & including demolition of buildings (amended scheme & supporting documents). at Former Yelland Power Station Lower Yelland Yelland Barnstaple Devon EX31 3EZ

Thank you for your email consultation received on 5th June 2020 regarding the above amended proposal.

Further to our advice of 14th February 2020 (306311) and based on the information provided we have the following advice relating to the Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI only1. SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND’S ADVICE

 The Taw Torridge Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) - no objection subject to conditions. Details are provided below.

 Please note that our advice in our consultation response of 14th February 2020 (306311) and 18th February 2019 (ref 269685) for Braunton Burrows SAC, Biodiversity Net Gain; the North Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; Caen Valley Bats SSSI; South West Coast Path National Trail (SWCP NT)/Tarka Trail; Local Sites; Priority habitats and species; Protected species; Soils and the England Coastal Path remains current and relevant to the amended application. I have attached copies for ease of reference.

Nationally designated sites Taw Torridge Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Natural England’s advice is that without mitigation this application has the potential to damage or destroy the interest features for which the Taw Torridge Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest has been notified.

1 This reply comprises our statutory consultation response under the provisions of Article 10 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Habitat Regulations 2017 (as amended). PagePage 1 of247 15 Please send consultations via email to: [email protected] Agenda Item 5 Appendix G The Local Authority needs to ensure that sufficient design measures to avoid and mitigate noise disturbance are incorporated into the proposal to be certain there would not be significant adverse impacts during construction and operation.

Without mitigation, the increase in activity on and around the site during construction (up to 15 years) and operation (recreational activity impacts from residents and visitors to the site) is likely to lead to disturbance and displacement of the overwintering estuary birds on the adjacent high tide roosting sites identified within the SSSI.

The data gathered through the Taw Torridge Estuary High Tide Roost and Recreational Impacts study2, of which your Authority is a partner, suggests this sector is of particular importance for providing quiet refuge to wintering wetland birds in the context of the estuary. This is confirmed by the applicant’s own over wintering bird surveys of 2016/17 and 2018/19.

A strategic approach to mitigation is the ideal outcome with all development adding to recreational impacts making a financial contribution to measures that avoid impacts. Paragraph 6.10.1 of the ES confirms that the proposed development would contribute towards such a strategic solution.

Advised Conditions:

Natural England advised that the proposed site based mitigation in the Environmental Statement should be secured as legally binding conditions on any permission.

We also raised concerns regarding elements of the mitigation strategy and welcome the fact that the applicant and EAD has sought to address these:

1. The proposed post and wire fencing along the estuary frontage now extends to include that along RSPB land (to where the frontage joins the Tarka/cycle Trail) to prevent access from the ashbeds to Isley Marsh and is included on Drawing Y029 18 205N Infrastructure delivery plan. This must be secured via condition. 2. Noise and lighting mitigation will be included in the CEMP to cross reference with the CEcoMP/LEMP etc. This must be secured via condition. 3. In addition, as previously outlined, Natural England’s advice is that noise contour maps of background noise levels and predicted construction noise levels are provided to indicate more clearly where the significant impacts are likely to be and when. A noise management plan can then be produced to ensure that construction and operational noise levels are within background levels and where any significant increases are predicted at ecological receptors, with the 2.5m high acoustic screen in place, then additional measures may be required. This must be secured via conditions. 4. The most sensitive period for the overwintering birds is September to March inclusive. Drawing Y029 18 205N Infrastructure delivery plan suggests April to August inclusive for timing of works for the lagoon, land raising, screen and rock armour. This must be secured via condition. The Construction period for the ground raising, rock armour and lagoon and relevant building phases are likely to require additional mitigation to that proposed if carried out during September to March inclusive. This would include use of the jetty to bring in materials during construction. 5. Employment of the proposed warden will be implemented as soon as people are living in the dwellings rather than post construction. This must be secured via condition. 6. The creation of a new pedestrian route from the development to link with the south west coast path to the west of the site will be re-routed to the landward side of and below the embankment adjoining the estuary which would bring people on and off the route further away from the roost. Although we would prefer new access to the SWCP NT here to be removed from the plans, the amended route will help to reduce potential disturbance in the area immediately to the west of the roost. Drawing Y029 18 204R Proposed Site Plan still shows the original access point directly onto the SWCPNT as well as the new route behind the embankment. The drawing should be amended to remove the original access point and be secured via condition.

2 https://www.northdevon.gov.uk/media/379527/final-report-identification-of-wintering-wildfowl-high-tide-roosts-and- recreational-disturbance-impacts-on-the-taw-torridge-estuary.pdf PagePage 2 of248 15 Please send consultations via email to: [email protected] Agenda Item 5 7. SuDS will be used to maintain water quality/manage surface waterAppendix runoff Gfrom the site and consideration has been given to minimising impacts on the SSSI mudflats at the existing outfall in to the estuary by restricted discharge via on site attenuation. The Surface water management plan which will be provided at RM should include detail of the maintenance and management of the SuDS and how it will be funded. We would advise that a condition should be included on any permission or through S106 obligations as appropriate to secure the various ecological management plans. 8. The developer has no objection to working with the LPA regarding the number, location and wording of signage to ensure a consistent message. This can be secured via a condition.

In addition, we were concerned about the level at which enhancement features are being delivered:

9. The number of nest boxes proposed is significantly below the level recommended by the RSPB. The applicant is happy to adjust the provision which should be secured via condition. 10. Biodiversity net gains offsite have been identified as necessary but with no detail or certainty of delivery. We would recommend that this is not left to conditions. Any net gains should also be linked to North Devon’s Local Nature Reserve Strategy.

Additional Advice:

We would recommend that consideration is given to amending the proposed landscaping in the fields south of the Tarka Trail so that the trees are planted along the new access road rather than the eastern and southern field boundaries. This would help to maintain the open aspect/sight lines required by the water birds identified as using the fields opportunistically for foraging. We note that the proposed landscape planting in this area will be the subject of a Reserved Matters Application but that the applicant has no objection in principle to this change.

In conclusion, your Authority should ensure a comprehensive package of effective robust mitigation measures is secured before determination.

Should the application change, or if the applicant submits further information relating to the impact of this proposal on the Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI, Natural England will be happy to consider it, and amend our position as appropriate. Following submission of this advice to the LPA we are able to consider offering advice to the developer through our Discretionary Advice Service

Please do not hesitate to contact me on the details below if you wish to discuss anything further.

Yours sincerely

Clare Guthrie Lead Adviser Tel: 0208 0267393 Email: [email protected]

PagePage 3 of249 15 Please send consultations via email to: [email protected] Agenda Item 5 14 February 2020 Appendix G

Our ref: 306311 Your ref: 60823

Mr. Keith Bines Senior Planning Officer Strategic Development & Planning Customer Services Hornbeam House North Devon Council Crewe Business Park Electra Way Crewe Cheshire CW1 6GJ BY EMAIL ONLY [email protected] T 0300 060 3900

Dear Keith,

Planning consultation: 60823 Hybrid planning application (A) full application for the access, scale & layout of site including raising of the ground levels, site access works & highway infrastructure to site, together with purpose built bat building. (B) Outline application for 250 dwellings (use class C3). Space of up to 3000sqm employment (use class B1). Space of up to 250sqm (A1) gross floor space; space of up to 2000sqm (A3). Gross floor space; space of up to 250sqm (D1). Gross floor space; space of up to 250sqm (D2). (C) All the associated infrastructure including removal of any contamination, roads, footpaths, cycleway, drainage (including attenuation works), flood defence works, landscaping & appearance, public open space, utilities & vehicle parking & including demolition of buildings (amended scheme & supporting documents). Former Yelland Power Station, Lower Yelland, Yelland, Barnstaple, Devon, EX31 3EZ.

Thank you for your email consultation received on 17th January 2020 regarding the above amended proposal. Based on the information provided we have the following advice3. SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND’S ADVICE

 North Devon Council is required to conduct a Habitat Regulations Assessment for Braunton Burrows Special Area of Conservation (SAC).  Further consideration is required regarding impacts and mitigation for the Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI.

Details are provided below. Without this information, Natural England may need to object to the proposal. Please re-consult Natural England once this information has been obtained.

European designated sites Braunton Burrows Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

The application site is within the Zone of Influence (ZoI) for the Braunton Burrows SAC within which impacts of residential and tourist development on the SAC would arise in the absence of appropriate mitigation.

Further evidence submitted following your Joint Local Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment indicates that it would not be possible to reach a conclusion of ‘no likely significant effect’ for housing in this location, in combination with other residential/tourist development within the ZoI, in the absence of appropriate mitigation.

3 This reply comprises our statutory consultation response under the provisions of Article 10 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Habitat Regulations 2017 (as amended). PagePage 4 of250 15 Please send consultations via email to: [email protected] Agenda Item 5 Appendix G North Devon Council and Torridge District Council have adopted an Interim Scheme ‘Braunton Burrows Special Area of Conservation Visitor Impacts and Mitigation’ (July 2019) whereby impacts can be avoided and mitigated through financial contributions in order to avoid significant effects of recreational impacts on the Braunton Burrows SAC from new housing/tourist developments within the ZoI.

Natural England therefore advises that you:

 Undertake an Appropriate Assessment4 of the proposal and any mitigation proposed, prior to determining the application.  Seek agreement from the applicant on funding of a package of measures which will permit you to reach a conclusion of no adverse effect on integrity before granting permission. Your Authority should not grant permission until such time as this mitigation has been secured.

The Conservation Objectives for the Braunton Burrows SAC explain how the sites should be restored and/or maintained and may be helpful in assessing what, if any, potential impacts a plan or project may have.

We note that a commitment has been made to making the appropriate financial contribution.

Nationally designated sites Taw Torridge Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

Further to our advice of 18th February 2019 Natural England remains concerned that this application has the potential to adversely affect the overwintering water bird interest of the Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI.

Without mitigation, the increase in activity on and around the site during construction (up to 15 years) and operation (recreational activity impacts from residents and visitors to the site) is likely to lead to disturbance and displacement of the overwintering estuary birds on the adjacent high tide roosting sites identified within the SSSI.

The data gathered through the Taw Torridge Estuary High Tide Roost and Recreational Impacts study5, of which your Authority is a partner, suggests this sector is of particular importance for providing quiet refuge to wintering wetland birds in the context of the estuary. This is confirmed by the applicant’s own over wintering bird surveys of 2016/17 and 2018/19.

A strategic approach to mitigation is the ideal outcome with all development adding to recreational impacts making a financial contribution to measures that avoid impacts.

However, based on the information provided for this application, whilst we welcome the mitigation proposed in the Environmental Statement which should be secured as legally binding conditions on any permission, Natural England has the following outstanding concerns:

 The proposed post and wire fencing along the estuary frontage needs to extend further to include that along RSPB land (to where the frontage joins the Tarka/cycle Trail) to prevent access from the ashbeds to Isley Marsh. This need to be made clear in text and maps provided.  The application needs to ensure that sufficient design measures to avoid and mitigate potential light and noise disturbance are incorporated into the proposal to be certain there would not be significant adverse impacts during construction and operation. We have raised concerns and provided detailed advice previously.  Noise and lighting mitigation must be included in the CEMP to cross reference with the

4 As the Competent Authority, North Devon Council is required to conduct a Habitat Regulations screening to determine the significance of impacts on Braunton Burrows Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the scope for mitigation and to demonstrate that the requirements of Regulations 63 and 64 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) have been considered by your authority. 5 https://www.northdevon.gov.uk/media/379527/final-report-identification-of-wintering-wildfowl-high-tide-roosts-and- recreational-disturbance-impacts-on-the-taw-torridge-estuary.pdf PagePage 5 of251 15 Please send consultations via email to: [email protected] Agenda Item 5 CEcoMP etc. Appendix G  The most sensitive period for the overwintering birds is September to March inclusive. The Construction period for the ground raising, rock armour and lagoon and relevant building phases are likely to require additional mitigation to that proposed if carried out during this period. This would include use of the jetty to bring in materials during construction.  Employment of the proposed warden should be implemented as soon as people are living in the dwellings not merely post construction.

In addition, we are concerned about the level at which enhancement features are being delivered:

 The number of nest boxes proposed is significantly below the level recommended by the RSPB.  Biodiversity net gains offsite have been identified as necessary but with no detail or certainty of delivery.

We welcome the proposal that the creation of a new pedestrian route from the development to link with the south west coast path to the west of the site would be re-routed to the landward side and below the embankment adjoining the estuary. Although we would prefer this access to be removed from the plans, the amended route will help to minimise potential disturbance in the area immediately to the west of the roost.

We recognise the work that has been done (light contour maps) to show that a 0.5lux dark corridor can be achieved on the Tarka Trail at the new access road crossing point.

We welcome the use of SuDS to maintain water quality/manage surface water runoff from the site and the consideration given to minimising impacts on the SSSI mudflats at the existing outfall in to the estuary by restricted discharge via on site attenuation. The Surface water management plan which will be provided at RM should include detail of the maintenance and management of the SuDS and how it will be funded. We would advise that a condition should be included on any permission or secured through S106 obligations as appropriate.

We would recommend that the developer works with the LPA regarding the number, location and wording of signage to ensure a consistent message as they are already looking at a wider estuary approach.

We would recommend that consideration is given to amending the proposed landscaping in the fields south of the Tarka Trail so that the trees are planted along the new access road rather than the eastern and southern field boundaries. This would help to maintain the open aspect/sight lines required by the water birds identified as using the fields opportunistically for foraging.

In conclusion, your Authority should ensure a comprehensive package of effective robust mitigation measures are secured before determination.

Should the application change, or if the applicant submits further information relating to the impact of this proposal on the Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI, Natural England will be happy to consider it, and amend our position as appropriate. Following submission of this advice to the LPA we are able to consider offering advice to the developer through our Discretionary Advice Service

Other advice

Please note that our advice in our consultation response of 18th February 2019 (ref 269685) for Biodiversity Net Gain; the North Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; Caen Valley Bats SSSI; South West Coast Path National Trail (SWCP NT)/Tarka Trail; Local Sites; Priority habitats and species; Protected species; Soils and the England Coastal Path remains current and relevant to the amended application. I have attached a copy for ease of reference.

Please do not hesitate to contact me on the details below if you wish to discuss anything further.

Yours sincerely Clare Guthrie

PagePage 6 of252 15 Please send consultations via email to: [email protected] Agenda Item 5 Appendix G 18 February 2019

Our ref: 269685 Your ref: 60823

Mr. Keith Bines Senior Planning Officer North Devon Council Customer Services Hornbeam House Crewe Business Park Electra Way Crewe BY EMAIL ONLY [email protected] Cheshire CW1 6GJ

T 0300 060 3900

Dear Keith,

Planning consultation: 60823 (Additional information) Hybrid planning application (A) Full application for the raising of the ground levels, site access works & highway infrastructure to site, (B) Outline application for 280 dwellings (use class C3); 50 bed hotel (class use C1) space of up to 3000sqm. employment (use class B1) space of up to 1000sqm gross floor space; up to 2000sqm (C) all the associated infrastructure including removal of any contamination, roads, footpaths, cycleway, drainage (including attenuation works), flood defence works, landscaping, public open space, utilities and vehicle parking and including demolition of buildings former Yelland power station Lower Yelland Yelland Barnstaple Devon EX31 3EZ.

Thank you for your email consultation received on 7th January 2019 regarding the above proposal. Based on the information provided we have the following comments6.

SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND’S ADVICE

Further information advised to determine impacts on designated sites:

 As the Competent Authority, North Devon Council is required to conduct a Habitat Regulations screening to determine the significance of impacts on Braunton Burrows Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the scope for mitigation and to demonstrate that the requirements of Regulations 63 and 64 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 have been considered by your authority.  Further consideration is required regarding impacts on, and mitigation for, the Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI.  Amendments to the Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) are required to include necessary SSSI mitigation.

Details are provided below. Without this information, Natural England may need to object to the proposal. Please re-consult Natural England once this information has been obtained.

Natural England’s advice on other matters is provided at Annex 1 of this letter.

6 This reply comprises our statutory consultation response under the provisions of Article 10 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Habitat Regulations 2017 and the EIA Regulations 2017. PagePage 7 of253 15 Please send consultations via email to: [email protected] Agenda Item 5 Appendix G European designated sites Braunton Burrows Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Braunton Burrows SAC is one of the most important sand-dune systems in the country. The application is for residential development likely to have an indirect impact on the Braunton Burrows SAC because of its proximity to the European site and the likelihood of recreational impacts associated with development.

North Devon Council’s Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) at the Joint Plan level (JLP) considered whether there would be an increase in recreational pressures on the Braunton Burrows SAC associated with housing development allocated in North Devon and Torridge Districts over the life of the JLP. It identified the main recreational pressure as coming from the Braunton, Wrafton and Chivenor area and concluded that there is unlikely to be an adverse effect on the integrity of the interest features for which the Braunton Burrows SAC has been notified.

However, since adoption of the JLP, new evidence has come to light through an assessment, commissioned by the Council, of the potential recreational impacts linked to non and plan-led development for the Braunton Burrows SAC (Footprint Ecology September 2018).

The report states that ‘recreational impacts are currently evident at Braunton Burrows’ and that ‘recreational impacts would be likely to intensify and spread as a result of an increase in visitor numbers’. It also states that ‘where likely significant effects are identified it is anticipated that it will be difficult to rule out adverse effects on integrity without appropriate mitigation’.

This would suggest that there is a probability or risk that recreational activities arising from occupants of all new residential development within a certain distance of the Burrows would, in combination, have a significant effect on the SAC. In light of the new evidence, it is no longer appropriate to conclude no adverse effect on integrity (AEOI) from plan led housing.

North Devon Council is currently working on identifying a Zone of Influence (ZoI) where effects from development could have a likely significant effect (LSE) on the special interest of the Braunton Burrows SAC. It is possible that Yelland Quay will fall within the ZoI.

All new applications likely to have a significant effect will require Appropriate Assessment and need to address measures for mitigation prior to determination. All future assessments should be made in light of the best and most recent evidence available.

As a competent authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, North Devon Council should have regard for any potential impacts that a plan or project may have7 and are required (by Regulations 63 and 64 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017) to conduct a Habitat Regulations Assessment to determine the significance of these impacts on the SAC and the scope for mitigation.

The Conservation Objectives for the Braunton Burrows SAC explain how the sites should be restored and/or maintained and may be helpful in assessing what, if any, potential impacts a plan or project may have.

People Over Wind North Devon Council as the competent authority will need to seek and rely upon their own legal advice on the interpretation of People Over Wind8. This case relates to how mitigation measures are treated at the screening stage of a Habitats Regulations Assessments (HRA) when deciding whether an

7 Requirements are set out within Regulations 63 and 64 of the Habitats Regulations, where a series of steps and tests are followed for plans or projects that could potentially affect a European site. The steps and tests set out within Regulations 63 and 64 are commonly referred to as the ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment’ process. The Government has produced core guidance for competent authorities and developers to assist with the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. This can be found on the Defra website. http://www.defra.gov.uk/habitats-review/implementation/process-guidance/guidance/sites/ 8 Ruling made on 12 April 2018 by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) on the interpretation of the Habitats Directive in the case of People Over Wind and Sweetman vs Coillte Teoranta (ref: C-323/17). PagePage 8 of254 15 Please send consultations via email to: [email protected] Agenda Item 5 Appendix G appropriate assessment of a plan/project is required. This judgment is now the leading case on mitigation and screening assessments and all competent authorities should be mindful of it in the context of their own screening decisions taken under the Habitats Regulations. They should come to their own view as to whether to undertake appropriate assessments of plans and projects that they are responsible for.

Nationally designated sites Taw Torridge Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) The proposal is adjacent to the Taw Torridge Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which is notified for its intertidal mud and saltmarsh habitat and overwintering bird interest (high numbers of overwintering Golden Plover, Lapwing and Curlew, more than 20,000 Non-Breeding Water birds).

Further information on the SSSI special interest features can be found at www.magic.gov.uk The composition of the SSSI assemblage alters through time as species populations fluctuate, therefore any native wetland bird species (in practice waders and wildfowl) will be a legitimate part of the bird assemblage.

Although the principle of mixed use development at Yelland Quay has been established in the adopted Local Plan (Policy FRE02), based on the survey data available the location and scale of development and duration of build have the potential to adversely affect the overwintering birds associated with the Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI.

Without mitigation, the increase in activity on and around the site during construction (5-15 years) and operation (recreational activity impacts) is likely to lead to disturbance and displacement of the overwintering estuary birds on the adjacent high tide roosting sites identified within the SSSI. The estuary birds are particularly sensitive during the winter and during stopovers on annual migrations, throughout which time they must build up energy reserves. Any disturbance that causes them to take flight, especially repeatedly, reduces foraging time and causes additional energy expenditure. This can result in a reduction in fitness making it a challenge to survive the winter.

The British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) Wetland bird Survey (WeBS) data indicates that the Isley to Instow count sector is of particular importance to wintering wetland birds in the context of the estuary with the High Tide Roost at Yelland being particularly important. The 2017/18 overwintering bird surveys provided in the Environmental Statement (ES) support this.

The data being gathered through the Taw Torridge Estuary High Tide Roost and Recreational Impacts study (due to report at the end of March 2019), of which your Authority is a partner, suggests the Yelland roost is one of the few places within the estuary to provide quiet refuge for birds. Other roost sites are available in the estuary but are already subject to greater levels of disturbance. Ultimately, this can reduce the capacity of an area to support large numbers of birds.

The footpath/recreation surveys done as part of the ES show that the South West Coast Path National Trail which runs along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to the estuary is used all year round but is currently used by low numbers of visitors, predominantly dog walkers, during the winter (average 11/day).

The Cotswold Transport Planning Footpath and Household visitor surveys identified that provision of parking, toilets, circular routes, cafés etc. would encourage people to other sites. These elements will all be provided by the development and it is therefore likely to attract more people from further afield as well as those resident.

The Taw Torridge Estuary Management Plan 2010-2015 has as its first Aim ‘To reverse the decline in biodiversity’ and states that ‘The main concern around the Taw Torridge Estuary relates to the disturbance to wildlife’. It identifies the potential for creating alternative sites in the estuary via various policies and objectives e.g. Policy C1 no net loss of intertidal area through coastal squeeze; Objective CC1 by 2015 there will be 15ha of new estuary side habitat; Objective BIO2 there will be an increase in suitable roosting habitat for birds within the estuary.

PagePage 9 of255 15 Please send consultations via email to: [email protected] Agenda Item 5 Appendix G

The development site is in an area of anticipated coastal change. North Devon Council will need to consider this proposal in view of SMP2 policy and the anticipated Taw Torridge Estuary coastal change management area (CCMA). In light of climate change/sea level rise and the requirement to retain and improve existing coastal defences the saltmarsh at this location is likely to be subject to coastal squeeze and is likely to disappear with a loss of the high tide roost.

Based on the information provided, whilst we welcome the mitigation proposed, Natural England has the following concerns:

Noise – further consideration The noise assessment (chapter 13) appear to underplay the potential impact on the ecological receptors (EC 1-3). Predicted construction noise levels appear to be based on a 10 hour average (LAeq 10hr) and a change of 3dB LAeq is considered to be slight. Table 13.18 indicates increases in background ambient noise as a result of construction of between 2.1 and 14dB.

Natural England’s advice is that predicted construction and operational noise levels should be within background levels and that an increase of 3dB to the LAeq measure can be considered significant.

We welcome the commitment to mitigating noise from construction activities but do not feel the information submitted provides the LPA with enough certainty that impacts will be avoided. The noise assessment has confirmed that the site can be considered quiet at the ecological receptors. The prolonged nature of the construction phase (5-15 years) is an important consideration when thinking about introducing increased noise levels to a site.

Timing of works has the potential to reduce potential disturbance effects substantially in some circumstances. For example, on estuaries the most sensitive period, when the greatest numbers of birds are present will be between September and March. Requiring a blanket restriction on all construction works for several months can be very restrictive to developers and does not take account of site-specific information such as the existing background noise at the site, the timing of significant aggregations of birds in the affected area and the possibility of less noisy works being carried out during sensitive periods.

At coastal locations the tidal cycle might provide opportunities to synchronise the noisiest and most disturbing activities with states of the tide when birds are least vulnerable to disturbance. For example, disturbance could be restricted to the state of the tide when birds are foraging farthest from the working area, generally at low tide, or at the higher tides when no intertidal habitat is exposed (and if no high tide roosts are nearby).

Effective acoustic screening requires intercepting the ‘line-of-sight’ between source and receptor birds. Screening is often very effective when works are taking place at ground level. Ordinary acoustic screens are often ineffective for piling as pile lengths can be 20m above ground when piling commences. For work at higher elevations an acoustic curtain is available (e.g. Soundex) which is hung from scaffolding.

 Natural England’s advice is that noise contour maps of background noise levels and predicted construction noise levels are provided to indicate more clearly where the significant impacts are likely to be and when. As the development is large scale lasting many years we would also advise a noise scatter graph.  A noise management plan can then be produced to ensure that construction and operational noise levels are within background levels and where any significant increases are predicted at ecological receptors, with the 2.5m high acoustic screen in place, then additional measures will be required e.g. categorising activities that would create significant noise impact and carrying them out at times of low tide. Noise modelling will avoid the need for mitigation measures to apply to the whole site and at all phases.

PagePage 10 256of 15 Please send consultations via email to: [email protected] Agenda Item 5 Appendix G Lighting – further consideration  Detailed lighting design for the development is proposed at the detail design stage in accordance with the lighting strategy. This currently covers public lighting only. Our advice is that consideration must also be given to the potential impacts of private lighting. All designs should be subject to review by lighting specialists and ecologists to ensure a dark corridor (<0.5lux) at the estuary front. Consideration could be given to the use of specialist glazing in the dwellings/buildings closest to the foreshore.

Proposed Mitigation – amendments/further consideration  Fencing is proposed along the whole of the estuary front to prevent access to the foreshore. Our advice is that this must extend further east to prevent access from the ashbeds to Isley Marsh RSPB reserve.  Amendments to the Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) are required to include reference to mitigation required to protect the SSSI i.e. noise mitigation/acoustic screening and construction lighting on the foreshore.  An alternative to the footpath link from the development to the coast path shown on the proposed site plan ref: Y029 18 at the western end needs to be considered as it will put people on to the coast path adjacent to the high tide roost. The proposed screen may need to extend further to the west to avoid the same issue.  Construction of the flood defence/ground raising is proposed for the period March to October. Our advice is that the most sensitive period, when the greatest numbers of birds are present, will be between September and March inclusive and so the construction period may need to be shortened or additional mitigation put in place.

Additional mitigation  We would like to see consideration given to securing additional habitat in perpetuity for the birds to use at high tide. This would include compensating for the loss of the fields to the south of the development that have been identified as opportunistic but regular foraging areas for Lapwing and Little egret. The detail of the offsite biodiversity netgain has not been determined but offsite projects that also contribute towards the ecological function of the estuary e.g. habitat/habitat features that support overwintering waders and wildfowl associated with the SSSI should be considered such as Bowling Green Marsh in Topsham (associated with the Exe Estuary SPA).  Although not a SSSI feature, the level of bird use during the summer is of County Wildlife Site level importance. No reference has been made to the breeding Oystercatcher roost on the jetty identified in the 2015 ACD assessment.

Water quality  Maintenance of a SuDS scheme is essential to ensure it functions as designed whilst also optimising benefits for biodiversity. How this will be achieved in the short, medium and long term needs to be identified and legally enforceable.  How the maintenance and management of the SuDS will be funded is also an important element of any strategy. If the Planning Authority is minded to grant the application we would advise that a condition should be included on any permission or secured through S106 obligations as appropriate.

Should the application change, or if the applicant submits further information relating to the impact of this proposal on the Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI, Natural England will be happy to consider it, and amend our position as appropriate. Following submission of this advice to the LPA we are able to consider offering advice to the developer through our Discretionary Advice Service.

Local sites RSPB Isley Marsh nature reserve and Home Farm Marsh nature reserve/County Wildlife Site (Gaia Trust) Your authority should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on any Local Sites such as County Wildlife Sites (CWS).

The RSPB Isley Marsh nature reserve and Home Farm Marsh nature reserve/County Wildlife Site

PagePage 11 257of 15 Please send consultations via email to: [email protected] Agenda Item 5 Appendix G (Gaia Trust) are in close proximity to the development site. Your Authority should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on these local sites before it determines the application.

The estuary also provides important summer foraging habitat for waders/wildfowl associated with the SSSI interest. Although not a SSSI feature, the level of bird use during the summer is of County Wildlife Site level importance.

The impacts will be similar to those identified for the Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI and Yelland roost so we would refer you to the comments already made in this letter.

Natural England’s advice on additional matters is provided at Annex 1 of this letter.

Please do not hesitate to contact me on the details below if you wish to discuss anything further.

Yours sincerely

Clare Guthrie Lead Adviser Tel: 0208 0267393 Email: [email protected]

PagePage 12 258of 15 Please send consultations via email to: [email protected] Agenda Item 5 Appendix G Annex A

Nationally designated sites Caen Valley Bats SSSI Although the proposal is some distance from the Caen Valley Bats SSSI, Greater Horseshoe bats associated with the SSSI are known to cross the estuary at the Caen River to the south side of the river Taw and then fly along the Tarka Trail. Further information on the SSSI special interest features can be found at www.magic.gov.uk

Based on the information provided and the mitigation proposed, our advice is that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on the Greater Horseshoe bats associated with the SSSI. For other species of bat please refer to Natural England’s standing advice.

Information in the Environmental Statement indicates that lighting levels along the Tarka Trail will be <0.5lux to maintain a dark flight corridor for foraging and commuting bats and that large parts of the site will remain unlit. Low level downward bollard lighting will be used in the main development.

We would draw your attention to The Institute of Lighting Professionals’ practical guidance on considering the impact on bats when designing lighting schemes - Guidance Note 8 Bats and Artificial Lighting. They have partnered with the Bat Conservation Trust and ecological consultants to write this document on avoiding or reducing the harmful effects which artificial lighting may have on bats and their habitats.

Low numbers of Greater Horseshoe and Daubenton’s bats were recorded in the underground chamber to the west of the development site indicating a day roost and a night/feeding roost. It has also been shown to host a small number of hibernating Lesser Horseshoe bats.

The loss of these roosts will be compensated for, under licence, with a bespoke bat house sited in the dark corridor alongside the Tarka Trail to the south east of the development site.

Appropriately worded conditions should be part of any permission to secure all necessary mitigation measures.

Biodiversity Net gain Development provides opportunities to secure a net gain for nature in line with paragraphs 170 and 174 of the revised NPPF (2018) and the Defra 25 year Environment Plan.

Policy ST14 Enhancing Environmental Assets of the North Devon and Torridge Joint Local Plan expects all development to provide a net gain in biodiversity (note 6.4 of Policy ST14).

Biodiversity metrics9 are available to provide certainty and assist developers and local authorities in quantifying and securing net gain. Local Authorities can set their own net gain thresholds but Natural England would currently expect a minimum of 5% net gain and LPAs should aim to negotiate upwards.

The metric submitted indicates that biodiversity net gain cannot be achieved within the site and the applicant recognises this will need to be secured off-site. The detail of this has not been determined but offsite projects that also contribute towards the ecological function of the estuary e.g. habitat/habitat features that support overwintering waders and wildfowl associated with the SSSI should be considered.

We note the development includes green space provision in the form of playing fields, public open space, plus a SuDS area to the west. The proposal could also consider incorporating orchards and allotments. The development could consider supporting rarer species within the orchard or as specimen fruit trees, contributing towards keeping them from extinction. As an example, the parish of Landkey, to the south east of Barnstaple, has been instrumental in reviving the mazzard, a type of

9 e.g. Defra metric; North Devon Biosphere reserve metric based on the Defra metric PagePage 13 259of 15 Please send consultations via email to: [email protected] Agenda Item 5 Appendix G cherry peculiar to the West Country. More detail can be found at http://www.englandinparticular.info/orchards/o-devon.html

As proposed, to ensure delivery of appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures, Landscape and Environmental Management Plans should be secured via conditions or obligations as appropriate.

Landscape impacts North Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) The proposed development is for a site within the setting of North Devon AONB, a nationally designated landscape.

Although the proposal site represents development of a brownfield site, the introduction of housing here will change the landscape character of the area, bringing the town to the river edge and urbanising what is a relatively undeveloped estuary.

Natural England advises that the planning authority gives the advice of the North Devon AONB partnership careful consideration, alongside national and local policies to determine the proposal.

The policy and statutory framework to guide your decision and the role of local advice are explained here.

Your decision should be guided by paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework which gives the highest status of protection for the ‘landscape and scenic beauty’ of AONBs and National Parks. For major development proposals paragraph 172 sets out criteria to determine whether the development should exceptionally be permitted within the designated landscape.

Alongside national policy you should also apply landscape policies set out in your development plan particularly ST09, ST14 and DM08A.

The AONB Partnership will have knowledge of the site and its wider landscape setting, together with the aims and objectives of the AONB’s statutory management plan, which will be a valuable contribution to the planning decision.

Where available, a local Landscape Character Assessment can also be a helpful guide to the landscape’s sensitivity to this type of development and its capacity to accommodate the proposed development. All proposals should complement and enhance local distinctiveness.

The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty. You should assess the application carefully as to whether the proposed development would have a significant impact on or harm that statutory purpose. Relevant to this is the duty on public bodies to ‘have regard’ for that statutory purpose in carrying out their functions (S85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000).

The Planning Practice Guidance confirms that this duty also applies to proposals outside the designated area but impacting on its natural beauty.

South West Coast Path National Trail (SWCP NT)/Tarka Trail The proposal is adjacent to the South West Coast Path National Trail and the Tarka Trail.

Based on the information provided, there are likely to be direct landscape and visual impacts on the SWCP NT and Tarka Trail as well as physical disruption during construction of the development site.

Although the proposal site represents development of a brownfield site, the introduction of housing here will change the landscape character of the area, bringing the town to the river edge and urbanising what is a relatively undeveloped area of the estuary.

We recognise that the close board fencing, necessary to buffer the SSSI high tide roost, will have an

PagePage 14 260of 15 Please send consultations via email to: [email protected] Agenda Item 5 Appendix G impact on the coast path experience at that point. Viewing points within the fence will enable walkers to see the views without disturbing the birds, similar to a bird hide.

The ES states that the greatest significant effect would be felt by recreational users of the SWCP NT closest to the site.

Your Authority should be satisfied that the development will not detract from the overarching perceptions of remoteness and relative tranquillity when travelling along this route and that appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated for any adverse impacts.

We advise you to also seek the advice of the National Trail Officer and/or the Coast Path Officer for North Devon to ensure there are no adverse effects on the Trail. Their knowledge of the location and wider landscape setting of the development should help to confirm whether or not it would impact significantly on the SWCP NT/Tarka Trail. The National Trails website www.nationaltrail.co.uk provides information including contact details for the National Trail Officers.

Priority habitats and species Priority habitats and Species are of particular importance for nature conservation and included in the England Biodiversity List published under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 found here10. Consideration should be given to how any loss will be avoided, mitigated or compensated.

The ES chapter 6 has identified several priority habitats and species within the development site.

Measures to avoid or reduce impacts or compensate for habitat loss should be secured via the LEMP.

Protected Species Natural England has produced standing advice11 to help planning authorities understand the impact of particular developments on protected species. We advise you to refer to this advice.

Natural England will only provide bespoke advice on protected species where they form part of a SSSI or in exceptional circumstances.

Soil and land use Guidance on soil protection is available in the Defra Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites, and we recommend its use in the design and construction of development, including any planning conditions.

10http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140711133551/http:/www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodivers ity/protectandmanage/habsandspeciesimportance.aspx 11 https://www.gov.uk/protected-species-and-sites-how-to-review-planning-proposals PagePage 15 261of 15 Please send consultations via email to: [email protected] This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5 Appendix H Kelly Davey

From: Mark Saunders Sent: 20 February 2020 12:53 To: Jean Watkins; Planning Subject: FW: Request for consultation on 60823 at FORMER YELLAND POWER STATION, LOWER YELLAND, YELLAND, BARNSTAPLE, DEVON, EX31 3EZ

Jean,

Habitat Enhancement · The location of the Bat Box Building appears overly close to the Tarka Trail and clearly risks persistent disturbance. · The overall total proposed bat and bird box provision should be significantly increased to reflect the views of the RSPB (18/02/19) and in accordance with good practice. This revised figure should be included in the LEMS and indicative locations for provision of all habitat mitigation and enhancements, e.g. bat/bird boxes, hibernacula, etc throughout the site should be illustrated on appropriate plans. · There is currently insufficient detail regarding a site wide lighting specification. Specification should be sufficiently detailed to inform detailed modelling, lux contour map and secure appropriate levels of illumination resulting from all external and internal lighting. Current proposals for 5-6m high column mounted lighting in the car park to the south of the Tarka Trail and along the length of the access road would potential result significant impacts on the proposed dark corridor and open character of the landscape to the south. · The Preliminary Access Plans appear to indicate that proposed access road will be tree lined to the west. The Strategic Landscape Plan and Proposed Site Plan do not illustrate this element of landscaping and instead show additional tree planting to the existing field boundaries to the east and west. This offsite planting does not reflect the local landscape character and would restrict open aspect/sight lines required by the water birds identified as using the fields opportunistically for foraging. A woodland plantation between the existing and proposed access routes would potentially provide greater ecological opportunities and reflect existing landscape composition. · Site wide public open space information boards, North Devon Biosphere officer monitoring and North Devon Council dog waste bin arrangements should be set out in more detail in the LEMS.

Taw-Torridge Estuary SSSI · The Identification of Wintering Wildfowl High Tide Roosts & Recreational Disturbance Impacts on the Taw Torridge Estuary (2019) concludes: o Despite its relatively small size in comparison to other high tide roosts on the estuary, the location of Yelland roost at the blunt end of a small west-facing promontory gives it an importance that belies its size, as shown by the range of species that gather there from early autumn until early spring. o Yelland roost is a ‘go-to’ roost for birds disturbed from high-tide roosts at Crow Point (especially Oystercatchers), The Black Ground and Cool Stone at Instow (mixed waders), and from along Chivenor bank (waders and wildfowl). o The main source of disturbance to the roost is walkers, mainly with their dogs, which can cause the roost to flush when they veer off the SWCP to traverse the saltmarsh or more usually (and easily) the open rocky area between the vegetation and the shoreline. o In general, roosting birds will sit ‘tight’ (shuffling as close to the shoreline as possible) when walkers, joggers, dogs and the occasional solitary birdwatcher pass by on the coast path. o Two easily implemented, complementary and cost-effective options to protect this roost are: § Information boards showing the roost site and the birds present, and a suggested ‘no go’ zone (either voluntary or enforced) around it. Boards could be situated at or near the concrete bridge over the defunct water outlet from the old power station, and at, or near, the point where the path crosses the track from the business park to the old quay. § Screening or fencing along a section of the SWCP to prevent easy access to the foreshore in the vicinity of the roost area. · The current proposal for a timber screen to western edge of footpath would partially satisfy the assessments recommendations but directly conflicts with the recommendations of the SWCP. The specific design of the structure has not been demonstrated and therefore there is no certainty that it will be acceptable in ecological, landscape or amenity terms. There also appears to be no substantive justification for the proposed screen to be roofed. A specific design should be agreed which will satisfy the recommendations above and the requirements of all relevant stakeholders. The design should clearly illustrate how any screen proposed for this area will be sufficiently robust to withstand prevalent wind and wave action. · The creation of a new pedestrian route from the development to link with the south west coast path to the west of the site should be clearly identified as a priority route with suitable interpretation boards. However, the proposed route through the development would clearly be more attractive to residents and visitors alike if it were aligned to the eastern bank of

Page1 263 Agenda Item 5 the ponds rather than between two distinct areas of development. Consideration shouldAppendix be given H to providing a robust and attractive route which offers the most realistic opportunities of being adopted as part of a diverted SWCP in the future. The route should offer walkers a similar experience to the existing path with expansive, uninterrupted views across the estuary. · The exact location and extent of the post and rail fence to the east of the jetty is not sufficiently clear on the current Masterplan and Site Plan. The fence should extend from the east of the jetty and encompass the entirety of the footpath adjacent to Isley Marsh before reconnecting with the Tarka Trail to prevent access to the foreshore. · ES p6.8.3 states that constructions works along the north west boundary would be undertaken between April and the end of September. This may conflict with most sensitive overwintering water bird period September to March inclusive. Therefore additional measures may be necessary to facilitate development during the month of September. Temporary visual and acoustic screening along the north-western boundary including consideration of acoustic curtains should be illustrated within the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy (LEMS). · The SSSI monitoring and contingency measures should be identified in the LEMS and clearly establish the procedures in place should monitoring identify regular disturbance during construction. This should include consideration of avoiding construction practices affecting the foreshore when a specific tidal height is exceeded. This will involve agreement with Natural England and RSPB regarding any requirement for specific noise and lighting thresholds. · The LEMS should be amended to include a statement clearly establishing the number, nature and locations of SSSI interpretation signs throughout the site and the operating remit of the wardening provision as well as all online and resident information provision. The ES indicates wardening provision of at least two days per week from September to March although the remit should be extended to a year round provision to mitigate disturbance risks across the whole estuary but specifically Isley Marsh nature reserve and Home Farm Marsh County Wildlife Site (CWS) and the County Wildlife Site level importance bird use during the summer.

Biodiversity Net Gain · A ‘live’ Defra metric tool should be submitted to enable the reader to follow the assessments through baseline, post development, mitigation and enhancement calculations. · The metric and ES p6.7.19 concludes significant net losses across the development despite including the enhancement of 1.25ha of poor semi-improved grassland adjacent to the site (to the south of the Tarka Trail) to ‘Good’ condition wildflower grassland with trees. This tree provision is potentially inappropriate for reasons set out above and in Natural England’s response (14/12/20). · Offsite provision of habitat to achieve a net gain should be clearly detailed, particularly where this has been agreed with third party landowners or the Biosphere Reserve. Offsite projects that also contribute towards the ecological function of the estuary e.g. habitat/habitat features that support overwintering waders and wildfowl associated with the SSSI should be considered. · It is unclear whether the proposed habitat mitigation on land within the applicant’s ownership can be secured when outside of the current red line boundary, e.g. heron platforms and wildflower meadows. · ES p6.8.2 states ‘Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy (LEMS) provides the framework for the delivery of a series of Construction Ecological Management Plans (CEcoMPs) and post-construction Landscape and Ecological Management Plans (LEMPs), that would be produced for each phase of the development. CEcoMPs would be appended to respective Construction Environmental Management Plans, as appropriate’. The LEMS should specifically refer to the requirement for the LEMPs to achieve a net gain for biodiversity across the entire development in accordance with the Defra metric. · The amended proposals have resulted in further encroachment on open land to the east. It is not clear whether the submitted net gain metric accounts for this additional loss within its overall assessment.

Braunton Burrows SAC · In terms of the location of the site, it is within the Zone of Influence (ZOI) identified through the Local Authority’s Appropriate Assessment in relation to the Braunton Burrows Special Area Conservation (SAC) under the Habitats Regulations 2017. As such, any new residential development in the ZoI is considered to have recreational impacts on the SAC and is therefore required to pay a contribution of £100 per unit in order to mitigate the impacts of development. At present developers can either enter into a S106 agreement or make a direct payment to the LPA under Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972. · Based on the information provided, the application will increase residential capacity and is therefore likely to have an indirect impact on the Braunton Burrows SAC due to its proximity and the likelihood of recreational impacts associated with visitor impacts. North Devon Council must have regard for any potential impacts that a plan or project may have and are required to conduct a Habitats Regulations Assessment to determine the significance of these impacts on the SAC and the scope for mitigation. · North Devon Council’s Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) at the Joint Plan level (JLP) identified the main recreational pressure as coming from the Braunton, Wrafton, Chivenor area and concluded that there is unlikely to be an adverse effect on the integrity of the interest features of the SAC. However, since adoption of the JLP, new evidence has concluded that recreational impacts are evident and contributions towards strategic mitigation will be required from all development within an identified Zone of Influence.

Landscape Character and Visual Impact

Page2 264 Agenda Item 5 · The submitted plans exhibit numerous inconsistencies in terms of landscaping andAppendix therefore it His unclear how judgements on landscape and visual impact have been assessed. The submitted Strategic Landscape Masterplan, Proposed Site Plan and Axonometric Views show differing provision of planting particularly on the northern and western frontages which will impact on views from across the estuary, and from Appledore and Northam Burrows. As such the Western Edge Sections cannot be viewed as representative of the potential scale of effects on the estuary character. · Strategic planting is particularly important on the western and northern boundaries and should be combined with appropriate landform variations to reduce the mass of development as currently illustrated. Rerouting the proposed footpath alongside the ponds eastern bank would offer greater opportunities to soften the developments edge. · The eastern boundary ‘soft green boundary edge’ is illustrated as a planted Devon Bank however consideration should be to expanding this area to form a transitional boundary incorporating an appropriate variety of planting. Greater connectivity of this feature through the eastern flank of housing would also improve the ecological network and soften the overall appearance. · The positioning of the five and six storey buildings potentially adds significant mass to distant views and is not reflective of other coastal villages within the setting. An interactive 3D model of the proposals may be a useful tool in demonstrating the potential impact of the development at a human scale both from within the site and from distant views around the estuary setting. · Opportunities to incorporate green roofs and other ecologically sensitive materials would help to make the proposals unique, soften the appearance of the scheme in distant views and reduce the reliance on strategic offsite habitat mitigation.

Regards

Mark Saunders | Sustainability Officer | Strategic Development & Planning | Place Services North Devon Council | Barnstaple Tel: 01271 388413 (for typetalk precede with 18001) www.northdevon.gov.uk

From: Planning Sent: 17 January 2020 10:00 To: Mark Saunders Subject: Request for consultation on 60823 at FORMER YELLAND POWER STATION, LOWER YELLAND, YELLAND, BARNSTAPLE, DEVON, EX31 3EZ

Please see the attached consultation letter regarding the above application which has been received by North Devon Council. If this letter is in relation to a pre-application enquiry please reply to this email to submit your comment; otherwise please open the attachment, click the hyperlink, press comment on this application and complete your comment in the comments box. If you are having any difficulties, please get in contact with us. Planning Support Team

Page3 265 This page is intentionally left blank OFFICIAL Agenda Item 5 Appendix I

Viability Report Former Yelland Power Station

Prepared by Plymouth City Council’s Development Viability team for North Devon District Council to support the determination of planning application 60823

Page 267 OFFICIAL Agenda Item 5 Appendix I Viability Report: Former Yelland Power Station

1 Introduction

1.1 This report has been prepared by Plymouth City Council’s Development Viability team in order to provide development viability advice to North Devon District Council (“the Council”) relating to the proposed development site at the Former Yelland Power Station, Yelland, Barnstaple EX31 3EZ (“the Site”) and associated planning application (ref: 60823).

1.2 In relation to the above we understand that the Applicant is seeking to develop the site for 250 dwellings and circa 6000 sqm of commercial and employment space. In line with its policies as set out in the Local Plan the Council are seeking the provision of at least 30% of the dwellings to be affordable as well as section 106 contributions for a range of mitigation measures. The Applicant has engaged with the Council with regards to the viability challenges and is of the opinion that the scheme will not be able to achieve meaningful 106 contributions due to the substantial abnormal cost of delivering the site for housing.

1.3 The Council has instructed us to advise them on resolving the viability position and section 106 contributions in line with the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance on Viability.

2 Summary of viability

2.1 The site has considerable exceptional and abnormals costs related to the presence of the former power station as well as the proximity of river. These conditions are not typical, are site specific and have a material impact of the delivery of the scheme.

2.2 Barnstaple based cost consultancy Gates Consultants had previously provided advice to the Applicant on the likely costs of delivering this site. We recommended that the Council and the Applicant jointly instruct Gates to refresh this advice and update it based on the most recent scheme.

2.3 Gates completed this work and it can be seen at Appendix 1. Gates then went on to undertake a full viability appraisal of the site and this can be seen at Appendix 2.

2.4 Gates’ view of viability was that there would be sufficient surplus in the scheme for a 106 contribution of circa £500,000 if no affordable housing was delivered. The driver for this was there being in the region of about £19m of abnormal costs associated with delivering housing here, over 20% of the schemes total cost, which is exceptionally high.

2.5 Discussion of these figures between PCC, the Council and the Applicant and their agents then commenced and an agreement was reached that the Applicant would pay the Education contribution being sought which was £1,417, 869 and that this was a figure sufficient to comply with Planning Practice Guidance on Viability.

Page 268 OFFICIAL Agenda Item 5 Appendix I 3 The site specific viability challenge

3.1 A full breakdown of the cost assessment of the scheme can be seen at Appendix 1 however it may be helpful to share the most significant elements that are impacting this scheme’s ability to make contributions toward affordable housing and other section 106 requirements. It should be noted that these abnormal costs are specific to this development and would not have been taken in to account when North Devon District Council formulated their area wide Local Plan or assessed the viability of their policies.

3.2 Ground Conditions – The site is immediately adjacent to the River Taw estuary and the ground conditions are poor for development. A range of interventions are needed to allow for development to take place here and are as follows:

• Raising level to site generally - £9.7m • Enhanced piling for structures - £1.8m

3.3 Presence of Power Station – The existing power station needs to be demolished and cleared.

• Demolition and clearance - 0.5m • Fill to existing power station turbine basement - £2.25m

3.4 Formation of the lagoon • In addition to raising levels; lining, draining and petrol interceptor £1.2m

3.5 In addition to these items there are various extra-over costs related to building the dwellings themselves in the ground conditions at the former Yelland Power Station, specifically the enhanced piling required, and these add a further £1.9m abnormal cost.

3.6 There are a number of allowances that have been made that aren’t related to the ground conditions but are specific to the site and are negatively impacting viability. The Council should satisfy themselves that the following have been secured as they are included in this appraisal: Social hub, public car park, Tarka Trail and creation of a piazza.

4 Section 106 Negotiation

4.1 Whilst accepting of the viability position it was clear from discussions with The Council that for the scheme to make no section 106 contribution would not be acceptable. We proposed that a review mechanism was included in the section 106 agreement that would allow for any improvement in viability over the life of the development to capture value that could be used to contribute to the initial planning obligations.

4.2 Following discussions with the applicant and their agent the applicant, as they would need to bring in additional developers to deliver the scheme, preferred not to enter in to a review mechanism. My advice to the Council therefore was that to avoid such a mechanism the applicant should agree to make a material contribution as part of the Section 106 agreement. Following negotiations this was agreed to be the Education contribution of £1.418m. Confirmation of this can be seen at Appendix 3. Page 269 OFFICIAL Agenda Item 5 Appendix I

5 Conclusion

5.1 Having considered the circumstances of the site and the evidence provided to North Devon District Council by Gates Construction Consultants of Barnstaple I am satisfied that the proposed scheme cannot support making Section 106 contributions.

5.2 In such circumstances, and in line with Planning Practice Guidance, my advice to The Council would be to secure a review mechanism to allow for contributions should the scheme viability improve. In this instance the Applicant has offered a contribution of £1.418m in lieu of this review mechanism and I am of the opinion that it is more likely than not that this amount would exceed any amount achieved through a review mechanism. Furthermore The Council can negotiate payment of this amount far earlier than would be achieved from a review process and therefore my advice to them is that this would be an appropriate outcome providing best value to the Council and be in accordance with Planning Practice Guidance.

I hope that the above aids you in determining the planning application but should you need anything further please do not hesitate to contact me.

Joe McCarthy Development Viability Officer Plymouth City Council West Hoe Road Plymouth PL1 3BJ

Page 270 Agenda Item 6

Application Report Strategic Development & Planning Place Services North Devon Council Lynton House, Commercial Road, Barnstaple, EX31 1DG

Application No: 71708 Application 21 April 2021 Expiry: Application Type: Full application Ext Of Time 21 April 2021 Expiry: Publicity Expiry: 19 November 2020 Parish/Ward: Fremington/ Horwood Lovacott Newton Tracey/Fremington/Instow Location: Land at Litchardon Cross Newton Tracey EX31 3QE Proposal: Installation of solar farm and associated infrastructure (amended plans and additional details) Agent: John Fairlie Applicant: Aura Planning Case Officer: Mr R. Bagley Departure: Y EIA Development: Y EIA Conclusion: An environment statement has been submitted.

Decision Level/Reason for Report to Committee: At the request of Councillor Mackie and Councillor Biederman for the following reasons:

- Will the screening measures be adequate to protect the short and long term impact on the rural views of North Devon? This could affect Tourism. - The application says that it can still be used for agricultural purposes but we need to be convinced this will be the case - There will be significant impact in the construction phase of the site. Is there a safe and adequate site access that does not mean losing significant wildlife habitat. - Given the importance of Old Bideford Road during rush hours, will this be the best way to access the site? A solar farm of this scale should be seen to be democratically considered

Page 271 Agenda Item 6

Site Description The Proposed solar development site is located on agricultural land approximately 1.5 km from Barnstaple (Roundswell), 1.9 km to the south of Fremington and approximately 1.6 km to the south west of the hamlet of Holmacott.

The A39 Link Road runs through the south west of the site. To the North West, at Collacott Farm, there is a 500 kW wind turbine, measuring 79 metres in height (Application ref: 54353) and an existing solar PV array (Application ref: 58715).

Within the boundary of the site, to the south west of Litchardon Farm there is an existing wind turbine measuring 79 metres high (Application ref: 56756). To the South West there is a smaller 34.2m high wind turbine. To the East are 2 existing pylon masts. To the South West of the site there is a landfill site. Existing electricity pylons are present within the site from North to South and to the East of the site. There are various smaller electricity and communication masts within and bounding the site.

The Old Bideford Road runs to the West of the site and various smaller single track rural roads run within and around the site. There are no Public Rights of Way (PROW) within the site but there are PROW in the vicinity of the site (Tawstock Footpath No 6, Horwood, Lovacott and Newton Tracey footpaths 6,47,48 and 49, Fremington footpath 44).

To the south west of the site is a County Wildlife Site (CWS) known as Kittymoor Brake which comprises a densely wooded area. The woodland extends to the South West of the site boundary. There are no known TPO designations within or adjoining the site. The site is not within a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) but is within the Zone of Influence for the Taw and Torridge Estuary to the North and North West.

There are no listed buildings within the site boundary, but there are a number of listed buildings within a 2km radius search of the site. These are discussed at the Heritage assessment of the report but the most immediate are: Orchard Farm to the West, Rookabear Cottage and Higher Rookabear to the North East and Pywell to the South West. The site is visible from a distance at the Scheduled Ancient Monument at the Codden Beacon, Bishops Tawton to the North.

There are a number of properties within the vicinity of the site. Of particular note are properties at Brookham, Higher Litchardon also comprising Meadow Cottage, Rose Cottage, Acorn Cottage and Fern Cottage, Greenfields and Voscombe near to Voscombe Cross, Huish Moor and Orchard Farm along Huish Moor Lane and properties at Holmacott.

The majority of the site is flood zone 1. There are sections of Flood Zone 2 and 3 land following 2 water courses running through the site. The site is also partly within the Critical Drainage Area (CDA)

The site comprises 61 ha of grade 3b and 4 agricultural pastureland which is used for agricultural grazing purposes. The wider Landscape Character Type is defined as LCT 3A: Upper Farmed and Wooded Valley Slopes as defined within the Joint North Devon and Torridge Landscape Character Assessment. The landform is relatively undulating with higher ground to the north of the site, and lower ground to the south. The lay of the

Page 272 Agenda Item 6

land forms a wide valley formation creating a 'bowl' effect whereby the ground level is predominantly screening in the wider landscape. Within the site the landform is split into larger and smaller sections of fields bounded by established hedgerows and trees and sections of tree copses. Elevated views of the site can be seen from raised ground to the south and south west.

Recommendation Approved Legal Agreement Required:- No

Planning History

Planning Decision Decision Date 56433 Approve Non-Material 14 October 2013 Amendment

Address: Collacott Farm, Newton Tracey, Barnstaple, Devon, EX31 3QF Proposal: Application for a non-material amendment to planning permission 54353 in respect of re-siting of switchgear housing within red outline & amendment to size of switchgear housing

56704 Full Planning Approval 28 January 2014

Address: Brookham, Newton Tracey, Barnstaple, Devon, EX31 3QE Proposal: Formation of new access & track

56756 Full Planning Approval 5 June 2014

Address: Lower Litchardon Farm (Grid Ref 251089,129240), Newton Tracey, Barnstaple, Devon, EX31 3QE Proposal: Erection of one wind turbine (height 79m, height to hub 55m) together with accompanying access track, widening of existing farm entrance, crane hardstanding, electrical switchgear house with associated underground cabling & temporary construction compound (amended description)

58799 Full Planning Approval 13 April 2015

Address: Lower Litchardon Farm,Newton Tracey, Barnstaple, Devon, EX31 3QE Proposal: installation of underground electricity cable between the wind turbine & point of connection to grid network

Page 273 Agenda Item 6

Constraints/Planning Policy

Constraint / Local Plan Policy Distance (Metres) Advert Control Area Area of Special Advert Control Within constraint Authorised Landfill Buffer Within constraint Burrington Radar Safeguard Area Within constraint Chivenor Safeguard Zone Within constraint Critical Drainage Area Within constraint Landscape Character is: 3A Upper Farmed & Wooded Within constraint Valley Slopes Minerals and Waste Consultation Zone: Waste Within constraint Consultation Zone USRN: 27502947 Road Class:C Ownership: Highway Within constraint Authority Within Adopted Unesco Biosphere Transition (ST14) Within constraint Within Braunton Burrows Zone of Influence Within constraint Within Flood Zone 2 Within constraint Within Flood Zone 3 Within constraint Within Surface Water 1 in 100 Within constraint Within Surface Water 1 in 1000 Within constraint Within Surface Water 1 in 30 Within constraint Within:, SSSI 5KM Buffer in North Devon,consider Within constraint Within:Braunton Burrows, SAC 10KM Buffer Within constraint SSSI Impact Risk Consultation Area Within constraint

DM01 - Amenity Considerations DM02 - Environmental Protection DM03 - Construction and Environmental Management DM04 - Design Principles DM05 - Highways DM06 - Parking Provision DM07 - Historic Environment DM08 - Biodiversity and Geodiversity DM08A - Landscape and Seascape Character DM14 - Rural Economy DM15 - Farm Diversification DM17 - Tourism and Leisure Attractions DM18 - Tourism Accommodation ST01 - Principles of Sustainable Development ST02 - Mitigating Climate Change ST03 - Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience ST04 - Improving the Quality of Development ST07 - Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area ST10 - Transport Strategy ST11 - Delivering Employment and Economic Development ST13 - Sustainable Tourism ST14 - Enhancing Environmental Assets ST15 - Conserving Heritage Assets ST16 - Delivering Renewable Energy and Heat

Page 274 Agenda Item 6

Consultees

Name Comment Ancient No comments received Monuments Society Arboricultural I have noted the comments of the sustainability officer who I would Officer trust has advised generally on both LVIA and EcIA matters arising from the proposal and I would concur that the LEMP provided is Reply Received insufficiently detailed to be enforceable and generally inadequate in 20 October respect of our usual expectations for the content of a LEMP. 2020 I note the sustainability officer has provided a copy of a LEMP condition that sets out what is generally required and would trust that you are to seek further details and amendments in this regard.

I would be happy to comment further on receipt of an appropriately detailed soft landscape proposal within a revised LEMP

Arboricultural I’ve only had a cursory look at the draft LEMP but I’m concerned Officer over lack of enforceable detail, i.e. no target condition for hedgerows (minimum height and width for hedgerows to be Reply Received allowed to grow on to or future management prescriptions (are 19 November hedges to just be left to grow out or will they be subject to future 2020 pruning – and at what frequency? Etc)

The tree planting specifications appear to have been copied and pasted from somewhere without particular reference to site conditions or local landscape character and its worrying to see species proposed that have not been commercially available for a number of years due to plant health restrictions.

The number of bat/bird boxes seem relatively low and generic (i.e. if the grassland management prescriptions will favour kestrels/barn owls etc why is provision of nesting boxes not related to the bird species most likely to benefit from the environmental enhancements.)

Whilst the LEMP needs to be sufficiently detailed to be enforceable for planning purposes it should also be sufficient to enable any future site maintenance manager/operative to have a clear understanding of the aims and objectives of the management and precisely what they are to achieve prescriptions and when through the management timetable (which also needs to reflect best practice – i.e. you would normally carry out tree establishment checks in the summer months when they are in leaf, to identify replacement numbers and organise nursery stock to enable the replacement planting in Nov/Feb)

Page 275 Agenda Item 6

I would also suggest that the monitoring and review prescriptions need to be clear – what species or habitat conditions will be surveyed for and when will this be carried out?

For such a large scale proposal I would expect a much higher quality submission in respect of the landscape and ecological management plan.

(I also note that the ecologists are not using the DEFRA biodiversity metric which would be our usual expectation. If they were to use this I’m confident that they should be able to demonstrate a huge increase of biodiversity units, well over and above our policy expectations of a 10% net gain – is there any reason for not using the Defra metric?)

Arboricultural Just a quick note to confirm that I have reviewed the latest LEMP Officer submission (Rev 4, provided yesterday) and I am content with the detail in terms of the soft landscaping and proposed land Reply Received management specifications. 2 March 2021 I haven’t reviewed the metric this time around, but trust that Mark will review the accuracy of any amendments within the metric to ensure consistency with the LEMP.

Unless there are any specific soft landscape matters that you would like further input on I do not consider that I need to be consulted or involved in further discussion and will assume that subject to your being content with the proposal in terms of likely LVIA and EcIA outcomes you will secure the implementation of the LEMP through imposing an appropriate condition as part of any planning consent.

Barnstaple No comments received Town Centre Manager

Barnstaple RECOMMEND: Approval subject to ensuring that construction Town Centre traffic is proactively routed away from all residential areas within Manager the wider Barnstaple area. The committee would like to give its support to this application for its contribution to the locality Reply Received achieving its carbon neutral targets, they would also like to ask if 14 August 2020 there are opportunities for links to education providers for visits to the site. Burrington No response – see NATS Radar

Councillor F I can confirm my support for this call in Biederman

Page 276 Agenda Item 6

Reply Received 18 September 2020 Councillor J Here are some thoughts as a trade-off with the solar farm. Many of Mackie course will be irrelevant but you never know there could be a good one. Reply Received *Surplus profits go to near neighbours or parishes. 16 August 2020 *Native hedges built rather than fencing. *Wild flower strips in between with bee keepers invited to place Edited hives or a new bee school within the grounds *Educational eco-funding for all primary schools within the parishes - Lovacott Primary, Fremington, Roundswell, Instow, Fremington. I’ve got contacts. *Educational tours/guided walks/information boards/link to climate change education/carriers in science etc. *Local economy. Must use local contractors, staff to stay at local B&Bs rather than chain hotels, catering brought in for contractors by local caterers. Renting of parking and storage areas from local farmers and near land owners to help pay back for disruption. BEC used as a storage area at a rent if all workers are not back from Covid measures. *An all-weather jogging/cross-country track around perimeter with a club set up specifically to engage with locals. A bit remote and not v sustainable. *An area of woodland set up for carbon storage *A "Man shed" and allotment area *A really good idea would be to get a cycle track constructed from the Tarka Trail all the way though to the site and then a circuit. *A donation proportional to population of eco money to spend in parishes. Guidance would be needed. Councillor J CALL-IN of application. Mackie We, Cllrs Jayne Mackie and Frank Biederman, wish to call-in this Reply Received application due to the scale of its District-wide significance in terms 17 September of its potential impact on the countryside, tourism and the 2020 amenities of neighbouring properties.

Will the screening measures be adequate to protect the short and long-term impact on the rural views of North Devon? This could affect tourism.

The application says that it can still be used for agricultural purposes but we need to be convinced this will be the case.

There will also be significant impact in the construction phase of the site, so is there a safe and adequate site access that does not mean losing significant wildlife habitats? Given the importance of the Old Bideford road during rush hours, will it be the best way to access it? At the very least, deliveries need to be made outside of the significant travel times.

Page 277 Agenda Item 6

A solar farm on this scale should be seen to be democratically considered.

Councillor S No comments received Saxby DCC - Having considered the highway matters as contained within the Development Planning Statement, including visibility provision at the various Management access points to the site, and traffic generation during construction Highways and post-construction, there are no highway objections to the proposed development. Reply Received 7 October 2020 DCC - Historic The site lies within a landscape where evidence for prehistoric Environment occupation is recorded in the Devon Historic Environment Record. Team Within the proposed development site three independent geophysical surveys have identified anomalies of archaeological Reply Received interest and are characteristic of prehistoric settlement in the form 21 August 2020 of a round house, enclosures and possible associated pits.

Archaeological monitoring and recording carried out during groundworks associated with the construction of a single wind turbine on the southeast side of the site identified the remnant of a possible ring-gulley along with the recovery of residual flints from another feature, confirming activity relating to prehistoric settlement on the site. Field systems of an unknown date have also been identified on the site but may well be prehistoric. Possible prehistoric settlement is also recorded in the surrounding landscape visible as crop mark enclosures identified through aerial imagery. Also, field name evidence documented in the mid-19th century Fremington tithe apportionment records two fields named ‘Berry’, this element of a field name can be indicative of nearby ‘defended’ early settlement. Field name evidence in the northernmost part of the site may also suggest a medieval windmill was once located in the vicinity.

The Environmental Statement, specifically, Chapter 12, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, submitted in support of the planning application demonstrates through previous archaeological investigation (Geophysical Survey and Monitoring and Recording), the high potential for the site to contain prehistoric remains. However, without undertaking intrusive archaeological investigations, this previous work is not sufficient to enable an understanding of the significance of the heritage assets that will be affected by the proposed construction methodology of the solar photovoltaic panels and associated works within the application area, nor the impact of the proposed development upon these.

Given the potential for survival and significance of below ground archaeological deposits associated with prehistoric occupation and

Page 278 Agenda Item 6

the absence of sufficient archaeological information, the Historic Environment Team would advise that the proposed development was amended to minimise or remove any below-ground disturbance through the use of surface mounted concrete "foundations" for the solar arrays and associated works substation and 23 transformers (offloaded in situ, Foundation concrete for transformers, spare part containers and connection compound units.), and associated infrastructure with above-ground routing of cables.

If mitigation by design is not possible then, because of the potential for the site to contain below ground archaeological deposits, of unknown significance, associated with the known prehistoric activity and the absence of sufficient archaeological information, the Historic Environment Team objects to this application. If further information on the impact of the development upon the archaeological resource is not submitted in support of this application then I would recommend the refusal of the application. This would be in accordance with Policy DM07 in the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (2018) and paragraphs 189 and 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

The additional information required to be provided by the applicant would be the results of a programme of field evaluation to investigate any anomalies identified by the geophysical survey and areas that may show as ‘blank’, as this technique does not always identify the smaller archaeological features such as burials, post holes etc.

The results of these investigations will enable the presence and significance of any heritage assets within the proposed development area to be understood as well as the potential impact of the development upon them, and enable an informed and reasonable planning decision to be made by your Authority.

DCC - Historic I noted the mitigation options suggested in the areas of greatest Environment archaeological potential, which were identified by the geophysical Team survey. However, this geophysical survey cannot show how close to the surface any archaeological features are and it is therefore Reply Received unknown if the mitigation proposal will have an impact or not, for 24 September example due to compaction from the concrete footings and 2020 construction traffic or rutting by vehicle movement during construction. The full archaeological potential of the site cannot be understood using this non-intrusive method of investigation. As indicated in the geophysical survey, magnetic activity may mask archaeological features and also, it is not yet known what many of the anomalies are, such as those located near enclosures and if they are associated or not.

Page 279 Agenda Item 6

Without undertaking intrusive investigations, the effectiveness of the geophysical survey cannot be determined, therefore I would reiterate the HETs requirement that a field evaluation is required to support this planning application. The results of the field evaluation will enable the presence and significance of any heritage assets within the proposed development area to be understood as well as the potential impact of the development upon them, and enable an informed and reasonable planning decision to be made by North Devon Council. This would be in accordance with Policy DM07 in the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (2018) and paragraphs 189 and 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

DCC - Historic I can confirm that the programme of archaeological works as Environment described in the Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) prepared Team by Foundations Archaeology (document ref: LNT20/fa.doc1.1 and dated: 02/11/2020), and submitted in support of this planning Reply Received application is acceptable to the Historic Environment Team. One 3 December minor comment is the omission of the Museum reference number. 2020 If waiting for a museum to respond ‘pending’ could be used.

The acceptance of the WSI by this office does not represent the discharge of any archaeological condition that may be applied to any consent granted.

If the WSI is being submitted in support of a planning application or to discharge a condition then the WSI needs to be submitted, either by the applicant or their agent, to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for their formal approval and, if required, to enable them to discharge the condition prior to any development commencing on site. The applicant should ensure that the archaeological works are implemented as described in order to avoid breach of the Condition.

DCC - Historic The Historic Environment Team have received the report setting Environment out the results of the archaeological investigations undertaken in Team support of this planning application. The scope of this work was previously agreed with this office and has demonstrated the Reply Received archaeological potential of the site with regard to prehistoric and 18 March 2021 Romano-British activity within the proposed development site. Prehistoric activity is indicated by features within trenches 28-29, which include a possible ring ditch that may indicate the presence of prehistoric settlement of funerary activity here. Linear features and a large amount of pottery recovered from trench 30 suggests Romano-British activity in the area. The results of these investigations indicate that the fields had been subject to truncation by ploughing and that the features revealed will be the bases of the more substantial archaeological features that have survived this process.

Page 280 Agenda Item 6

The Historic Environment Team do not consider that the significance of these heritage assets is such that they require preservation in situ. However, the impact of development upon the archaeological resource here should be mitigated by a programme of archaeological work that should investigate, record and analyse the archaeological evidence that will otherwise be destroyed by the proposed development.

The Historic Environment Team therefore recommends that this application should be supported by the submission of a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) setting out a programme of archaeological work to be undertaken in mitigation for the loss of heritage assets 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 Policy DM07 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011 - 2031 and paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), that any consent your Authority may be minded to issue should carry the condition as worded based on model Condition 55 as set out in Appendix A of Circular 11/95.

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, consisting of:

(i) the excavation of a series of further evaluative trenches that could not be carried out prior to determination of the planning application due to bad weather conditions. This second phase of archaeological investigations will determine the presence and significance of any heritage assets with archaeological interest in areas not already investigated on the results of the additional field work 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, and

(ii) The archaeological excavation (archaeological strip, map and recording) in the areas of trenches 28-30 to ensure an

Page 281 Agenda Item 6

appropriate record is made of the known prehistoric and Romano- British heritage assets with archaeological interest prior to their destruction by the proposed development and

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.

DCC - Lead The applicant has proposed to manage surface water within the Local Flood site via 'scrapes' and 'swales'. The scrapes are proposed to be Authority 200mm deep by 500mm wide and the swales are proposed to be 300mm deep by 2900mm wide. Reply Received 17 August 2020 The applicant should clarify the locations and extents of the scrapes and swales. Some areas of the site appear to drain away from the scrapes and swales, and in some cases will flow directly to watercourses.

The applicant should clarify the proposed formation of the scrapes and swales. For example, will they be seeded? The applicant should also confirm whether features such as check dams are proposed to slow the flow of water within the scrapes and swales. The applicant should clarify the formation of the maintenance roads within the site. It is noted within section 9.84 of the Environmental Statement that they will be pervious, however, no details of the roads or their locations are given.

The applicant should clarify the inclusion of pipe network details within the maintenance schedule (contained within Appendix 9.4 of the Environmental Statement), it is not clear that pipes are proposed within the surface water drainage system for this site.

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 on the Devon County website

DCC - Lead Recommendation: Condition 19 Local Flood Authority Observations: Following my previous consultation response Reply Received FRM/ND/71708/2020, dated 17.08.2020, the applicant has 3 December submitted additional information in relation to the surface water 2020 drainage aspects of the above planning application, for which I am grateful.

Page 282 Agenda Item 6

- Flood Risk & Surface Water Strategy Addendum A, dated 23 November 2020, Installation of solar farm and associated infrastructure. Land at Litchardon Cross, Newton Tracey, EX31 3QE

Part of the site lies within a Critical Drainage Area, so surface water runoff needs to be managed appropriately in the proposed swales and scrapes which will provide attenuation of the runoff prior to discharge. Consideration should be given to the use of check dams within the swales if appropriate.

Access to the ordinary watercourses for maintenance should be considered so sufficient space is set aside for maintenance activities. Please note that any new connection into an ordinary watercourse may require Land Drainage Consent from the DCC Flood & Coastal Risk Management Team.

DCC - Public It would appear that the application will have no direct affect on the Rights Of Way Public Rights of Way network in the vicinity. However, though Devon County Council recognises the importance of sustainable Reply Received energy and the need to reduce the global carbon footprint, there 30 July 2020 are also underlying local issues to take into account. There could be a detrimental effect for the local and wider Rights of Way network and the enjoyment of walkers, if such a development went ahead. We would therefore ask that the applicant be made aware and that due care be given to the visual impact such a large development might have within this rural and well walked area.

Defence Estates No response – see NATS Air Safeguarding

Designing Out I note the site boundary fence, described as a 'deer style' fence, Crime Officer does the fencing comply with any recognised security standards? The various compound security fencing proposals and Reply Received specifications are also noted. 14 August 2020 Within the application form and the Environmental Statement the provision of CCTV is proposed, which is supported. However, I can find no details of what form this may take or how, for example pole mounted cameras, and where it is proposed to be installed. Therefore clarification on this part of the application is sought. CCTV is not a universal solution to security problems. It can help deter vandalism or burglary and assist with the identification of culprits once a crime has been committed, but unless it is monitored continuously and appropriately recorded, CCTV will be of limited value in relation to the site. That being said, the provision and effective use of CCTV fits well within the overall framework of security management and is most effective when it forms part of an

Page 283 Agenda Item 6

overall security plan. To be most effective the CCTV should employ a system which reacts to any unusual or inappropriate movement to enable live monitoring. For information, the following advice is also given regarding CCTV systems. A passport for compliance document previously known as an Operational Requirement (OR) should be drawn up prior to installation to ensure any system will be fit for purpose. I would advise that any system installed has further capacity built in to allow further cameras to be added at a later stage if desired/required. Cameras, wiring and recording or monitoring equipment should be secured. CCTV should be designed in co-ordination with external lighting and landscaping to prevent interference and blind spots. Recorded images must be of evidential quality if intended for prosecution. Any CCTV is advised to be installed to BS EN 50132-7: CCTV surveillance systems for use in security applications. CCTV systems may have to be registered with the Information Commissioners Office (IOC) and be compliant with guidelines in respect to Data Protection and Human Rights legislation. Further information is available via www.ico.gov.uk For guidance, see also BS 7958:2015, which provides recommendations for the management and operation of CCTV within controlled environments where data, which might later be offered as evidence, is received, stored, reviewed or analysed.

The proposed buildings within the compounds, should where appropriate have robust external doors/windows, advised to meet an appropriate security standard such as PAS24:2016, LPS 1175 or equivalent.

The buildings are also strongly advised to incorporate an intruder alarm ideally monitored and compliant with current National Police Chiefs Councils current guidance.

Designing Out Thank you for this application and further information regarding Crime Officer CCTV which is noted.

Reply Received 27 October 2020 Devon Wildlife No comments received Trust

Environment We do not have any specific comment to make but refer to the Agency following guidance.

Reply Received Advice to LPA - Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) 5 August 2020 The application site lies within Flood Zone 1 defined as having a low probability of flooding. Footnote 50 of paragraph 163 of the NPPF requires applicants for planning permission to submit a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) when development on this scale is proposed in such locations. An FRA is vital if the local planning

Page 284 Agenda Item 6

authority is to make informed planning decisions. The solar panels will drain to the existing ground and therefore this should not be an onerous requirement. On sloping sites the concentration of run-off from solar panels could lead to run-off from the site caused by the formation of gullying. This is more likely where the underlying soils are not naturally free draining, the site is steep and the arrays are installed up-and-down the slope, rather than along the contours. To overcome this, simple SUDS drainage techniques should be adopted, such as shallow swales or infiltration trenches. These should aim to disperse the run-off at regular intervals to allow it to soak into the natural ground and prevent drainage paths forming straight down the slope. To avoid the concentration of flows, these should not necessarily be linked through the site but could be a series of short, contoured features.

Access tracks Where access tracks need to be provided, permeable tracks should be used, and localised SUDS such as swales and infiltration trenches should be used to control any surface water run-off. The applicant should be aware that if suitable controlled wastes such as subsoils, shillet, bricks, tiles, concrete are to be used in the construction of the access track and the hardstandings then a U1 exemption will need to be registered with us before the use of any such waste is authorised. Further information can be found on our website

Given the temporary nature of solar PV, the site should be configured or selected to avoid the need to impact on existing drainage systems and watercourses. Culverting existing watercourses/drainage ditches should be avoided. Where culverting for access is unavoidable, it should be demonstrated that no reasonable alternatives exist and where necessary only temporarily for the construction period.

Pollution control: Soil stripping, storage and placement All works should be undertaken in accordance with our Pollution Prevention Guidelines, PPG1, PPG5 and PPG6. It must be ensured that soil is stored so as not to cause pollution of controlled waters. Copies of these and other PPGs can be viewed on our website:

Environmental I have reviewed this application in relation to Environmental Health Manager Protection matters and comment as follows:

Reply received 1 Glint and Glare 3rd August 2020 I have reviewed the Pager Power Glint and Glare Assessment report dated May 2020. The report identifies a number of potential impacts affecting dwellings in the locality and road users on the A39 highway. The report describes various mitigation options at section 7 .3 to address the relevant identified impacts.

Page 285 Agenda Item 6

I recommend any permission include a condition requiring the submission of a Glint and Glare mitigation scheme to address the findings of the Pager Power assessment. The scheme should describe details of proposed mitigation measures and include a procedure for addressing any unexpected glint and glare impacts that come to light once the development becomes operational where such impacts are confirmed as being significant in writing by the LP A.

2 Operational Noise Chapter 13 of the Environmental Statement concerns noise and refers to a Hayes McKenzie Noise Impact Assessment. I would wish to review the original assessment report prior to commenting on noise issues but could not find the report in the Appendices.

3 Construction Phase Impacts In order to ensure that nearby residents are not unreasonably affected by dust, noise or other impacts during the construction phase of the development I recommend the CEMP condition be imposed

4 Land Contamination I do not expect land contamination issues to arise in relation to the proposals. However, given the large area of land involved and the need for certain ground works, I recommend the unexpected contamination condition be imposed on any permission to cover the possibility that unexpected contamination is discovered during development work:

Environmental I am happy with the amended Noise condition wording proposed in Health Manager Claire's email of 17 September:

Reply Received Condition 18 18 September 2020 Environmental I have reviewed the amended information for this application in Health Manager relation to Environmental Protection matters and refer you to my previous comments of 4 August, 16 September and 18 September Reply Received 2020. 27 October 2020 I note the Engena "Clarifications" letter dated 13 October 2020 includes clarifications in relation to my previous comments. The letter confirms that the Applicant accepts the recommendations I have made and agrees that suitable planning conditions can be agreed as relevant.

I have nothing to add to my previous comments, which stand.

Fremington It was resolved, with three votes to the contrary, to recommend Parish Council APPROVAL subject to adequate planting to protect the immediate

Page 286 Agenda Item 6

and wider landscape, an adequate disposal plan for the panels Reply Received once they reach the end of their lifespan, strict conditions of works 9 September to prevent conflict with the rush hour traffic and minimise the 2020 impact on residents, the most suitable access route to the site is to be sort and a Section 106 contribution to address the access and highway issues obtained. The Parish Council would also like to ensure that the Planning Officer is content that the proposal will not mean the long-term loss of arable land.

Fremington It was resolved, with one vote to the contrary and one abstention, Parish Council to recommend APPROVAL subject to adequate planting to protect the immediate and wider landscape, an adequate disposal plan for Reply Received the panels once they reach the end of their lifespan, strict 4 November conditions of works to prevent conflict with the rush hour traffic and 2020 minimise the impact on residents, the most suitable access route to the site is to be sort and a Section 106 contribution to address the access and highway issues obtained. The Parish Council would also like to ensure that the Planning Officer is content that the proposal will not mean the long-term loss of arable land.

Heritage & The proposed solar farm will not directly impact the fabric of any Conservation designated heritage assets. The nearest listed buildings are at Officer Rookabear, to the north, and Pyewell, to the south. Given the local topography, it is unlikely that there will be obvious intervisibility Reply Received between the listed buildings and the solar farm. 27 August 2020 This is not to say that the settings of these, and other heritage assets, will be unaffected.

Setting is defined as "the surrroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve." (NPPF Annex 2). The solar farm is large, and though parts of it will be screened by vegetation, other parts will be visible from surrounding land, in some cases from some distance away. An awareness of its presence when travelling through the landscape is inevitable, and this will form part of the context in which many heritage assets within the wider locality are experienced, whether there is intervisibility or not. The solar farm, by its extent, form and appearance, is not a feature which would typically be found within the setting of heritage assets, and would effect a change, rather than preserving, the settings.

It is possible that a degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage assets would result from the development, and therefore under the terms of paragraph 196 of the NPPF, the public benefits of the proposals would need to be weighed in the balance when a decision is made. It is likely that landscape effects would be a larger factor, when weighing this proposal, and I would suggest that effects on the built heritage

Page 287 Agenda Item 6

would be better incorporated into that evaluation, rather than as a stand-alone issue.

Heritage & No further observations. Conservation Officer

Reply Received 11 November 2020 Historic England Thank you for your letter of 28 July 2020 regarding the above application for planning permission. On the basis of the information Reply Received available to date, we do not wish to offer any comments. We 14 August 2020 suggest that you seek the views of your specialist conservation and archaeological advisers, as relevant.

It is not necessary for us to be consulted on this application again, unless there are material changes to the proposals. However, if you would like detailed advice from us, please contact us to explain your request.

Horwood, Horwood Lovacott and Newton Tracey Parish Council held a Zoom Lovacott & meeting to consider this application where members of the public Newton Tracey were present to give their views and a representative from Aura Parish Council Power, the developer.

Reply Received The Aura Power representative was given the opportunity to give 18 August 2020 details of the proposal after which there were questions from Councillors and members of the public.

Residents had the opportunity to speak and one resident had previously sent comprehensive reasons against the Application.

The Parish Council noted that 21 fields were involved in the development and the developer has stated that their proposal is in a landscape bowl. It was noted that this area spills over any bowl there may be for the majority of it and that as a consequence, the solar farm would be able to be seen from a wide reaching area.

Horwood Lovacott and Newton Tracey Parish Council's response is to recommend that reconsideration is given regarding the solar panels specifically outside of the landscape bowl.

Horwood, Horwood Lovacott and Newton Tracey Parish Council reiterate its Lovacott & comments from the previous Application and have nothing further Newton Tracey to add. Parish Council

Page 288 Agenda Item 6

Reply Received 11 November 2020 National Air The proposed development has been examined from a technical Traffic Services safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with our safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) Public Limited Company Reply Received ("NERL") has no safeguarding objection to the proposal. 29 July 2020 & However, please be aware that this response applies specifically to 20 October the above consultation and only reflects the position of NATS (that 2020 is responsible for the management of en route air traffic) based on the information supplied at the time of this application.

Natural England Thank you for your consultation email dated and received on 28 July 2020 relating to the above proposal. Based on the information Reply Received provided we have the following comments. 14 August 2020 Climate Change Natural England recognises that climate change represents the most serious long term threat to the natural environment because of the damage it will cause to ecosystems, the biodiversity, landscape value, and services to society which they support. Solar energy developments have an important role to play in meeting national targets to reduce UK contributions to greenhouse gases. The present challenge is to move to a low carbon economy without unacceptable impacts on the natural environment.

Designated sites The development site is within 3km of the Taw Torridge Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which is notified for its intertidal habitats and overwintering bird interest. Further information on the SSSI and its special interest features can be found at www.magic.gov.uk The composition of the SSSI bird assemblage alters through time as species populations fluctuate, therefore any native wetland bird species (in practice waders and wildfowl) will be a legitimate part of the bird assemblage. The proposal triggers Natural England’s Impact Risk Zone2 (IRZ) for the Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI for ‘solar schemes with a footprint greater than 0.5ha’.

It is our advice, on the basis of the material supplied with the consultation that, in so far as statutory designated sites are concerned, there are no significant impacts identified and Natural England therefore does not object.

Protected Landscapes The proposed development is for a site within 5km of the North Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and has triggered Natural England’s Impact Risk Zones for solar developments greater than 10ha. Natural England advises that the planning authority uses national and local policies, together with

Page 289 Agenda Item 6

local landscape expertise and information to determine the proposal. The policy and statutory framework to guide your decision and the role of local advice are explained below.

Your decision should be guided by paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework which gives the highest status of protection for the ‘landscape and scenic beauty’ of AONBs and National Parks. For major development proposals paragraph 172 sets out criteria to determine whether the development should exceptionally be permitted within the designated landscape. Alongside national policy you should also apply landscape policies set out in your development plan or appropriate saved policies. We note that you have consulted the North Devon AONB Partnership but they have yet to comment. They will have knowledge of the site and its wider landscape setting, together with the aims and objectives of the AONB’s statutory management plan, which will be a valuable contribution to the planning decision. The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty. You should assess the application carefully as to whether the proposed development would have a significant impact on or harm that statutory purpose. Relevant to this is the duty on public bodies to ‘have regard’ for that statutory purpose in carrying out their functions (S85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000). The Planning Practice Guidance confirms that this duty also applies to proposals outside the designated area but impacting on its natural beauty.

All proposals should complement and where possible enhance local distinctiveness and be guided by your Authority’s landscape character assessment and the policies protecting landscape character in your local plan in determining the landscape’s sensitivity to this type of development and its capacity to accommodate the proposed development.

The North Devon District guidance document ‘An Assessment of the Landscape Sensitivity to Onshore Wind Energy and Large Scale Photovoltaic Development in North Devon District (LUC 2014)’ suggests that the Landscape Character Type LCT3A: Upper Farmed and Woodland Valley Slopes has a high landscape sensitivity for very large (>15ha) solar pv developments and outlines out a set of principles to follow.

Section 4.13 states ‘For solar PV development the guidance for development included for each LCT suggests that, generally, the most suitable forms of solar PV development will be those of up to 10 hectares in size located in more enclosed areas and on lower slopes, avoiding highly visible slopes.

Existing screening features should be used to screen these developments and the overall aim should be to make sure that

Page 290 Agenda Item 6

solar PV developments do not become a key characteristic of the landscape of the LCT or have a defining influence on the overall experience of the landscape of the landscapes of North Devon’. You may also find useful the Devon Landscape Policy Group Advice Note No. 2: ‘Accommodating Wind and Solar PV Developments in Devon’s Landscape’ particularly with reference to cumulative impacts and siting and design.

Biodiversity net gain Development provides opportunities to secure a net gain for nature as outlined in paragraphs 170 and 174 of the revised NPPF3 (2019), the Defra 25 year Environment Plan4 and the Environment Bill5. Policy ST14 of the Joint Torridge and North Devon Local Plan (JLP) also expects all development to provide a net gain in biodiversity.

We advise you first to follow the mitigation hierarchy as set out in paragraph 175 of the NPPF and consider what existing environmental features on and around a site can be retained or enhanced before considering what new features could be incorporated into a development proposal. The documents indicate that 9.5ha of wildflower meadow and native tree planting will be secured via a biodiversity management plan.

An evidence based approach to biodiversity net gain can help LPAs demonstrate compliance with their duty to have regard for biodiversity in the exercise of their functions6 (under Section 40 NERC Act, 2006). Biodiversity metrics7 are available to assist developers and local authorities in quantifying and securing net gain. The Environment Bill currently proposes that development should achieve a 10% net gain.

Natural England’s Technical Information Note Solar parks: maximising environmental benefits (TIN101)8 provides a summary of advice about their siting, their potential impacts and mitigation requirements for the safeguarding of the natural environment. You may also wish to note the industry guidance ‘Solar farms and biodiversity opportunities’9 Consideration could be given to the use of SuDS features in managing surface water run-off from the panels to prevent soil erosion and we note that features such as scrapes and swales are proposed and that the EA has provide design advice on implementing these features.

Our advice is that any mitigation, biodiversity net gain or enhancement measures are secured through a conditioned Landscape and Environmental Management Plan (LEMP). There may also be the potential for the development to have a wider positive impact by financially contributing to local

Page 291 Agenda Item 6

environmental / social initiatives in the Parishes affected to help connect people and wildlife.

Soil and land quality From the documents accompanying the consultation we consider this application falls outside the scope of the Development Management Procedure Order (as amended) consultation arrangements, as the proposed development would not appear to lead to the loss of over 20 ha ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land (BMV) (paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework).

The soil and agricultural land quality survey (Appendix 4.1 Land Research Associates April 2019) indicates that the land affected is predominantly Grade 3b with some Grade 4 and not therefore BMV agricultural land.

The submitted documents indicate substructure options are piling or concrete block foundations (Fig 6.2 panel substructure options). Panel arrays mounted on steel posts driven into the ground are preferable in that no substantial areas of concrete construction would be required, with the exception of foundations for, for example, inverters and sub-station buildings meaning that the panel arrays could be removed when planning permission expired with no likely permanent loss of agricultural land in the long term. Whilst soil would be disturbed in some parts of the site through the construction of the switch station and access tracks and installing of buried cables this equates to a relatively small area and much of the soil disturbance is likely to be reversible during decommissioning.

Based on the information provided, the agricultural use of the land would subsist alongside the proposed PV panels through the grazing of sheep and that the land would be restored to full agricultural when planning permission expired (approximately 35 years).

Guidance in relation to agricultural land quality and soils is available in the Defra Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites and we recommend that this is followed.

We would also draw to your attention to Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy (March 2014) (in particular paragraph 013), and advise you to fully consider best and most versatile land issues in accordance with that guidance. We would also advise your authority to apply conditions to secure appropriate agricultural land management during the lifetime of the development and to require the site to be decommissioned and restored to its former condition when planning permission expires.

Page 292 Agenda Item 6

Local sites and priority habitats and species

Your authority should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on any Local Sites such as County Wildlife Sites (CWS).

Priority habitats and Species are of particular importance for nature conservation and included in the England Biodiversity List published under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 found here10. Consideration should be given to how any loss will be avoided, mitigated or compensated. Rights of Way, Access land, Coastal access and National Trails Paragraph 98 of the NPPF highlights the important of public rights of way and access. Development should consider potential impacts on access land, common land, rights of way and coastal access routes in the vicinity of the development. Consideration should also be given to the potential impacts on any nearby National Trails. The National Trails website www.nationaltrail.co.uk provides information including contact details for the National Trail Officer. Appropriate mitigation measures should be incorporated for any adverse impacts.

Protected Species We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species.

Natural England has produced standing advice11 to help planning authorities understand the impact of particular developments on protected species. We advise you to refer to this advice. Natural England will only provide bespoke advice on protected species where they form part of a SSSI or in exceptional circumstances. The Institute of Lighting Professionals has produced practical guidance on considering the impact on bats when designing lighting schemes - Guidance Note 8 Bats and Artificial Lighting12. They have partnered with the Bat Conservation Trust and ecological consultants to write this document on avoiding or reducing the harmful effects which artificial lighting may have on bats and their habitats.

Where security fencing is proposed it should be permeable to allow the continued movement of species through the wider landscape e.g. the inclusion of appropriately sited badger gates. . Natural England Natural England has previously commented on this proposal and made comments to the authority in our letter dated 14 August 2020 Reply Received The advice provided in our previous response applies equally to 5 November this amendment.The proposed amendments to the original 2020 application are unlikely to have significantly different impacts on the natural environment than the original proposal.

Page 293 Agenda Item 6

North Devon Thank you for your email. I write to advise that we do not intend to AONB Service comment on this application.

Reply Received The development, though very large is located far enough away 10 September from the designated AONB (more than 5 km and 10 km from key 2020 viewpoints on Saunton Down ) so as not to have a significant effect on the setting of the North Devon AONB

North Devon Having read the documents accompanying the planning application Archaeological and, in particular, Chapter 12 of the Environmental Impact Society Assessment, the Society wishes to comment as follows.

Reply Received The Society notes the Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 3 August 2020 assessment that has been carried out by Orion Heritage Ltd. This appears to be a comprehensive piece of work. Much of its findings accord with the Society’s own experiences and its knowledge of other archaeological assessments carried out in the vicinity, many of which are held on the Archaeological Data Services (ADS) website.

The area of the application is typical of the landscape to the south of Fremington (and much of North Devon) in having the character, principally, of a post-mediaeval enclosure landscape. Nevertheless, beneath this there is evidence of prehistoric settlement around the area. The assessment indicated that this is likely to be the case on the three southern fields comprising the application site, as well as in other locations within the site. The Society notes that the assessment sets out three options for minimising the impact of the proposed development on the archaeological resource. These are:

• Exclusion of the area (of the southern fields) from the development • Use of specialist foundations, such as concrete feet, and • A programme of archaeological works

Clearly the Society would prefer the development to avoid the areas of the site with the greatest archaeological potential. If that is not to be the case, then the Society would expect a written scheme of archaeological investigation covering the whole site, comprising as a minimum a programme of archaeological evaluation for the southern fields and a watching brief for the remainder of the site, to be a requirement of any planning permission. The Society would welcome the opportunity to make further representations if that is not to be the case. Planning Policy Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Unit requires that if regard is to be had to the development plan in the determination of a planning application then the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material

Page 294 Agenda Item 6

Reply Received considerations indicate otherwise. As you are aware, the Council 10 September have a recently adopted Local Plan (October 2018) which was 2020 considered by the Inspector to be 'Sound' and in general conformity with the NPPF; therefore, policies in the Local Plan are up to date. The NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions.

Policy ST16(3) will support renewable and low carbon energy and heat generating development (other than wind energy) will be supported in the landscape character types subject to proposals meeting the stated criteria (a to c).

The site is within the landscape character type 3A - Upper Farmed and Wooded Valley Slopes where the overall strategy is 'to protect the landscape's strong rural character and historic sense of place. The farmed landscape comprises a rich mosaic of fields bounded by an intact network of species-rich Devon hedges. Valued farmland and woodland habitats are managed and extended, with opportunities for Green Infrastructure links to settlements pursued'. This should be achieved through the 'protection of important views to and from the hills across the surrounding landscapes' by way of 'avoiding the location of skyline development which would detract from landmark church towers'. You must therefore ensure the development is confined to the lower slopes and is not visually prominent in the wider landscape in accordance with Policies ST16 and DM08A(1).

If you are minded to support the proposal then as set out in paragraph 6.5 of the Local Plan, 'all development will be expected to provide a net gain in biodiversity where feasible. Where biodiversity assets cannot be retained or enhanced on site, the Councils will support 'biodiversity offsetting' to deliver a net gain in bio-diversity off-site'. If there is some loss of existing habitat then this should be mitigated against by providing additional planting on or off site. The Defra metric should be used to ensure there is an overall net gain in biodiversity. All issues around ecology should be considered against ST14 and DM08.

Planning Policy From a policy perspective, I do not wish to add any further Unit comment to those set out in my previous response dated 10th September 2020. Reply Received 22 October 2020 Planning, I am responding to the above application in the County Council’s Transportation role as Waste Planning Authority. As noted within the supporting & Environment statement, Holmacott landfill site is located in close proximity to the south west of the proposal site. This landfill site is of strategic Reply Received importance being the only inert landfill site serving northern Devon 29 July 2020 and as such is protected by Policy W10: Protection of Waste

Page 295 Agenda Item 6

Management Capacity of the Devon Waste Plan. Operations at the landfill site include screening/crushing and tipping of inert waste. As such, a level of dust is generated from this process and whilst measures are in place to control this, we advise the applicant to satisfy themselves that the proximity to the waste site will not cause them any operational problems. Ramblers No comments received. Association

Royal Society No comments received For The Protection Of Birds

Secretary of No comments received State

South West I refer to the above application and would advise that Whilst South Water West Water has no objection public trunk water mains run within the site as shown on the attached and no building/structures or Reply Received alterations to ground cover will be permitted within 3.5m of them. 28 July 2020 South West I refer to the above and would advise that South West Water has Water no further comments to those already given.

Reply Received 30 October 2020 Sustainability Clearly there is a huge amount of information to wade through and Officer having skimmed through it looks relatively complete. However, it does seem that there is a significant omission in the form of a Reply Received LEMP and detailed landscaping proposals / planting specifications, 30 July 2020 etc. Both ecological and landscape assessments identify the need for new planting and enhancement to existing habitats and screening which currently isnt substantiated.

All proposals for habitat mitigation and enhancement should also be informed by a net gain metric which is also absent from the current EIA. This should include the loss of land to facilitate site infrastructure and access, but also the change in habitat composition due to the array itself.

Having now reviewed the EIA the section on ecology appears to be relatively complete in terms of the assessment of impacts on protected species and habitats. Clearly the vast majority of the site results in a change in composition of habitat, for example from grassland to meadow. The proposal looks to utilise existing field layouts and access, and limits habitat loss and the introduction of security lighting and fencing to a minimum. Having said that I have particular concerns with the use of concrete pads for the solar

Page 296 Agenda Item 6

panel footings, and the suggestion that these will be left in the ground post decommission. There are numerous different methods of anchoring solar arrays and the current EIA does not appear to provide sufficient justification for the use of concrete footings in favour of less damaging alternatives.

The ecology assessment appears largely predicated on the mandatory requirement to identify impacts on protected species. There is currently no consideration of the requirement for the proposed development to deliver a net gain for biodiversity. A net gain assessment using Defra Metric 2.0 should be undertaken for the existing site baseline and all components of the proposed development, including substation infrastructure, work areas, access and array footings. The results of the net gain assessment should be read alongside the EIA Ecology and Landscape recommendations and used to inform detailed landscaping proposals for the entire site, including any additional offsite enhancements which maybe required. An example of the Defra metric being applied to large scale solar development can be found here https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp- content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010085/EN010085-001136- CHSP%20-%2012.5.8%20Biodiversity%20Metrics%202.0.pdf

I would suggest that a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) be submitted which has been informed by the Defra metric and the requirement to achieve 10% gain in biodiversity. The LEMP should demonstrate delivery of all recommendations derived from the EIA and be accompanied by a landscaping proposals and planting specifications for all elements of the site.

I would also suggest that a statement be submitted setting out the process for establishing a Solar Community Fund which will seek to support community projects in the local area throughout the lifetime of the array.

Sustainability The submitted LEMP and Biodiversity Metric Letter are supported Officer in principle and certainly provide additional clarity to the original submission. However, I still feel that a full, working and transparent Reply Received Defra metric 2 assessment should be submitted allowing the LPA 29 October to fully assess the calculations and the process undertaken. This is 2020 common practice for major development. The LEMP also falls significantly short on detail and would not meet the requirements of our standard LEMP condition. The LEMP should be revised to include the highlighted elements of the standard condition as a minimum.

The LEMP shall also include details of the mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body(ies) responsible for its

Page 297 Agenda Item 6

delivery. The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning landscape and biodiversity objectives of the scheme. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

I also feel the Mitigation Proposals Plan included in the LEMP and Metric Letter remains insufficiently detailed. I would anticipate a full Landscaping Plan complete with detailed planting specifications for allelements of the proposal as informed by the metric. Currently the Mitigation Proposals Plan is indicative and when read alongside the LEMP provides no means of securing specific mitigation proposals throughout the site. Sustainability I have now reviewed the latest LEMP (v04) and the detailed Site Officer Plans and I am content with the level of detail provided in response to issues raised on 25th Feb 2021. The detailed contained is Reply Received considered sufficient to secure and monitor the delivery of a net 4 March 2021 gain for biodiversity as set out in the Biodiversity Metric.

If you are minded to recommend approval, I would suggest that a detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) be secured through a suitably worded condition to ensure that construction impacts associated with lighting, noise, compaction, encroachment, etc on existing habitats is appropriately controlled.

The Barn Owl The closest Barn Owl nest site record we have is 1.5 km from the Trust edge of where the panels will be. That was in 2003 and more recent records are further away. Therefore, we have no evidence Reply Received that the development project will impact directly on any nest site. 14 August 2020 The impact on, mitigation for, or enhancement of Barn Owl foraging habitat within the development area is highly relevant. Because the home range of Barn Owls is large (up to 7,000 ha), some areas that are within the proposed development would certainly be used by owls if the land is suitably managed. The vegetation below and around the solar panel arrays should be allowed to develop into rough, tussocky grassland, with a litter-layer not less than 7 cm deep. This would be best achieved with low-density grazing by sheep. Alternatively, if the grass were cut mechanically then the first 13 cm of the sward should be left intact.

The Barn Owl Trust strongly supports well-planned schemes that address climate change. If the above recommendations on habitat management are implemented, then the solar farm proposed at Litchardon Cross represents a win-win situation for wildlife conservation and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Biosphere No comments received Service

Page 298 Agenda Item 6

The Caravan No comments received Club

The Council for No comments received British Archaeology

The Woodland The Woodland Trust would like to advise that there is an area of Trust woodland adjacent to the proposed site boundary known as Kittymoor Brake (grid reference: SS5073529659) which is visible Reply Received on the 1st Edition OS mapping and has been continually present to 27 August 2020 date. Therefore, we recommend that the applicants begin a discussion with Natural England to confirm that Kittymoor Brake is not an area of unmapped ancient woodland.

We notes that the applicants will be adhering to the BS 5837:2012 with respect to woods, trees and hedges on site, but as both ancient woodland and Natural England’s Standing Advice are material planning considerations, a larger buffer zone would be required if the woodland is designated on the Ancient Woodland Inventory.

Torridge District After assessing the application, Torridge District Council Planning Council Department wish to express they have no observation to make. The comments in this letter are purely officer opinion and are made Reply Received without prejudice to the outcome of a planning application. They 12 November are not binding upon the Officer or the Council. 2020 Western Power No comments received Distribution

Neighbours

At the pre-application stage the applicants have carried out the following public consultation exercise:

 Creation of a project website (https://www.aurapower.co.uk/litchardon-cross- solar-farm/  Distribution of leaflets to approx. 350 houses in the vicinity of the proposal advising of the scheme and of a Public Consultation Event to be held in January 2019 (Volume 2 appendix 5 part 4)  A notice advertising the development was placed in the North Devon Gazette  The applicants undertook a Public Consultation event on 16th January 2020 (feedback is at ES Chapter 5 Volume 2 of the submission).

Comments No Objection Object Petition No. Signatures 4 46 56 0.00 0.00

Page 299 Agenda Item 6

Summary of objections:

- Impact on landscape from size, scale, massing of development. - Loss of predominantly rural landscape representing a significant cumulative impact and industrialisation of the landscape. - Change to rural landscape which visitors expect to see unchanged. Adverse impact on tourism 'Driving tourists away'. - Too large to fit into the hilly area of countryside - Size of development is inappropriate for the Devon Landscape - Impact on hedgerows. - Loss of vegetation within the site. - The scheme provides no useful screening and is visible - New trees will take years to establish and will not provide adequate screening of the site, especially on southern slopes. - The proposal is dangerous to bats and birds and to the environment. - Why is the scale of the solar farm necessary? Smaller solar farms in more suitable areas. - Other sites (Gammaton Moor, Hollamoor) have been created with less affect. - The site is too close to homes within and around the site resulting in amenity impact. - Amenity impact on Brookham Moor from fields 19,20, 21. - Adverse impact on A39 Link Road from glint and glare and visual impact from raised sections of the site. Impact on major tourist route. - Loss of 21 fields/160 acres of agricultural land. Will sheep be able to graze on the grass shaded by the panels? - CO2 emissions from construction/decommission phase? - The application claims that 15800 tonnes of CO2 will be prevented from entering the atmosphere each year, however this is only the CO2 emitted from generating the electricity and ignores the pollution caused by mining, manufacturing and transporting the solar panels, and then disposal in 35 years. CO2 emissions from electricity production are already rapidly reducing so although 15800 tonnes may be saved in the first year (minus production 'costs'), the equivalent amount in 35 years' time will be a lot lower. - Why should Devon become a net exporter of electricity at the expense of the landscape? - Will this development provide electricity when it is dark/dull? - Can the local electricity grid accommodate the additional electricity generated? - Will the investment to the local Parish Councils be seen/Tawstock Parish Council have no input in the planning process and are not being offered any compensation? - Introduction of the panels will have potential to alter the noise direction from the 2x turbines? - Long term disruption and noise factors to contend - Will the scheme really deliver ‘local’ job creation? - Developer has 'cynically' restricted the capacity of the installation to avoid consideration of the Secretary of State. - How will the panels be disposed of following decommission? - If this application is approved it will set a precedent for other large scale solar PV. - Should use existing roofs to provide solar power.

Page 300 Agenda Item 6

Considerations

Proposal Description

This application seeks detailed planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to a solar farm with associated infrastructure on an area of approximately 29 ha (of a 61ha land holding) to the south west of the A39 (Link Road). The proposal would generate electricity for a period of 35 years and would be rated capacity of up to 49.9 MWh. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES)

The proposal would include: - ‘Bi-facial’ Solar PV modules and mounting structures, south facing and mounted at an angle of 15 degrees with maximum height of 3 metres. Each row to be spaced approx. 4.1 metres apart. The arrays will be fixed to the ground either with piled or surface mounted ground anchors. - Inverter units comprising dimensions 12.2m long, 2.6m wide and 3.5m high, coloured dark green - 23 Transformer stations comprising transformer units measuring 6.1 metres long, 2.4 metres wider and 2.9 metres tall and coloured green. - A 312kV substation comprising an area measuring 30m x 40m - Underground cabling to connect the equipment. - Construction of an access track consisting of approximately 300mm depth of compacted stone over a ‘geotextile’ membrane with the finished surface at ground level. - Widening of existing field access points to allow access during construction phase. - A temporary construction compound measuring approx. 30m x 40m in area to provide secure storage of equipment through the construction/decommission phases. This would have similar appearance to the construction track and would be removed once no longer needed. Equipment storage would comprise shipping containers of dimensions 6.05m wide, 2.58m high and 2.43 m wide. - The site would be bounded by mesh fencing at a height of approx. 2.1m.

The panels would be arranged in rows from east to west and south facing. Inverters are mounted to the rear of the panel frame. Transformers and other containers appear as containers and are coloured green which is a ‘standard’ appearance for such structures.

Page 301 Agenda Item 6

Existing tracks are used where possible with new tracks introduced where needed. Existing field boundaries are retained and new vegetation and areas of meadow planting are introduced as illustrated on the LEMP.

Planning Considerations Summary

 Principle of development  Design  Impact on Tourism  Environmental Considerations  Biodiversity and Ecology Impacts and Mitigation  Impact on Designated Heritage Assets and Archaeology  Impact on amenity  Highways and Access  Flood risk and Drainage  Planning Balance and Conclusion

Planning Considerations

In the determination of a planning application Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is relevant. It states that for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts, the determination is to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for this area includes the Devon Waste Plan and North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. The relevant Policies are detailed above.

In considering to grant planning permission which affects a listed building or its setting the Local Planning Authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest which it possesses in accordance with Section 66 (1) and Section 72 (1) of the Listed Building Act.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration as are the following documents:

 ‘Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1)’: Published by the Department of Energy and Climate Change  Written Ministerial Statement: ‘Local planning: Written Ministerial Statement (HCWS24) June 2015.  ‘Net Zero – The Uks Contribution to Stopping Global Warming’ (Climate Change Committee 2019)  Planning Guidance for the Development of Large Scale Ground mounted Solar PV Systems.  Natural England’s Technical Information Note: Solar Parks: Maximising Environmental benefits (TIN101)  Industry Guidance: Solar farms and Biodiversity opportunities  ‘Devon Landscape Policy Group Advice Note No 2: Accommodating Wind and Solar PV Development in Devon’s landscape’ (Chapter 3 and 4)

Page 302 Agenda Item 6

 The North Devon District guidance document ‘An Assessment of the Landscape Sensitivity to Onshore Wind Energy and Large Scale Photovoltaic Development in North Devon District (LUC 2014)’  National Planning practice Guidance – ‘Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy’  Joint Landscape Character Assessment for North Devon and Torridge (2011).

The key considerations in determining this application are whether the benefits of the scheme including the production of electricity from a renewable source, outweighs any harmful effects having regard to the principle of the development, the loss of agricultural land, visual impact, highway safety, impact on tourism, flood risk, impact on residential amenity and impact on biodiversity and ecology.

Principle of development

Climate change is a critical issue facing the world at this current time and, a key factor in addressing the Climate crisis is the reduction in fossil fuels. This is recognised both in National and Local policy.

Provision of Sustainable Renewable Energy

There are a number of International and European policy drivers that are relevant to the consideration of providing renewable energy development.

The Climate Change Act of 2008 and subsequent amendment in June 2019 sets a legal requirement of the Secretary of State to reduce Greenhouse emissions by 2050. The sixth carbon Budget places a legally binding target for the UK to Net Zero by 2050, requiring a doubling of electricity demand from power produced by low-carbon sources, including 4GW per year of solar energy production. Through the Electricity Market Reform (EMR) there is a move towards the increased of a supply of secure electricity to ensure sufficient capacity to meet demand. Renewable energy plays a key factor in supporting the demand and tackling the climate crisis.

The Written Ministerial Statement in June 2015 stated that wind turbines for one or more turbine should only be granted permission on land identified as suitable for wind energy. The Councils have not allocated land for wind energy in the Local Plan and. It therefore falls to other renewable energy technologies to contribute towards low carbon goals, such as Solar.

In 2009 the South West region became the UKs first ‘Low Carbon Economic Area Hub’ for the manufacture, delivery and maintenance of renewable energy technologies. Northern Devon seeks to become a hub for the manufacture, delivery and maintenance of renewable energy technologies including the delivery of large scale renewable energy projects. The proposed scheme has potential to deliver economic support to the delivery and maintenance of a large scale renewable energy scheme contributing positively towards the economic benefits of the area and towards policy ST11: Delivering Employment and Economic Growth.

The National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) (2011) published by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, sets the overarching national policy for energy. Whilst the

Page 303 Agenda Item 6

proposed development is under the threshold for national significance, the principles of EN-1 are material because it describes the national approach to energy provision. Part 2.2 of EN-1 sets the Government’s aim to move towards a secure low-carbon energy system requires significant investment in new technologies to deliver these aims, to deliver a long term strategy for low carbon energy provision, such as solar energy, to deliver less reliance of fossil fuel consumption. Energy provision is vital to economic prosperity, and social well-being, and is essential to ensure that the UK and Northern Devon has secure renewable energy. To achieve Sustainable Development the planning system has three overarching objectives: The ‘economic objective’ to build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, in this case to provide renewable energy to the grid, and thus back to the local area; a ‘social objective’ to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities by reflecting current and future needs, in this case for future needs to provide low-carbon fuel and ‘environmental objectives’ to contribute towards protecting and enhancing our natural , built and historic environment including making efficient use of land and helping to improve biodiversity and mitigating and adapting to climate change.

In the first instance this scheme to produce Renewable Energy, would meet all three dimensions of sustainable development. The proposal would contribute positively towards the economic goals of the framework where Economic aims would be met providing economic investment and infrastructure enhancements. In terms of the social aspect the proposal will provide sustainable energy for the community, for at least the 35 year time period of the application. In this case, the environmental aims will be met through the provision of a substantial landscaping scheme, and the proposal will mitigate the impact of climate change over time.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets out a proactive approach towards the provision of Renewable Energy development to meet aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet renewable energy targets.

In accordance with Part 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) ‘the planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate’… and ..’not require applicants to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy… and …Approve applications if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.’

At paragraph 148, one of the core principles of the NPPF (Part 14 – ‘Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change’) is the need to support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate by encouraging the use of renewable resources. Paragraph 149 requires LPAs to take a pro-active approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, and at paragraph 151, to identify opportunities to draw energy from renewable or low carbon energy systems such as solar development, to support the delivery of Renewable and Low-Carbon Energy and associated infrastructure central to the Government’s aim to support the economic, social and environmental dimensions of Sustainable Development. Paragraph 154 does not expect applicants to have to demonstrate an overall need for Renewable Energy and LPAs should approve the applications (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) and if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

Page 304 Agenda Item 6

In May 2019 North Devon committed to a County wide reduction in carbon emissions of 30% by 2030 and Net Zero by 2050. At present ground mounted Solar PV installations in North Devon contributes a production of 1085 GW per annum and renewable energy sources contribute just 32 % of North Devon’s Electricity consumption. Studies show that Solar PV has potential to contribute 10 GW of electricity to the electricity consumption in the area and to become an exporter of electricity. The Litchardon Solar Farm will contribute a further 49.9 MW towards North Devon’s renewable energy capacity contributing significantly towards National and Local Low Carbon targets.

The move towards Net Zero requires major investment in renewable technologies. Low Carbon energy is vital to economic prosperity and social wellbeing and so, it is important to ensure that North Devon has secure Renewable Energy. The proposal, in combination with other renewable schemes already in operation (Collacott Farm, Hollamoor, Horsacott Farm) would assist in tacking climate change and contribute towards cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The need to facilitate appropriate development in the countryside that is necessary and enabled to meet local economic and social needs is enshrined in policy ST07 (4). The provision of Renewable Energy will contribute positively to the social and economic needs of Northern Devon, providing energy to a number of homes, and will meet the aims of limiting development to that which is enabled to meet local economic and social needs within the countryside in ST07 (4).

As well as broader National support for Renewable schemes, there is Local support within the policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan for the provision of appropriate renewable energy proposals (other than wind energy). From a policy perspective the local plan supports renewable and low carbon energy and heat generating development (other than wind energy) in the landscape character types subject to proposals meeting the criteria of policy ST16 (a-c).

Paragraph 2.21 of the NDTLP sets out the broad spatial aims and objectives of the plan to address the key issues facing North Devon. At part a) the plan is clear that the LPA must find solutions rather than problems to approve sustainable development, part i) seeks to protect the high quality natural environment and at part j) the delivery of necessary development while minimising the impact on the environment and responding to the implications of climate change, and promote the use of renewable energy. This is emphasised in the Spatial Vision for the area at Aim 2: ‘A world Class Environment – Where important Assets are valued and enhanced for future generations’, part f) where ‘demand for resources including energy and water are managed sustainably for efficient and effective use’.

Strategic Policy ST01 is clear that the LPA must take a positive approach reflecting the presumption in favour of Sustainable Development contained within the framework..

Strategic policy ST02: Mitigating Climate Change expects development to make a positive contribution towards the social, economic and environmental sustainability of Northern Devon and its communities by ‘d) promoting opportunities for renewable and low-carbon energy generation whilst conserving and enhancing the natural and built environment.’

Page 305 Agenda Item 6

At paragraph 3.8 the plan is clear that the Local Plan will support opportunities for renewable energy and heat generation to accord with Strategic Policy ST16: Delivering Renewable Energy and Heat. Policy ST16 supports proposals for on-site provision of renewable energy and low carbon technologies in principle (other than wind energy), within landscape character types where:

- landscape sensitivity is best suited to accommodate them, - there is no significant impact on Local amenities and - the special qualities of nationally important landscape, biodiversity and heritage designations and their settings are conserved or enhanced and where it can be shown that the cumulative impacts of operational and proposed development does not become an overly adverse effect on the landscape. - Renewable and low carbon energy development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that the cumulative impact of operational, consented and proposed development on landscape character does not become a significant and defining characteristic of the wider fabric, character of the landscape.

The delivery of the Litchardon Solar farm would produce 49.9MWp in this scheme falling below Nationally Significant Infrastructure (50.000+MWp). The Secretary of State has been consulted and has not raised comment. One of the key benefits of delivery of the scheme would be the provision of renewable power to around 127000 homes, mostly be delivered locally. Furthermore, the applicant’s statement shows an offset of Carbon Dioxide emissions amounting to approximately 15800 tonnes per year. The proposal, in conjunction with other Renewable Energy schemes in the area, would contribute towards the targets of the Climate Change Act 2008 to reduce Carbon emissions, and the commitment to Net Zero Carbon across Northern Devon. The development can increase the security for provision of renewable electricity supply within North Devon and, there is general support for renewable schemes in the Framework, and at Local Level within the Local Plan.

To deliver the Strategic vision for North Devon, to move towards a Zero Carbon energy production, the provision of Renewable Energy Infrastructure to allow for the generation of electricity from renewable energy is essential. The provision of a decentralised Renewable Energy supply supports the Government’s aim to provide a Net Zero carbon future, and lends significant support to the scheme in accordance with the principles of the NPPF, and with policies ST01, ST02, ST07 and ST16 to deliver a sustainable solution to the climate crisis and provides employment opportunity in accordance with ST11.

From a policy perspective, the energy produced would feed back into the grid and with the production of 49.9 MW, will make a valuable contribution towards renewable energy production locally and nationally and, consequently the benefits of producing renewable energy should be given significant weight as a material planning consideration in the determination of this proposal. The application is considered to be acceptable in principle, providing it accords with the other polices of the Development Plan and be demonstrable that the proposals would not result in adverse impact on the character of the countryside

The need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protection and the planning concerns of the local community. The LPA acknowledges

Page 306 Agenda Item 6

that opportunities for Renewable Energy proposals are strongly influenced by the availability of the natural resources (in this case an appropriate land mass), and the sensitivity of the environment to accommodate the different types and scales of installation including the cumulative impacts. The policy support for the renewable scheme must be balanced alongside the visual impact of the scheme, the cumulative effect with other existing operational wind and solar development in the area, as well as existing infrastructure (2 radio antennas, the A39 Link road and various existing electricity pylons) the effect on, and the temporary loss of low grade agricultural land, the potential for impact on local tourism and the impact on the amenities of local residents, the effect on the local highway network and the effect on wildlife and ecology.

If the benefits of delivering the renewable energy are considered to outweigh the above impacts, then the proposal can be granted permission in accordance with National and Local Plan policy and the guidance set out in this report. The proposal must accord with the other policies in the Local Plan and demonstrate that the proposal will not result in adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside.

The report will set out the process of selection for this site and the benefits of the scheme as well as the visual effects on the countryside and local amenity. The report will also assess the impact on the local highway network and whether the scheme provides adequate and effective biodiversity and ecological gains in accordance with National and Local policy.

Site selection justification

Site selection and design is initially examined in Volume 2 paragraph 3.7 of the ES and Appendix 3 of Volume 2 of the ES. The site selection takes account of the ,Devon Landscape Policy Group Advice Note 2: Accommodating wind and Solar PV developments in Devon’s landscapes; Siting, design and Assessment of Solar PV Developments,.

The applicants have applied a ‘policy derived site selection and design criteria’ for the site, taking account of all relevant documents. The key determining factors in this case are the benefits derived to the local community from the provision of Renewable Energy sourced electricity, the effect on the landscape character, the cumulative impact, the provision of effective biodiversity mitigation, amenity, highway impact, the effect on heritage assets and archaeological matters and flood risk and drainage. The applicants assessed the broad acceptability of the site using the Solar Trade Association (STA) best practice Guidance and the 10 commitments contained within (Environmental Statement Volume 2 paragraph 1.16 and Table 3.1 STA 10 commitments). The STA findings are supported by the findings of the ES and in particular the results of the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) at chapter 11 of the ES. Through the EIA Scoping process the key factors for the applicant’s selection of Litchardon are summarised at table A.1 and a summary of existing constraints is provided at table A.2.

The applicants have chosen this site as a location which will provide both for their needs to develop a technically viable development, whilst seeking to balance the need to reduce the impact of the development within the local and wider environment, and to develop such a scheme on least valued agricultural land. The site also provides highways access for all stages of the lifetime of the application, proposing minimal on

Page 307 Agenda Item 6

site widening of existing access points, and will retain existing hedgerows throughout and bounding the site.

Connectivity to the Grid

A key consideration in the siting of the solar farm, is Grid connection (local Electricity distribution network) which should ideally be within 2 km of the site. The site provides adequate Grid connection via a proposed Substation and Connection Compound on land to the North at Lovacott Cross. The proposal does not require over ground lines to be introduced and relies on underground cabling to distribute the electricity to the grid. The availability of the connection is important to reduce connection costs resulting in a project becoming unviable.

Agricultural Land Quality

The Natural England Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) defines the Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land as grade 1, 2 and 3a with lower grade land at 3b, and 4, defined by wetness and gradient of the land. Development of BMV land (1,2 and 3a) should be avoided and development directed towards land of lower grades 3b and 4.

In this case the land is currently used for pasture for beef and sheep. The submission concludes that ‘the land has heavy, poorly draining soils, with land quality limited to sub- grade 3b or grade 4 by wetness and gradient’ with a mixture of fine silty soil and fine loamy soil. The site is classed as a mixture of sub- Grade 3b (Area of approx. 81 % of the site) and grade 4 pastureland (Area of approx. 17% of the site with 2 % of the site non-agricultural. The predominant land classification is 3b and 4 where the soils are too wet or of a gradient too undulating to be cultivated for most of the year.

The development does not result in the loss of BMV agricultural land, using land of lower grade agricultural quality (3b and 4) whereby, the economic benefits of the Renewable Energy will outweigh the loss of least productive agricultural land. This is accordant with the WMS, NPPF and NPG to give preference to the development of lower grade agricultural land of lower agricultural quality.

It is proposed that the land between the panels will continue to be utilised for the purposes of sheep grazing which, although acknowledged to be intermittent, maintains a usable area of land for agriculture, contributing towards the current food producing economic farming practice, ensuring maintenance of the land, and ensuring viability of the farm enterprise.

The enterprise will be further bolstered by income derived from hosting the solar farm on the holding, and contributes towards low carbon farming. This accords with the broad aims of paragraph 83 and policy DM15 to support the agricultural sector through diversification of a holding and reinforcing the viability of the existing holding. On this basis, given the ‘temporary’ use of the land for 35 years, the proposal will retain the agricultural quality of the land for the future, and the balance weighs in the favour of the scheme as the proposal does not result in a significant loss of BMV agricultural land or harm the agricultural economy and allows the continued agricultural use of the land. A planning condition is proposed to ensure that a degree of agricultural use occurs throughout the lifetime of the development.

Page 308 Agenda Item 6

Design

Design is considered in terms of policies ST04, DM04 and Part 12 of the framework. New development must achieve high quality design form that responds to the characteristics of the site.

The layout of the solar farm broadly follows established field boundaries and sizes which, given the scale of the proposal, will respect the existing rural layout. The scheme is accompanied by a detailed LEMP which will provide further vegetative screening of the site, and bolster established field boundaries.

The panels, arrays, housings fencing and inverter boxes are all relatively low level developments with the highest parts of the scheme comprising the inverter boxes and fencing. The positon and height of the panels and equipment are dictated by the undulating lay of the land. The scale and mass remains consistent across the site. The structures are of a ‘standard’ design, material and form synonymous with such solar development. The design will be apparent within the parameters of the site but less so from further afield due to the lay of the land and intervening existing and proposed vegetation.

The structures will appear as new industrial features within the immediate rural landscape, but as will be considered below with the undulating rise of the surrounding landform, the introduction of new planting and existing field boundaries and vegetation, will be accommodated into the wider landscape. A planning condition is included to secure details of external materials and appearance of the equipment casings.

Impact on Tourism

Tourism and leisure attractions form an important part of the Northern Devon’s economy and tourism offer. New development should not inhibit access to, or significantly detract from northern Devon’s tourism economy.

In terms of the impact on tourism, the site will not directly affect or be visible from any known tourism or leisure attraction within the site. The site will not be directly perceived from the undeveloped coastal areas or from popular tourist attractions at Exmoor and will not detract from the appreciation of the landscape from these popular areas. Part of the eastern rear section of the site will be apparent at a distance from Codden Hill, which is a popular walking route, but, would not physically detract from the landscape to the extent that users will cease to visit.

The site will be apparent from a relatively short section of the A39, which is a Tourist Route linking Barnstaple to Bideford. Solar arrays have become a feature along Motorways and main roads, and within reason are accepted into the landscape as relatively fleeting glimpsed industrial features. The array will effect a relatively short 700m section of the A39 and, as is evident from letters of support from outside the district, would be perceived as a positive addition to the landscape, given the need to reduce greenhouse gasses. The LPA does not consider that the impact on tourism would be so severe as to warrant refusal of this scheme.

Page 309 Agenda Item 6

Furthermore, the existing Collacott array and 2 wind turbines are visible from this route and, do not deter holiday makers from using the A39.

Environmental Considerations

Character and appearance of the proposal within the countryside landscape

The proposed solar farm would be located approximate 2.36 km from the outskirts of Barnstaple (Bickington) to the north and 1.27 km from St Johns Chapel to the east, 2.41 km to the north west of Newton Tracey and 2.26 km from Horwood (measurements taken from roughly the centre of the site) and would span across 23 fields of mostly pastureland, on either side of the A39.

Objections received to the proposal, refer to the siting and scale of the proposal, the effect on the character of the area and the cumulative effect of the scheme with existing renewable energy schemes and existing infrastructure.

The framework is clear at part 15 paragraph 170 that development should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and development should provide net gains in biodiversity.

The Local Plan acknowledges that Renewable Energy developments including solar farms can impact on the areas high quality natural and historic environment. Landscape Visual Impact is one of the most important considerations in determining any application for such development.

Large scale Solar development can result in negative impacts on the rural landscape where the landscape is elevated, or particularly undulating. It is essential that the solar farm be planned to mitigate and reduce its impact where possible, and that proposed landscaping is both appropriate and effective.

Policy ST16 of the NDTLP states that ‘renewable and low carbon energy and heat generating development… will be supported in the landscape character types where landscape sensitivity is best able to accommodate them, assessed in accordance with the Councils Landscape Sensitivity Assessments and by the Landscapes sensitivity to accommodate the scale of development’.

The framework expects the Planning system to ‘support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure’. The overarching aim set out in EN-1 requires decision makers to balance large scale projects against the impact on the locality, ensuring that the proposal has been well designed taking account of the potential effect on the landscape having regard to siting, operational and other relevant constraints with the aim being to minimise the harm to the landscape where possible and introducing appropriate measures to do so.

Policy DM08A: Landscape and Seascape character of the NDTLP requires development to be of appropriate scale and mass and design that recognises and respects the landscape qualities of both designated and undesignated landscapes. Development must take account of landscape sensitivity and capacity, including

Page 310 Agenda Item 6

cumulative effects and great weight is given to conserving the landscape qualities of designated landscapes such as the North Devon Cost Area of Outstanding natural Beauty (AONB) which falls within the 5km Zone of Theoretical Visibility. This is also enshrined at policy ST16 (3) (a). DM08A requires assessment of a development in terms of the effect on the key characteristics and extent of all landscape types identified within the Joint landscape Character Assessment for Northern Devon and Torridge Districts (LCT) (2010). Key characteristics will be conserved and enhanced.

The Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) shows that the site is not within a protected landscape, but is within Landscape Character Type (LCT) 3A: Upper Farmed Wooded Valley Slopes, which comprises the upper catchments of the main river valleys comprising a gently rolling pastoral landscape of fields bounded by thick Devon Hedges, characterised with a strongly undulating land form comprising arable cultivation, regular fields and with nature conservation interest provided by areas of species rich Culm grassland, meadows and springs, which is evident at the Litchardon site. Main roads such as the A39, and pylon lines and the influence of modern development are strong influencing factors on the tranquillity of this LCT. The Landscape Character Assessment assesses the tranquillity of the landscape as being susceptible to change and identifies large scale photovoltaic developments which capitalise on steeper southern flanks of fields as a key force for change within the LCT. The overall strategy is to protect the landscapes strong rural character and historic sense of place and woodland habitat and to protect views from further afield to Dartmoor, Exmoor and the North Devon Coast AONB. Management of development within the LCT should protect the strong irregular filed patterns and hedge banks, and manage the wildlife interests of the farmed landscape including creating species rich grass buffers around fields and reinforcing upland character. The overall aim of the LCA is that Solar PV installations do not become a key characteristic of the landscape. In terms of the guiding principles of the LCA the guiding principles should be adopted but each site must be considered on its own merits, and the planning balance in relation to the need for Renewable Energy production weighted accordingly.

The North Devon District Guidance document ‘ An Assessment of the Landscape Sensitivity to Onshore Wind Energy and Large Scale Photovoltaic Development in Northern Devon District (LUC 2014) suggests that within LCT 3 A have a high sensitivity for very large solar pv developments setting out broad principles for solar development:

Section 4.13 states ‘For solar PV development the guidance for development included for each LCT suggests that, generally, the most suitable forms of solar PV development will be those of up to 10 hectares in size located in more enclosed areas and on lower slopes, avoiding highly visible slopes. Existing screening features should be used to screen these developments and the overall aim should be to make sure that solar PV developments do not become a key characteristic of the landscape of the LCT or have a defining influence on the overall experience of the landscape of the landscapes of North Devon’.

As identified, this proposal is considerably larger than the recommended 10-15 ha size, suggesting that there is a high magnitude for the proposal to be a key visual component of the LCT. Notwithstanding that the principle of Solar PV development is accepted, and the proposal does not affect BMV agricultural land, the proposal must be able to be accepted into the wider landscape, taking account of the effect of the development on

Page 311 Agenda Item 6

wider landscape designations, the wider LCT and within the LCT area of the site itself taking account of the cumulative impact of the development with existing ‘industrialised’ landscape features within 1.2km of the site and solar pv development further afield within the 5km radius.

In this case the other infrastructure development considered comprises the following;

Other Renewable Energy Developments

- Lower Litchardon Farm wind turbine located to the north of the site. (Medium scale). (Operational) (56756) - Collacott Farm Wind Turbine (Medium scale) (operational in situ, located to the west of the site) (54353) - Knowle Farm Horwood – 34.2m high wind turbine (operational in situ) (54236) - Collacott Solar Farm to the west of the site (Medium scale)(58715) - Horsacott solar array. (Operational and in situ approx. 1.15 km to the north west of the site). (54349) - Hollamoor Solar Array. Operational and in situ located approx 3.57 km from the site). (54884). - Combrew Farm Bickington. Three rows of panels and Inverter generating 49.9KPW. (not operational) (52963)

Other Infrastructure and developments

- a wireless station mast and ordinance survey mast and associated equipment masts owned by Aquiva Services located to the east of the site - the A39 ‘Atlantic Highway’ link road dissecting the site from north to south - the Holmacott Landfill site comprising approximately 7.5 ha of land to the south west of the site - A number of electricity pylons dissecting the site to the north

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)

The scheme is accompanied by a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) (Appendix 11 of the ES) which has been carried out by the applicants in accordance with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Assessment Third Edition. The LVIA identifies visual receptors at Settlements individual properties, visitor attractions, recreational routes, Public Rights of Way (PROW) and also from rail routes, although the scheme will not affect a rail route.

The assessment includes a stand-alone and cumulative Zone of Theoretical Vision (ZTV) extending to a 5 km radius around the site, including areas within the AONB, and also identifies a 1.2km radius around the ‘bowl’ of the topography of the land. The LVIA is assessed from 12 viewpoints and provides an indicative impression of how the panels will appear from each vantage point. The points include public roads, local bridal ways and footpaths and from points in proximity to residential property.

The submitted LVIA assesses the baseline qualities and visual amenity of the site and its surrounding area, and defines the predicted landscape and visual effects from the

Page 312 Agenda Item 6

proposed array. This methodology is appropriate and of sufficient content to enable the LPA to consider the effects of the development. These viewpoints have similarly been inspected by the case officer and consultees.

The scale and area of this proposal makes it difficult to achieve a zero visual impact. What must be considered is if the site is well planned, and as well screened as possible to offer as much mitigation as possible from the visual effects of the scene.

A summary of the findings of the LVIA is provided, along with a summary of mitigation measures proposed. A further summary of viewpoints from local attractions, the wider area, localised view points and individual properties is provided below and in the amenity section of the report.

Long range viewpoints Long range views of the site from over and within 5 km distance of the site are restricted by the undulating landform surrounding the site with the only potential views of the site are from highly elevated positions.

Codden Hill Beacon The LVIA shows that a relatively moderate section of the eastern flank of the site would be visible from Codden Hill, becoming a small feature of the landscape when viewed from this public vantage point. The majority of the site to the south, will be screened by the undulating rise of the intervening landform. The LVIA shows a small section of the southern flank of the site visible from Codden Hill which will be read as a distant addition to the landscape.

North Devon AONB Whilst there are no protected designations within the proposed site area, the AONB is within the 5km study area. Paragraph 172 of the framework places great weight on the conservation and enhancement of the AONB to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the AONB. The LVIA shows that the site will be well screened by intervening undulating landscape, vegetation and built form from a distance between 5-10km from the AONB. Beyond 10KM there may be glimpsed views of the site from higher ground within the AONB at Saunton but again this is not likely to significantly detract or directly affect the natural beauty of the AONB, which is confirmed by the North Devon AONB partnership.

Taw and Torridge Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) The LVIA shows that the site is within 3KM of the Taw and Torridge Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (to the west). Natural England have considered the site location in respect of potential impacts on the SSSI and conclude there are no significant impacts identified and Natural England therefore does not object.

Within the LCT area 3A – Upper farmed and Wooded Valley Slopes landform is generally undulating, and landscape is characterised with rolling pastoral fields bounded by thick Devon Hedges and interspersed with woodland. What is clear in this case is that the land form is undulating comprising higher points along the upper southern and western flanks of the site and lower areas within the northern and eastern sections. The undulating land form forms a wide ‘bowl’ shape encompassing the site within a relatively

Page 313 Agenda Item 6

localised area. Viewpoints from further afield within the ZVT are significantly reduced by the land form.

Medium to short range viewpoints and views from individual dwellings At shorter range, within a 2km radius parts of the site become more apparent from public vantage points. The LVIA identifies a number of localised points where at short range the site will become more visible and where the solar array will have major, moderate and high impacts.

Impacts of the entire site will be perceived on the approach to Brookham Farm which is the closest property to the site at approximately 129 metres to the east and 119 metres to the south west. The farmhouse is 2-storey with the principle elevation facing east towards fields 19, 20 and 21. At the rear there are a number of agricultural buildings forming the farm yard and a large grassed area to the south which may have recreational purpose. It is acknowledged that views of the solar farm will be major/moderate in excess of 5 years from the construction. To mitigate views to the East, the LEMP shows provision of a bank of mixed planting to the West of fields 19 and 20 which over time will grow to screen side on views of the site from the front of Brookham House. To the East, side views of fields 19, 20 and 21 will be apparent from first floor windows of Brookham House. To mitigate these views, the LEMP shows provision of a mixed bund of planting to the west of fields 19 and 20. Over time this will grow to provide mitigation to Brookham Farm.

There are residential properties to the south of field 21 at Litchardon Cross at Higher Litchardon. These are Lianda, Higher Litchardon, Fern Cottage, Acorn Cottage, Rose Cottage and Meadow Cottage. The southern flank of fields 19-21 face towards the rear of these properties. At present there is an established hedge bank along the South of field 21. The proposed LEMP shows a bank of mixed woodland planting to be created on land to the south of field 21 which over time will provide vegetative mitigation to the rear of properties at Litchardon Cross. This is examined further in the amenity section of the report.

It is possible to obtain vista views from Huish Moor, but the majority of viewpoints are through field accesses or where field boundaries are low. Overall, given the scale of the site, views from the network of country lanes bounding the site and positon of established field boundaries are filtered.

Road from Voscombe Cross to Holmacott The rising land form and the intervening vegetation and field boundaries around the site provides screening from the wider area, Along the public road to Holmacott from Voscombe Cross, the roadside is generally screened by established boundary hedgerows with limited views attainable along the road leading to Holmacott through field access points. Most of the site will be visible from breaks in the roadside hedges. The LVIA Acknowledges that views of the site from this road will have a medium to high sensitivity to the solar array. The proposed boundary mitigation and retained hedging will soften the southern flank of fields 15, 17 and 18. Once established, the landscape mitigation will provide some degree of landscape mitigation but large parts of the site will still be visible becoming a key part of the landscape with substantial magnitude for change through the duration of the life of the development from this lightly used road.

Page 314 Agenda Item 6

Holmacott The settlement of Holmacott is located to the south west and contains a number of 2- storey dwellings mostly located to the south and North West. Holmacott Farm is located to the north east, and is well screened by existing agricultural barns along the east side of the farm unit. The LVIA acknowledges that limited views of the site may be attainable from upper floors of Holmacott Farm. These views will be at a distance of approximately 500 metres from the farm dwelling. It is proposed to maintain heights of hedgerows along the southern flank of field 15 and to plant additional hedges along the southern flanks of field 17 to provide mitigation of the southern boundary. Views of the site further to the north may be attainable from Holmacott Farm. Within Holmacott, most properties are located to the North West where views of the site from residential properties will be restricted by the rising lay of the land and intervening field boundaries.

Huish Moor Road Along Huish Moor the rural road serves a properties known as Huish Moor and Orchard Farm. The road is elevated on the crest of the valley bowl. Field boundaries along the upper section of the road are low offering clear views of the site to lower ground to the north and north east. The LVIA acknowledges that there is a high sensitivity along this section of road and that the solar farm will become a key characteristic of the landscape. It is possible to see the 2 wind turbines, the landfill site and the solar array at Collacott Farm from this elevated position, and these existing elements would be read in accumulation with the proposed development. The scheme will be visible and will have a will have a major/moderate adverse effect on views along Huish Moor.

An objection letter has been received from the owners of ‘Huish Moor’ raising concern that the site will affect their amenities. Views from ‘Huish Moor’ are considered in the amenity section of the report.

Public Rights of Way No public footpaths run through the site. There are a number of public footpaths in the vicinity of the site including Tawstock Footpath No 6 approximately 220m to the South East of the array, Horwood, Lovacott and Newton Tracey footpaths 6, 47, 48 and 49 approximately 570 m south west of the array and Fremington footpath 44 located approximately 725m north west of the nearest part of the array. PROW 44 to Knightacott runs to the west of fields 1-6. Although the footpath runs through a heavily wooded area of Kittymoor Brake there will be areas where, through breaks in the foliage, the southern flanks of fields 2, 3 and 4 will be visible. The LVIA acknowledges that in accumulation with the existing solar arrays at Collacott, the proposal will be clearly visible from the public footpath from several viewpoints. The County PROW officer has commented that ‘the application will have no direct effect on the Public Rights of Way Network in the vicinity, but acknowledges that there may be adverse effect on the wider rights of way network and requires that ‘due care be given to the visual impact such a large development may have within this well walked area. The proposed mitigation in the form of the LEMP scheme will provide immediate screening of the site, wider views of the solar pvs will be attainable from parts of the PROW and in particular of fields 1-4.

Old Bideford Road

Page 315 Agenda Item 6

Along the Old Bideford Road heading north towards Collacott Farm the public road are well screened by high established hedgerows. Views of the site will be apparent through field access points, and where the land falls away to reveal fields 1-6 and where attainable, the entire site will be seen with a moderate adverse effect on public views. This can already be seen on the existing Collacott Array when this becomes apparent. Proposed screening along the western flanks of the site will assist in screening off the lower sections of fields 3, 4 and 6. Field boundaries to the west of field five will help to soften this section of the site.

Prospect Corner At prospect Corner the proposed substation will be mostly screened from views to New House and Prospect House. The majority of the site will be screened by established trees and hedgerows and the rising lay of the land. The substation will be screened over time by the inclusion of a bank of trees to the south of the substation. Distant views only of the site will be attainable.

A39 Link Road Along the A39 south bound the site will be clearly visible in summer and particularly in winter months along a section of the road measuring approximately 740 metres where roadside vegetation is sparse, and the site will become apparent to users of the Atlantic Highway. Mitigation measures are proposed along fields 7, 11, 14 and 15 in the form of retaining existing hedges, bolstering of existing hedges and allowing increased height of growth, and new hedgerow planting along this flank of the site. Over time, the mitigation will provide some degree of screening but is unlikely to completely screen the array on the southern approach to Barnstaple and northern approach to Bideford. Outside of this 740 metres zone, proposed and existing vegetation will break up the rows of panels and provide visual mitigation. This will be less effective in winter months. Users of the A39 will see the proposal, this will include tourists traversing from Bideford to Barnstaple. The Collacott array is visible in winter months but, from a relatively short section of the highway offering glimpsed views of the array. This array has produced no known Glint or Glare impacts to the highway.

Summary of visual impact

Given the representations from local residents, the landscape and visual impact of this scheme is one of the most important issue in considering the proposal.

The LVIA is clear that the most sensitive immediate visual receptors around the site are at the settlements of Bickleton, Knightacott, Litchardon Cross and dwellings at Huish Moor, Brookham Farm, Voscombe, Greenfields, the east side of Holmacott and Collacott and at Lovacott Cross at Phelmont House and New House. There are other public vantage points along public footpaths at east of Litchardon to the east of the site and a footpath to Knightacott. Distant views are considered from as far as Codden Hill Beacon, which is a high local viewpoint to the north and Saunton.

At long range, views of the site will be restricted by the nature of the terrain and the undulating land form. Only potential long range views are from Codden Hill, and then a relatively small section of the site. The assessment shows that the rising and undulating land form provides effective screening of the development from further afield within the LCT and from wider points in the AONB. Wider views of the site from the north east and

Page 316 Agenda Item 6

west are mostly obscured by the rise of the landform. The site will not be adveresly visible from views over 5km of the site forming a small part of the landscape.

At medium range views at lower level and road level the majority of the site is generally obscured by field boundaries and rising landform. There are breaks in boundaries which will offer relatively unrestricted views of parts of the site but these are relatively fleeting views. Some parts of the site will be visible from raised areas of public vantage points such as the Knightacott PROW or the link Road or raised public roads as discussed.

It is acknowledged that there is a medium to high magnitude of impact on localised views from local roads and the PROW. Taking account of the representations by local residents the LPA acknowledges that there will be impact on properties in the vicinity of the site, and short to medium term harm to the countryside, by virtue of the change of appearance of the agricultural landscape.

To the south, short range views are attainable from raised local roads and from the PROW, with wider views well screened by the steep rise of the land to the south. At short range, views of the PV panels and equipment are restricted to localised visual receptors within the bowl of the land form approx. 1.2km around the site from the aforementioned properties and PROW and rural roads. The relative sensitivities’ are such that due to the scale of the development and relative distances from the receptors, the development will be experienced from certain viewpoints (e.g. Brookham Farm) from High visual effect and further afield from Moderate to high visual impact. Due to the relative distances from the receptors and the benefits of topography and vegetation around the site the principle views of the site are contained to an approximate area of 1.2 km radius, following the rise of the land which, given the scale of the development is moderate but localised within the wider LCT.

Within the short term visual range, the land is relatively open with a plateau of agricultural land to the south of the site, rising to the northern flank of the site. During the construction phase the temporary construction compound to the north east will be visible, being on the brow of a hill and will be a new addition to the landscape, visible from local roads. This temporary compound which will be removed once construction is completed.

The provision of screening mitigation in the form of the detailed LEMP which is supported by the Authorities Sustainability Officer and Arboriculture Officer, will provide biodiversity gains, and effective screening mitigation over time such that at medium visual range, of the site from local viewpoints along the lanes around the site are generally mitigated or obscured or filtered views. The exception to this is from raised ground to the south and south west. The Collacott array will become apparent in accumulation with the proposed array, but will appear as part of the wider development scheme.

Within the area of development, there are various existing hedgerows and copses of trees. The LEMP proposes to bolster these planted areas with appropriate indigenous planting, providing significant biodiversity gains in the form of new woodland planting, creation of planted meadows and bolstering existing hedges. These measures will cumulatively help to soften the appearance of the proposal over time and offer a degree of visual separation within the rural landscape.

Page 317 Agenda Item 6

It is clear that despite the extensive LEMP scheme, the zone of influence of the proposal will not be zero. The proposed planting will take time to reach maturity whereby, given the scale of the proposal, in the short term the proposal will be visible from public vantage points, local roads and from properties within 1.2 km of the site. Despite the additional planting proposed along the A39 it is likely that the scheme will be apparent from users of the A39 for the duration of the lifetime of the proposal. From further afield the steeply undulating landform and intervening vegetation and built form to the north, south east and west provides effective visual mitigation from views from afar, resulting in short term moderate to major localised views. Once established, the LEMP will provide localised visual protection, in particular to Brookham Farm from fields 19-21, and to properties to the south at Litchardon, and to a degree, along the A39. Overall, given the mitigation proposed, the localised harm will be offset by the implementation of the proposed screening mitigation. The Councils Sustainability Officer supports the principle of the LEMP and Biodiversity Metric Submitted with the scheme which will be examined further in the Biodiversity and ecology section of the report.

Cumulative impacts

The above map shows the site in relation to the Collacott and Horsacott Solar PV array in situ

Policy ST16 (4) states that ‘Renewable and low carbon energy development… will be supported where it can demonstrate that the cumulative impact of operational and proposed development on landscape character does not become a significant defining characteristic of the wider fabric, character and quality of the landscape’.

The potential cumulative impact of this site, with the existing solar farms at Collacott, Hollamoor and Horsacott, and with the wind turbines and existing infrastructure has been considered. The proposals identify three wind turbines and one solar farm within 2km of the site and a further solar farm at Horsacott, within 5km of the site.

Page 318 Agenda Item 6

The array will be seen in accumulation with the Collacott Solar Array, but will not be seen in accumulation with other solar arrays in the wider landscape outside of the rising landform. Based on a human field of vision, the separation distances from other established solar pv arrays and the low level nature of the proposed solar pv and the low level of solar PV at Holamoor and Horsacott, and intervening landform , and vegetation means that the proposal will not be experienced in one view with these other arrays.

The array will be seen in accumulation with other industrial and infrastructure development in the vicinity of the development site. It will be read in accumulation with the wind turbines and existing solar array at Collacott Farm and Litchardon, and with the landfill site, the A39, and communication masts identified. Due to the scale of the proposal, this would be unavoidable. Overall the LVIA concludes that the sensitivity of the immediate landscape to the changes from the proposed solar farm are of Medium/High sensitivity within a 1.2 km radius of the site, which by virtue of its size and nature effects the landscape character of this localised section of the LCT, changing the land form agricultural to industrialised, albeit for a temporary period.

The land rises to the north whereby fields 5,7,8,9,19 and parts of 11, 12 and 13 are on higher ground with the remaining fields forming the plateau. Fields 1 and 2 and part of field 3 are on raised land to the west facing east into the bowl of the land form. Fields 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are positioned on the northern flanks of the site and are well screened by the rise of the land form to the south and east.

The magnitude of the cumulative change should be considered in context with the other industrialised features of this part of the LCT, and that the site is relatively well screened by the rolling topography of the landform, within a relatively short distance of the site.

There are a number of factors to weigh in the balance: The proposed array will effectively assimilate the Collacott site into the development, appearing as part of the wider scheme. The overall visual impact of the scheme is localised with views identified to individual property and public roads and footpaths nearby the site and appropriate landscape mitigation provided. The character of this area is not unspoilt agricultural land, nor is it particularly tranquil with the existing works, the Landfill site, masts, pylons and the A39 road running through it. The landscape is characterised with three renewable energy projects operating within the immediate vicinity of the site, and with 2 large communications masts all within close proximity of each other. There are a number of smaller electricity pylons and a smaller communications pylon which add to the industrialisation of the landscape. The cumulation of development is well contained within a relatively localised area where the cumualtion of industrialised development will appear logical.

Further afield, within the 5km radius, the undulating land form and intervening built forms and vegetation will provide a good degree of visual screening of the solar farm within the wider LCT.

Given the scale of the development, it is not practicable to expect that the visual effect of the array can be completely screened as has happened at other sites such as Horsacott and Hollamoor which are considerably smaller schemes. The proposal will change this relatively moderate section of the LCT which is unavoidable if the

Page 319 Agenda Item 6

development is approved, despite the extensive landscape mitigation scheme. There will be a localised cumulative visual impact with the existing Collacott array, the turbines and existing infrastructure.

The applicants have sought to site the panels and equipment within the established field patterns, following the southern aspect of the fields and following the general topography of the area, retaining field hedgerows and larger areas of existing trees which broadly follow the landscape features and field patterns features of the LCT. The scheme proposes a number of biodiversity landscape mitigation and enhancement measures which, over time will bolster the vegetative cover for the solar farm further reducing its impact. The LEMP accompanying the submission shows where the biodiversity gains will be most effective. The number of existing infrastructure developments within and surrounding the site, have a defining industrialised influence on the existing landscape, whereby the introduction of the new array will be read in context with existing infrastructure developments, contained within a relatively moderate 1.2km radius of the site. The existing Collacott array and to an extent the turbine equipment will effectively be assimilated into the proposed scheme, appearing less as standalone schemes, and more holistically with the wider landscape. Existing public perceptions of the landscape is one whereby the land form is predominantly agricultural, but also contains elements of renewable energy infrastructure, where it would be logical to site this installation. Wider public views of the site are restricted. The array will be separated from other existing arrays (apart from Collacott), and collectively will not result in cumulative defining influence on the wider landscape. The proposals will have a relatively localised impact, maintaining the overall wider character of the landscape in accordance with polices ST14, ST16, DM04, DM08 and DM08A.

Biodiversity and Ecology

Local Planning Authorities have a Statutory Duty to ensure that the impact of development on wildlife is fully considered during the determination of a planning application under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations 2010).

Paragraphs 170 and Paragraph 175 of the framework are clear that when determining applications, if harm to biodiversity resulting from the development cannot be avoided then it should be adequately mitigated. Policy DM14: Enhancing Environmental Assets of the NDTLP expects new development to protect the quality of northern Devon’s natural environment, to contribute positively towards providing a net gain in biodiversity and positive management of the landscape, protect the hierarchy of designated sites and conserve European Protected species, conserving the setting of the North Devon Coast AONB whilst fostering the social and economic wellbeing of the area Designated sites There are no designated sites within the site boundary. The site is located within 2km of two statutory designated sites. These are the Fremington Local Nature Reserve (LNR) approximately 1.39 km to the north west of the site, and Fremington Clay Pit Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) approximate 1.55 km to the north east. There are 47 non-statutory designated sites are present within 3km of the site comprising: 9 County Wildlife Sites (CWS), 1 Ancient semi-natural woodland, 37 unconfirmed Wildlife sites.

Page 320 Agenda Item 6

No European Protected Species Licence sites have been identified within 2 km of the site.

Protected species To assess the impact on ecology, the applicants have submitted a Phase 1 ‘Habitat Survey, Protected Fauna and Habitat Suitability Assessment’. The assessments include Breeding Bird Surveys, Bat Surveys and Wintering Bird Survey, all of which were carried out by a qualified ecologist in March and November 2019. The Phase 1 survey also assessed potential habitats for Badgers, Bats, Dormouse, Otter, and Water Vole, great crested Newts and reptiles.

The survey finds that the application site principally involves fields that have been used as grassland (grazing) and arable use which are of negligible habitat value for protected species.

A badger set was recorded on the site (SS 51003 29941) with fresh signs of use. Mitigation measures are proposed to ensure no direct impact to the badger set through the proposed work, comprising a buffer zone of 10 metres limiting works around the sett. The proposal will not result in long term disturbance of Badgers, and proposed habitat enhancements will increase foraging habitats.

The Assessment shows that several species of bat were recorded within a 3km search radius. No buildings or trees on site were recorded as having potential for bat roosts. The survey identified that the existing fields and hedgerows around the site provide potential foraging habitat for bats as do streams and woodland copses. No features for tree roosts within the site were recorded. No works will impact on bat roosts on or adjacent to the site. There is a barn on site which, the survey found that the barn was of ‘negligible suitability’ for day roosts and no evidence of bats was found.

Although no roosts were identified, during the survey, a total of 13 species were recorded including Common Pipistrelle, Soprano Pipistrelle, Greater Horseshoe, Noctule, Brown Long eared Bats, Daubentons Bat and Lesser Horseshoe. The presence of low numbers of rarest species confirms the site has County Importance for bats with potential for impact on habitat at all phases of the development. Anticipated impacts as a result of the proposal comprise operational security lighting, loss of cattle grazed pasture as a foraging resource, increased human presence on site to complete ongoing maintenance.

This requires effective enhancement and management to ensure foraging habitat is not unduly lost, and where possible that it is actively enhanced. The loss of foraging habitat through widening of access points into fields is adequately mitigated through the provision of new hedge rows and wildflower areas as set out in the accompanying LEMP. The layout of the site has been designed to avoid the features of the site that may be used by the highest number of bats such as field boundary hedges and tree lines. The new habitats will link existing green corridors within the site, add to the effectiveness of the site to deliver foraging habitat. Post construction monitoring surveys for bats will be undertaken in years 3 and 5 post-construction with static detectors and walked transects to establish how bat activity may have changed at the site (If at all) since base line surveys. The provision of 15 bat boxes will provide biodiversity enhancements within the site. Lighting will be limited to construction hours and in

Page 321 Agenda Item 6

accordance with the lighting details highlighted below. A condition is included to ensure that no additional external lighting be provided or operated during the operational phase of the proposal.

A total of 42 bird species were recorded over the 3 site surveys comprising; 7 breeding, 14 probably breeding, 9 possible breeding and 12 not considered to be breeding within the survey area. The survey identifies that on site there were 2 birds listed as ‘Red’ Listed under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 8 ‘red’ listed birds of Conservation Concern, 5 ‘Amber’ list birds of Conservation Concern and 21 within the Estuary, 6 species of Principle Importance (NERC 2006) on site during the winter bird surveys and 3 within the estuary. The Survey also returned records of numerous bird species from within 3km of the site including a Barn Owl.

The woodlands, tree lines and patches of scrub offer ideal nesting habitat for a variety of species making use of the boundary vegetation habitats around the site. These areas will mostly remain, and be enhanced through the biodiversity enhancements in the LEMP. The proposed works do not directly affect the majority of existing woodland or other features suitable for nesting of birds. Areas of grassland suitable for breeding birds will be affected, but works affecting these areas will be carried out outside the bird nesting season (March to August). If nesting birds are found, the site Ecologist will be notified and appropriate buffer zones set up and left in place until nesting ends naturally. The habitat to be created will provide additional habitat for nesting birds using the site.

The record identifies the presence of a Barn Owl within 2km of the site boundary but none within the site boundary. The barn on site was assessed as having potential for being used by a Barn Owl, but no evidence of use was identified. The Barn Owl Trust have provided comment that the closest Barn Owl nest site to the development is approx. 1.5km from the site and as this was in 2003, there is no evidence that the development will impact directly on any nest site. The site may provide Barn Owl Habitat, and the trust recommends that the vegetation below the panels should be managed to develop into rough tussock grassland which can be achieved by low density grazing of sheep, as proposed.

Long-term management of the site will include a more diverse grassland mix that will be managed more sympathetically for wildlife. Some parts of the site, in areas around the solar arrays, will be managed as wildflower meadows with appropriate cutting schedules to maximise flowering species. This will provide better nesting habitat for Skylarks, which in turn should increase nesting pairs, it will also diversify and increase invertebrate species using the site and seeding plants, which will improve the foraging habitat for all other bird species. Hedgerows will be allowed to grow more mature and be managed more sympathetically for wildlife and cut on rotation, so that any one hedgerow is only cut every 5 to 7 years and only cut outside of the nesting season. This will greatly improve the nesting and foraging habitat on site for a wide range of species and greatly increase the numbers of birds nesting on site.

The scheme will also deliver 5 Bird boxes comprising a biodiversity gain.

There are designated sites within 3km of the proposal area for supporting wintering bird populations. The site itself has limited suitability for use of wintering birds, having a low importance as a wintering bird site. Whilst the proposal will result in direct loss of

Page 322 Agenda Item 6

ecologically poor improved grassland fields, use of these areas by birds visiting the SSSI will be occasional and infrequent such that there will be no overriding impact on wintering bird populations. The proposals will not adversely affect boundary hedgerows, or wooded streams or copses on site. In terms of mitigation, through the inclusion of the biodiversity enhancements within the LEMP, and proposed effective hedgerow mitigation and management, the biodiversity improvements will actively encourage wintering and other bird life into the site, providing adequate improved mitigation ground cover.

One record of a dormouse was identified approximately 1km north east of the site. Woody vegetation within the site has potential to be used by dormouse and link to woodland habitat and hedgerows. Other than the field access points the hedgerows and other wooded habitat will remain and will be enhanced, and no further surveys are required.

There are 9 records of Otters within 3 km of the search area including 1 record from the watercourse to the south west of the site. No records of Otter were found within the development site. A 10 metre buffer zone limiting works within 10 metres, and ensuring no works within 5 metres of watercourses will be implemented.

There are no records of Water Vole within 3km of the development site. The site has potential to provide habitat in hedgerows or aquatic areas but is generally considered to be of low suitability. No evidence of water voles was recorded along watercourses on or adjacent to the propose development site.

The survey did not report any records of Great Crested Newt within a 3km area. The site is just outside of a Great Crested Newt Consultation Area with the nearest record being over 6km away. There are 5 ponds within the site and boundary hedgerows and woodland, scrub, piles of rubble and manure are identified as potentially suitable habitat for Great Crested Newts, with little potential elsewhere on the pastureland.

The survey returned records of common lizards, Slow Worm and Grass snake within 3 km of the proposed development but no records of protected reptiles were recorded on site. The assessment considers that the vast majority of the site is unsuitable to provide for habitat for retiles due to the lack of cover but, acknowledges that retiles could be present on site within the boundary features, which will be retained and enhanced through the LEMP. Other mitigation for reptiles includes habitat modification (cutting and maintaining the vegetation to just above ground level prior to works commencing to discourage reptiles), clearing these areas when reptiles are least likely to use the site (March to October) and under a watching brief and storage of materials on pallets to prevent reptiles. Excavated earth will be kept to a minimum and away from the boundaries to prevent use for temporary cover. The enhancements proposed for the site include improving the habitats along linear features, including the watercourses.

Landscape Ecological management plan (LEMP) To ensure that the site can present enhancement to biodiversity and mitigation of ecological habitat the LPA has sought a detailed Landscape Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) to demonstrate how ecological and biodiversity enhancement can be achieved. The LEMP is to cover the lifespan of the development (35 years) and sets out

Page 323 Agenda Item 6

a strategy for the first five years following development, and future management of the site.

The benefits to be secured through the LEMP are as follows:

 Site management : The site, including the implementation of the measures in the LEMP, will be funded and managed by ‘ND Solar Enterprises LtD’. Contractors and suitably qualified biodiversity and ecology experts will be appointed by ND Solar Enterprises LtD to ensure the correct level of expertise remains available. A condition is included that the proposal is carried out in accordance with the LEMP which includes management by the Management Company or an appointed successor.

 Reduction of biodiversity impact at construction phase: If new or additional trenching is required it will be undertaken with Discussions with designated ecologist and the LPA.

 Retain boundary hedges and trees : protected by 4m buffer zone as standard. Any roots outside the buffer zone will be reported and assessed

 Prevent mammals entering the construction zone: Visual checks on vegetation/earth to be removed to ensure no impact on mammals and pre- construction tool box talk with site managers to explain process.

 Prevention of pollution of the landscape throughout the life of the scheme 4m Buffer zone with any watercourse or field drain. No excavated materials to enter water courses. Fuel/other hazardous substances stored appropriately. Clean up measures

 To reduce light pollution during construction works :Lighting to be directed away from retain boundaries and field divisions and trees to protect roosting/ foraging/ commuting. 2m dark buffer zone around all hedgerows throughout construction phase. Between dusk to dawn all lighting turned off. No lighting over 2000 lumens (150 W) to be used for fixed/permanent lighting on site in accordance with the Bat Conservation Trusts Bats and Lighting in the UK (2009). Permanent lighting to be LED with warm white spectrum. Peak wavelengths less than 550nm to avoid bat disturbance. No fluorescent lighting used.

 To provide improved shelter and foraging opportunities :planting new hedge banks and areas of woodlands, planting wildflower meadows around panels to change semi improved grassland into a more diverse grassland, all of which improve the existing habitat and overall biodiversity gain within the site. Provision of 5 bird 15 bat boxes and insect boxes on trees within the site

- Creation of new habitats/improve connectivity/enhance wildlife corridors Management of site to create diverse grassland and wildflower habitat

Biodiversity net gain and DEFRA Metric The Biodiversity Metric shows that the only loss of habitat will be around the footings of the panels, equipment cabins, and new tracks. The Headline results of the Metric

Page 324 Agenda Item 6

shows a 26.92 % net gain in habitat units and 15.20% net gain in hedgerow units across the site, which is in excess of the required 10 % net gain. Overall 46.5 ha of enhancements will be delivered including buffers around all water courses and ponds, field margin buffers and grassland set-aside.

In line with part 15 of the Framework and polices ST14 and DM08 of the NDTLP, the scheme will deliver good biodiversity gain through the LEMP. There is no net loss of biodiversity or predicted significant losses of habitat, because the development of the site will not lead to wholesale loss of habitat. As the Metric illustrates, there will be a significant gain in biodiversity and habitat in excess of the required 10% gains. The monitoring regime within the LEMP promotes effective management of all retained and enhanced habitats, including the bat/bird boxes, monitoring these for condition and value and remediation if not meeting standards. This provides habitat for species and for foraging and commuting for the lifetime of the proposal and beyond.

The LEMP and the ES (paragraph 10.251) states that part of the management of grassland will be by sheep grazing to mitigate the loss of grassland for foraging species. This grazing will be non-intensive and moved around the site regularly to allow a diverse sward to develop, following wildflower seeding. The delivery of the LEMP will increase habitat provision. The new habitats will add to the effectiveness of green corridors, linking to established foraging routes and linking to the nearby County Wildlife site. The erection of bat and bird boxes will assist in promoting the enhancement of protected species. The detail contained is sufficient to secure and monitor the delivery of a net gain for biodiversity in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy set out in paragraph 175 of the NPPF and at 13.59-16.64 of the NDTLP.

Overall it is considered that subject to conditions to ensure the scheme is carried out in accordance with the details of the LEMP, the proposal will enhance the biodiversity value of the site and provide effective ecological mitigation, improving habitat in accordance with the aforementioned legislation, policies ST14 and DM08 and with paragraph 170 and 175 of the framework.

Impact on Designated Heritage Assets and Archaeology

Archaeology and heritage impacts are summarised at PS242 of the planning statement, and considered in more depth at part 12 of the ES.

The significance of large scale solar development on heritage assets is derived from both its physical presence and physical impact on any fabric of a heritage asset, and also from its setting. Due to the scale of the development there is potential for large scale solar PV to harm the setting of heritage assets. The Decision Maker must pay particular note to the effect of the scale, design, prominence and proximity of the solar farm on heritage assets and their settings, and the interdivisibility between the heritage asset and the solar development. Where the effect on the setting of the listed building will be less than substantial, the Decision Maker must balance the significance of harm of the development against any positive public benefits to be derived from the scheme.

Policy DM07 and Paragraph 189 of the framework is clear that in determining applications the LPA must require the applicants to identify and assess the particular

Page 325 Agenda Item 6

significate of any heritage asset that may be affected by the proposal taking account of evidence of heritage expertise.

Paragraph 194 of the framework is clear that any harm or loss to the heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting) should require clear and convincing justification.

Paragraph 196 is clear that where developments will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The Heritage Assessment provides an assessment of the impact of the solar development on heritage assets, taking account of the significance of heritage assets identified (within 2 km) and the magnitude of effect in terms of whether there will be substantial harm, less than substantial harm and no harm in accordance with Paragraphs 193 -196 of the Framework. The assessment also considers wider heritage assets such as the Scheduled Monument on Codden Hill.

The site does not contain any Heritage Assets in terms of listed buildings or other heritage assets. Therefore the proposal is considered in terms of the impact of the development on the setting of heritage assets within a 2km and 5 km radius.

There are a number of listed buildings within the 2km ZTV radius:

- Orchard Farm, Grade II listed, located approximately 500 metres to the North West with the curtilage located approximately 330 metres to the North West. - Pyewell, Grade II listed, located approximately 860 metres to the south west with the curtilage located approximately 830 metres to the North West. - Rookabear Cottage, Grade II listed, located approximately 730 metres to the North East. - Higher Rookabear, Grade II listed, located approximately 590 metres to the North West with the curtilage located approximately 550 metres to the North West. - Fullingcott Farm, Grade II listed, located approximately 1.56 km to the North West - Barley Stack Cottage, Grade II listed, located approximately 1.4 km to the west. - A group of Grade Ii listed buildings comprising East Barton Farm, Stone Haven and The lodge located approximately 1.5 km to the south. - Eastacombe House (Eastacombe) Grade II listed, located approximately 1.6 km to the north east. - At Horwood – St Michaels Church, a Grade I listed building, The Courtledge, Grade II listed building, Church Cottage, Grade II listed building located approximately 1.9km to the south of the development site. - At Higher Lovacott, Cross Park Farm, a Grade II listed building located approximately 1.5km to the south east.

The scheme also assesses heritage assets within a 5km radius of the site including from Codden Hill; the Grade I Church of St Peter and Grade II St Michaels School approximately 4.2km to the east of the site.

Page 326 Agenda Item 6

The LPA agrees with the Conservation Officers comments that the proposal will not directly affect the fabric of any designated heritage asset. The LPA also concurs with the Conservation Officers consideration that given the topography of the area, and intervening vegetation it is unlikely that there will be obvious interivisibility between localised listed buildings and the solar farm. The Conservation Officer makes clear that due to the scale of the proposal, despite intervisibility, the development will appear within the setting of the listed buildings. As this is not a feature typically found within the setting of heritage assets, there will be change to the landscape.

From further afield the development will be apparent from raised areas such as Codden Hill Beacon, and will be viewed in the backdrop of St Peters Church and St Michaels School at Tawstock, and from the Codden Hill Beacon. These will be extremely distant views of the eastern section of the site which will not affect the significance of these heritage assets.

Orchard Farmhouse occupies an elevated position with views over fields 1-6, and vistas to the east. The assessment acknowledges that views to the east across the valley contribute towards the rural setting of the farm house, forming part of the rural landscape. The assessment considers that the principle historic setting of the farmhouse comprises the immediate vicinity of the house, and principally to the front, reflecting the rural quality and architecture of the farmhouse. The wider landscape to the east forms part of the wider rural vista, but the solar farm will not adversely affect the historic frontage of the listed building. The eastern vista will change with partial views of the site through gaps in the vegetation, but the immediate setting will still retain a distinctly rural appearance.

The assessment concludes that the solar installation will occupy a relatively modest part of the landscape, which will be mitigated further over time with the inclusion of the proposed planting in the LEMP, to conclude that this will not affect the experience of the farmhouse frontage nor its rural context, and will not affect the key elements of historical significance at the front of the building. The assessment further concludes that the effect on the significance of the farmhouse would be no more than a low level of less than substantial harm from the loss of a section of the rural setting to the east of the farmhouse.

Given the separation distance of the site from Orchard farm and from Rookabear Cottage and Higher Rookabear, and given intervening vegetation and topography, the LPA concurs with the findings of the Heritage Assessment that the views to the east already contain industrial elements, including the Collacott Solar Farm which are clearly visible from Orchard Farm. Whilst the landscape will change, the change to the setting of the listed buildings will not be severe and, as assessed by the Conservation Officer, will have a less than substantial harm to the significance of heritage assets.

From further afield the low level of the solar farm will appear less visually impacting on the setting of heritage assets. Whilst apparent in the landscape, this will not result in substantial harm to the setting of heritage assets in the wider landscape.

The Heritage Officer is clear that the effect of the scheme on the heritage landscape will be ‘less than significant’, and that the scheme should therefore be assessed under the terms of paragraph 196 of the framework whereby, the public benefits to be derived

Page 327 Agenda Item 6

from the scheme must be assessed against the impact on the setting of the listed buildings. In this case, there are no direct effects on the fabric of heritage assets, and the impact on the setting is not considered to be so severe as to comprise significant detriment to the setting of the identified heritage assets. This scheme will be visible in the landscape, but retains field boundaries and patterns within the landscape. The degree of physical change is affected by the panels themselves, but this is temporary development, and following decommissioning phase, will revert back to its original rural form. On balance the scheme results in moderate to small alterations to the setting of listed buildings and does not adversely affect the desirability of the framework and the local plan to preserve the historic environment. The public benefits in terms of production of renewable energy and social and economic gains are not outweighed by the less than significant impacts on the setting of the identified heritage assets, accordant with ST15 and DM07 and the terms of paragraph 196 of the framework. .

Archaeological impacts

The scheme is accompanied by an Archaeological desk based assessment at Chapter 12 of the ES and by the results of Geophysical survey and archaeological monitoring and recording carried out within the site. A number of geophysical anomalies were identified which required further investigation. The survey data analysed that there are a number of areas of archaeological interest within the site.

The North Devon Archaeological Society and the Devon County Archaeologist have been consulted on the application on the basis of the geophysical evidence submitted. Given the potential for presence of areas of archaeological importance the historic Environment Team advised that the proposed development must be amended to minimise or remove below ground disturbance.

A Written Scheme of Investigation was submitted containing a programme of archaeological works (Foundations Archaeology dated November 2020 V1.0) detail site methodology and survey recording to take place by qualified persons.

The Scope of the work has been agreed with the HET, and following a trenching exercise on the site, the report identifies the archaeological potential of the site to contain prehistoric and Romano-British activity within the propose development site. Whilst HET do not consider that the significance of these heritage assets is worthy of preservation in situ, but the impact of the development on the archaeological resource must be mitigated by a programme of archaeological work that must investigate, record and analyse the archaeological evidence that may otherwise be destroyed by the development. The Historic Environment Team therefore recommends that this application should be supported by the submission of a further 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.

A suitably worded condition is included on the grant of permission to ensure that the WSI is submitted.

Page 328 Agenda Item 6

Effect on Amenity

The NPPF at paragraph 127 states that planning should always seek to secure a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of land and dwellings. Policy ST16 b) states that renewable energy development will be supported in the landscape character types where ‘there is no significant impact on local amenities’.

Policy DM01 a) of the NDTLP supports development where it would not significantly harm the amenities of any neighbouring occupiers or users. Policy DM04 i) supports development where the scheme ensures the amenity of existing and future occupiers are safeguarded.

The site is located in close proximity to Brookham House and within 200 metres of the rear of the group of properties at Higher Litchardon. There are a number of other properties

Visual amenity

Through the course of the application the LPA have received 56 letters of objection and 46 letters of support for the proposal. The comments are summarised in the representations section of this report. Many of the objections raise concern in respect of visual impact, noise and potential glint and glare.

Through visiting the site, and following receipt of objections from occupiers of property local to the solar farm, the LPA are aware that there are a number of residential properties within the 500 metre radius of the site. These are; Brookham Farm, Higher Litchardon Farm and properties at Higher Litchardon, Green fields, Voscombe, Huish Moor, Orchard Farm, Furze Moor, Collacott Farm Phelmont House and New House.

In assessing the impact of the site, the visual effect of the array is considered in terms of where the greatest magnitude of change will occur and what mitigation measures may be appropriate. As well as the applicant’s assessment in their ES, the case officer has traversed the site, assessing views from various key properties close to the site and where specific objections were raised at Higher Litchardon, Brookham and Huish Moor. The assessment below looks at what mitigation measures have been provided.

Brookham Farm Brookham Farm is positioned between fields 19-21 and adjacent to field 9. The front of the property with the principle open vista views faces to the east towards fields 19, 20 and 21. The lay of the land rises to the east where the top of field 19 will be apparent with side on views of the panels visible. Views of 20 and 21 will be less prominent due to the fall of the land to the south east. The LPA raised concern that the side on views of panels in fields 19-21 would be visually apparent from the front of Brookham, considering that there was opportunity to mitigate the impact with appropriate screening provision. Therefore, the application proposes a bund of mitigating woodland planting to the west of field 19 and 20 as shown below.

Page 329 Agenda Item 6

Brookham Farm in relation to site Proposed planting in LEMP

It is acknowledged that the planting will take time to establish, and that there will be a period where the panels will be visible whilst the planting takes hold as illustrated above. Over time the views to the east of Brookham towards the western flank of field 19 and 20 will be reduced by the planting.

To the rear of Brookham, the land form falls to the south and west allowing a relatively unobstructed vista of the majority of the site. Views from the rear of the dwelling are restricted by several large pitched roofed agricultural buildings which provide effective screening from the rear of the two-storey farm dwelling. A new bank of broad-leafed trees are proposed along the southern/south eastern flank of Brookham which will, in time provide softening planting restricting Views of the rear/side of the arrays from the south and south eastern flanks of Brookham. Further to the west, the rear of the array will be visible from agricultural land.

Given the scale of the proposal, the scheme proposes landscape mitigation which will, in time provide effective screening mitigation to offer protection to the occupiers of Brookham.

Higher Litchardon comprising Meadow Cottage, Rose Cottage, Acorn Cottage and Fern Cottage.

Properties at Higher Litchardon are located to the south east of the site. Objections have been raised from Higher Litchardon and from Meadow Cottage raising concern in respect of the visual effect of these fields on the quality of amenity currently offered.

At the rear of Higher Litchardon there are first floor and dormer windows from which the site will be apparent. Amenity space at ground floor is relatively well screened by boundary vegetation but there are spaces in the vegetation and boundary treatments where views will be attainable. The land falls to the north of Higher Litchardon but views of fields 19 and 20 will be attainable.

Page 330 Agenda Item 6

Higher Litchardon to the south of fields 20/21 Proposed planting in LEMP

To seek to address concerns the LEMP shows provision of a new bank of planted broad leafed woodland to the south of field 21. Within the site it is proposed to improve the field boundaries of fields 19 -21. Again the planting will take time to establish, but, once established, and when managed, from eye level views of the site will be reduced. The photo shows existing established field boundaries to the right which will be bolstered by the new vegetation providing screening at ground level. Views of the site will be attainable from roof dormers. The plans and photos show the separation between the site boundary and Higher Litchardon, a distance of approximately 140 metres

Huish Moor

Huish Moor is located to the south west of the site at a distance of approximately 760 metres from the nearest point of the proposal. Huish Moor is separated from the array by the landfill site, and by established vegetation along Kittymoor Brake which provides effective screening of lower parts of field numbers 2, 3 and 4. The landform rises towards filed 1 and this will be apparent from the rear aspect of Huish Moor. With views of the site attainable from a single side window in a kitchen area and from a raised patio and windows to the rear in winter months. During the summer, views of the site will be partially restricted by established hedges bounding the north east of Huish Moor.

Objections were received from the owner of Huish Moor and the case officer was able to visit in summer 2020 to assess the site. It is apparent that from the rear of Huish Moor the existing Collacott site is visible and, part of the proposed site will also be visible. Although the proposal will be apparent, it will not be a defining feature from views at Huish Moor.

Greenfields and Voscombe

Both properties are located approximately 350 metres from the site on the elevated Voscombe to Holmacott Road to the south of the site. Both properties principle elevations face to the road. Greenfields is positioned approximately 370 metres from the southern flank of field 17 and 18.

Page 331 Agenda Item 6

The front of the dwelling faces away from the site looking south. The group of buildings are elevated above the site being located on the crest of a hill. Principle views from the dwelling are to the south, away from the site. The dwelling is screened by intervening hedgerows to the south of Greenfields, and partially by outbuildings at Voscombe to the North West. Views of the southern flanks of field 18 would be partially obscured by an existing copse of trees in fields to the south and by lower field boundaries. The LEMP shows the provision of a hedgerow along the southern flank of the site which will partially mitigate immediate effects from panels in field 17 and 18. Views of panels further to the north will be attainable.

Voscombe is situated along the rural road from Voscombe Cross to Holmacott. The site comprises one dwelling with principle views south to the road, and views from the rear, well screened by 2 out buildings within the site. Views from this dwelling are to the south, away from the site. Amenity space for Voscombe is located to the south east, in the opposite direction from views of the solar arrays. At the rear is an agricultural yard containing a number of agricultural outbuildings which provide effective screening of the site from the north. Views of the raised sections of the site would be attainable from the agricultural yard to the north of the site

Views from Holmacott have been assessed as part of the LVIA.

Prospect House and New House

Although no objections have been received from either property, the connection compound will be located approximately 110 metres to the south of New House.

Proposed planting in LEMP to South West

The wider site will not be visible from these properties due to the lay of the land and intervening vegetation.

Policy ST16, DM01 and DM04 and paragraph 127 of the framework, are clear that there should be no significant impact on local amenities. There are a number of properties in proximity of the development site, and there have been objections raised because of this proximity. Due to the large area of land used for the site the development will be

Page 332 Agenda Item 6

experienced from certain views and properties as described in the supporting statement and above.

The assessment carried out by the applicants is considered to identify the most affected receptors and provides detailed assessment of the likely impacts of the development on these receptors. The applicants contend that ‘significant effects on visual amenity can be perceived as beneficial, adverse or neutral’. It is clear that without mitigation, effects from Brookham and Higher Litchardon would be significant. With the introduction of the landscaping as shown above, the immediate visual effects of the scheme will be mitigated over time such that the adversity of the visual impact would be reduced. The site is largely obscured from localised views by the topography of the land, the height of the panels, and the screening mitigation will in time reduce the visual impact.

No lighting shall be permitted on the site and CCTV is limited to the Substation and Compound.

Noise Impacts

Noise impacts are considered at Chapter 13 with reference to the ‘Hayes Mc Kenzie Noise Impact Assessment’. Construction noise from creation of the plant and machinery and access tracks has been assessed, and the impact of consutruction traffic on residencies neighbouring the site. Noise from the plant and machinery during operation of a solar farm would not generally be considered as a significant problem, due to its static nature.

Noise generating equipment will be present in the substation and inverter stations. The nearest residential properties to the station are approximately 100 metres to the north of the substation area.

Modelling shows that worst case down wind noise levels would exceed the 35 dBL rating level set in BS 4142, at three properties when the site is at maximum operation. Noise from construction work will be as a consequence of development, where it is concluded that the overall average daytime noise levels associated with construction will be relatively low and will not exceed relevant daytime noise limits. Noise impacts and disturbance would be for limited periods, as a result of the construction and decommission phase, and will be managed by restricting deliveries to specific times and informing residents of intensive periods of construction. The noise assessment indicates that predicted Operational noise levels at neighbouring receptors will meet the proposed 35 dB (LAEQ) criteria.

Environmental Health have reviewed the Hayes McKenzie report findings and have discussed with the applicants how such impacts may be mitigated. Whilst Environmental Health are generally satisfied that noise is unlikely to result in significant problematic amenity impact, a condition is proposed to secure the provision of a noise mitigation scheme to ensure that prior to the first operation of the development, the noise mitigation scheme will demonstrate that the site shall not generate excessive noise from the operation of the equipment. For the avoidance of doubt, mitigation measures shall ensure that the agreed target criteria of a BS4142:2014 +A1:2019 rating level of 35dB LAeq is achieved at all nearby residential properties (including at outside amenity areas) existing at the time permission is granted. This is necessary to protect

Page 333 Agenda Item 6

the amenity of neighbouring residents from the effects of noise in accordance with Policies DM01, DM02 and DM04.

The EH Officer confirms acceptance of the above condition which will require the submission of a suitable noise mitigation scheme to address any noise impacts identified, and is included on the recommendation of approval. There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed equipment will generate any significant changes in the ambient noise levels over the lifetime of the operational phase. The Councils Environmental Health Officer is satisfied that with the imposition of the condition to control noise the scheme may operate such that the problems associated with noise would not be so great as to warrant refusal of the scheme.

Construction phase impacts

Impacts from the construction phase will be primarily through the creation of site access tracks, the inclusion of the panels and equipment and the transformer and substation prior to operation of the site. The construction phase is envisaged to take around 3 months to complete which would not be unreasonable for a scheme of this scale. During construction and decommission phases deliveries are restricted where possible to off- peak weekdays to reduce impact on local road users, typically between 09.00 and 15.00. HGV movements will be split between the 5 proposed site entrances and entrance to the construction compound. Larger exceptional loads will be infrequent and are not perceived to cause significant impact to traffic or to local residents.

Environmental Health have considered the potential for impact to local residents during construction phase. To ensure the amenities of nearby residents are not affected by noise, dust or other impacts during the construction phase of the development a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is requested by condition. This will detail measures to regulate construction traffic to the site, including times, import/export of soils/spoils, removal and disposal of vegetation/materials from the site, location of stockpiles, detailed measures to prevent mud leaving the site (Wheel washing facilities), control of dust from the site, a noise control plan detailing hours of operation and proposed mitigation measures, location of site offices and on-site parking during the construction phase.

A Contaminated Land Reactive Condition is recommended by Environmental Health to ensure that any contamination which may become apparent through the construction phase, is dealt with appropriately at the time.

To limit the impact of the scheme in terms of disruption from construction works a condition is recommended limiting the works between 07.30 and 18.00 Mondays to Fridays and 0800 to 1300 on Saturdays and not on Sundays or Bank Holidays. This will limit development time outside of anti-social hours.

Operational Phase Impacts

As set out the operational phase impacts will be minimal. The site will be controlled by remote monitoring, and site visits, typically limited to once a month for maintenance purposes. Annual servicing will also occur.

Page 334 Agenda Item 6

Decommission Phase Impacts

The applicants are clear at B.19 of their non-technical summary that at the end of the operating life of the solar farm, the panels and all associated infrastructure will be decommissioned within a time period of 2 months.

A suitably worded condition is included so that when the land ceases to be used as a photovoltaic park for renewable energy, or at the end of a period of 35 years from the date of grid connection (the date to be given to the LPA within one month of grid connection) the site must be decommissioned and all materials and equipment associated with the operation of the site removed, and the land restored to its former condition or otherwise as agreed with the LPA.

Similar to the construction phase, the LPA would wish to see details securing the safe removal of the solar farm in line with a decommissioning strategy within the CEMP which would be enforceable, running with the site.

Glint and Glare

Glint and Glare is addressed at paragraph 3.50 of Volume 2 of the ES and at Chapter 11 of the LVIA and at Appendix 11.5.

The whole concept of solar development is to absorb as much light as possible to produce effective energy production. The G&G document considers that as much as 5% of the suns light will be reflected from the panels. Solar panels are designed to absorb as much light as possible, whilst reflecting as little as possible away, to effectively create the energy. The intensity of reflected light from the dark blue coloured solar panels, and the relatively thin frames, can be compared to the effect of still water and is considerably lower than for other man made materials such as glass, steel or white concrete.

The report identifies 15 dwellings which may be potentially impacted by G&G and 26 points along the A39 Link Road within 2km of the site.

A39

G&G assessment A39

Page 335 Agenda Item 6

The report found that there is moderate potential for reflections to be perceived along portions of the A39 in the morning and afternoon between points 5 and 10 on the map above, and at point 14 and 15. The report identifies the impact as moderate. Where such moderate impacts may be perceived, mitigation is proposed to the north in the form of planting to screen panels. To the south between points 14 and 15 due to the angle of the road, it is difficult to provide effective mitigation, and there is a section of the A39 where the panels will be perceived looking to the north east where the applicants judge the impact in this section.

Devon County Council Highways Authority have assessed the proposal and have raised no objections in respect of the effect of Glint or Glare on the A39 or the local road network. Given the relatively low height of the panels and the angle of the panels and given the terrain and screening no anticipated severe impacts are predicted to users of the highway.

Dwellings

G&G assessment residential properties

The G&G report identified 28 dwellings in the field of assessment which may be potentially affected by G &G. Of the potential receptors the report identifies that there may be potential for moderate potential impacts on properties 21-24 to the north east of the site this is predominantly form the fields of panels to the north east, facing south.

The applicants have confirmed that they are content for a suitably worded planning condition to be applied to permission such that should permission be granted and should glint and glare become apparent these impacts are suitably mitigated the impacts from Glint and Glare are mitigated.

Given that the intensity of reflected light is likely to be similar to that from still water, and the absorption capacity of the panels, taking this into account, and the provision of the landscaping mitigation, and considering the comments of Environmental Health and DCC Highways, whilst the proposed array will be apparent from parts of the A39 and parts of the local rural road network, and from properties in the vicinity of the site, the LPA is not convinced that the glint and glare from the scheme will be so harmful to the character of the countryside, or to the road system or local properties to warrant its refusal in respect of EIA impacts.

The imposition of the recommended Glint and Glare mitigation condition from EH will ensure that if such matters become apparent, they will be duly addressed.

Page 336 Agenda Item 6

Highways and access

At paragraph 108 of the framework new development should ensure that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all road users, and significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree. Paragraph 109 is clear that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on the highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the highway would be severe. This is reflected through polices ST10 (Transport Strategy) DM05 (Highways and DM06 (Parking) of the NDTLP.

The Impact on the local highway network is considered through the ES Chapter 8: Traffic and access, and at Appendix 8: ‘Transport and access’ which contains and at paragraph PS295 of the Planning Statement. The Statement contains details of Traffic Count Data and Crash Management Records as well as a Draft Construction Traffic Management Plan.

Vehicular access to the site for both construction and maintenance traffic would be via the M5, the A361, the A39 for one junction, the A3125 at Roundswell, then along Old Bideford Road past Roundswell to the proposal site at Litchardon shown in green above. The proposed delivery route avoids traffic using smaller rural roads, and avoids the majority of villages in the vicinity of the site. The proposal will take approximalty 3 months to construct and deliveries can be spaced out throughout the construction period.

The traffic assessment at Chapter 8 considers that the road width and junctions serving the site are adequate for the intended use for HGV traffic. The Old Bideford Road and surrounding network is already used for larger HGVs serving the Coles site. The report considers there is low potential for damage to highway verges, and accepts that any damage that may occur is the responsibility of the developer to rectify.

The Transport Assessment considers that deliveries to the site will be at ‘off-peak’ times between 09.00-15.00 and advanced warning notification will be provided for potential delay to road users. The developer will laisse with DCC Highways and Police Prior to the construction phase commencing. It is anticipated that there will be one ‘Exceptional load’ to the site which the developers will liaise with the Authorities and appropriate escort provision made. Construction traffic will use the access route from the A39 using HGV capable roads serving the site. The Assessment provides baseline conditions assessment, assessment of potential traffic volumes and impacts on minor roads. Automatic Traffic Counters have been used to accurately assess traffic levels between June 2019 and July 2019. Crash map data is provided at 8.45 which shows of the 2 roads to be used to access the site there is only 1 accident recorded for 2009-2018.

The proposed 5 site entrances are shown at highway plan documents numbered 6.3- 6.8 (gate access plans and site access details). All show good access into the site, and that visibility may be achieved into the rural road network in accordance with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (2020) and the Department of Transports Manual for Streets (2007).

Page 337 Agenda Item 6

Predicted impacts in terms of changes in the volume and nature of the traffic to the site will occur mostly at Construction and Decommissioning phases, and once completed the site will be visited occasionally for maintenance and security purposes.

Devon County Highway Authority have been consulted and confirm that they have ‘no objections to the proposed development in light of the visibility provision at each of the access points to the site and traffic, during construction and post-construction, being at a level that does not raise issues of safety and/or convenience’.

On this basis, whilst there is likely to be a degree of short term inconvenience to highway users during construction/decommission phase, the framework is clear (Paragraphs 109) that to be resisted on highways grounds, there must be severe and cumulative impact, of which DCC Highways do not consider will be the case. Impacts are for a relatively short time period, and there will be no significant effect on users of the highway during the operational lifetime of the solar farm.

Site access is considered to be safe, and appropriate and further details of traffic management and wheel washing etc. will be secured through the provision of the CEMP as conditioned. With the imposition of this condition, the construction phase and decommission phase can be adequately managed without significant or severe harm to the strategic or local road network, and will not have adverse cumulative impacts during the operational lifetime of the development to cause significant danger to all road users accordant with part 9 of the framework and with polices ST10, DM05 and DM06 of the NDTLP.

Flood risk and drainage

Part 14 of the framework at paragraph 155 states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas of highest risk of flooding. Where development is necessary in such areas it should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

Tributaries to the Fremington Pill are located to the west and south of the site and a Tributary to the River Taw is located to the east of the eastern boundary. The majority of the site (With the exception of the North West fields) is within the Critical Drainage Area.

The EA response of 4th August 2020 raises no specific comment or objection to the scheme regarding displacement of flood flows or impact to flood storage nor to the development of the site within flood zones 2 and 3, and refers to relevant advice in considering the scheme. There is no substantive objection from the EA.

The FRA notes that the majority of the site is in FZ1 with a small section of the southern part of the site within FZ2 and 3 as shown on the mapping. The FRA concludes that the areas within FZ2/3 are a relatively dry valley. To reduce risk of flooding in areas of FZ2/3 the panels are raised to the same height as the surrounding land form outside the flood zone and no high voltage equipment will be located in the flood zones. Site boundaries have been designed to minimise the ingress of water into FZ 2/3. The proposal would manage surface water runoff via ‘scrapes’ and ‘swales’ shown on plan

Page 338 Agenda Item 6

9.3. The plan shows the swales would drain to existing water courses and would be a depth of 0.3m

It is likely that the proposed surface water runoff measures will be effective in preventing significant flooding or silt run off The DCLLFA recommend the imposition of a condition which is considered reasonable and necessary to demonstrate that the proposed surface water drainage system will operate correctly, and will not increase flood risk either on site or elsewhere. This will form a pre-commencement Condition attached to the permission.

South West Water have advised that SWW has no objection in principle to the development. A public trunk water mains runs within the site whereby no building or structure would be permitted within 3.5m of the mains which is shown on the approved plans.

Site security

The proposed fencing comprises Deer fencing which is common place type of fencing associated with solar pv development and is supported by the BRE guidance – Planning Guidance for the development of Large Scale Ground Mounted Solar PV systems’ as a less obtrusive method of fencing. The proposed fencing will be apparent at points around the site, but will not have a markedly adverse effect on the quality of the landscape accordant with the BRE guidance.

The Police Architectural Liaison Officer (PALO) raises no overall objection to the scheme, and notes the proposal for various compound fencing and Provision of CCTV around the Substation area at Prospect Corner. The applicants have submitted a location plan showing the positon of 4 CCTV units around the substation area to the north of the site (Prospect Corner). In his response of 27th October 2020 the PALO has noted the position of the CCTV and has raised no further concern. The PALO considers that ‘the provision and effective use of CCTV fits well within the overall framework of security management and is most effective when it farm part of an overall security plan’. To ensure that the CCTV is effective the PALO recommends that prior to installation, to ensure the system will be fit for purpose a ‘passport for compliance document’ should be drawn up to ensure the CCTV will be fit for purpose in accordance with BS EN 50132 -7: CCTV surveillance systems for use in security applications.

This requirement forms an informative on the grant of permission. To protect the amenities of properties at Prospect Corner, a condition is included that these CCTV units be fixed units and positioned to face into the substation area and not towards any neighbouring properties.

Other Matters

The CPRE raise objections to the scheme on technical grounds, that the scale of the solar farm has been kept below 50 MW, that the electricity production is exaggerated, and that C02 emissions saved in respect of manufacture of the solar farm and associated with the electricity network are not shown, and the scheme does not address the Impact on the wider electricity grid.

Page 339 Agenda Item 6

The LPA is responsible for handling all Renewable Energy projects of 50MW or less. At 49.9MW the scale of the development falls below the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) thresholds, and is not required to be determined by the Secretary of State (SoS). Notwithstanding this, LPA has consulted the SoS as part of the decision making process and no comments or call in to be considered has been received.

The land holding could theoretically accommodate increased capacity of panels, but, the site layout has been provided with the aim of limiting the visual impact of the proposal where practicable. To increase the capacity would potentially involve increased density of rows or numbers of panels and associated infrastructure on the site which would be undesirable within the wider landscape. It is not considered reasonable to request that the site capacity be increased, and in the absence of comment from the SoS the proposal has been duly considered by the LPA.

In terms of ‘exaggerated output’ the applicants present information regarding how the electricity output has been calculated. The predicted electricity production is taken using ‘PV Syst Photovoltaic Software’.

At paragraph 154 (a) of the framework proposals for solar development are not required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable carbon energy, recognising that even small scale projects will provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse emissions. Applying this national requirement, this site at 49.9 MW will contribute significantly to the production of low-carbon energy. The data for proposed approximate electricity production has been assessed specifically for the Litchardon site and may not correlate with data for electricity production for other sites. The whole concept of delivering this site is to maximise electricity production from a Renewable Source to maximise output and therefore, profitability of the site. Therefore it is in the interests of the applicants that the site delivers the 49.9 Mw of electricity and there is no substantial evidence to suggest this would not occur. It would not be in the interest of the applicants to design a site which could not perform to its maximum capabilities.

The applicants set out that reliability of supply ‘is a well known benefit associated with ‘embedded’ electricity generation connections to the Local Electricity Distribution Network, as recognised in National Policy Statement (NPS) EN1 (see Paragraphs PS58 and PS59 of Planning Statement), and within Planning Practice Guidance: ‘Increasing the amount of energy from renewable and low carbon technologies will help to make sure the UK has a secure energy supply, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow down climate change and stimulate investment in new jobs and businesses.’ Paragraph: 001 Reference ID:5-001-20140306.’

The LPA has no evidence to suggest that this scheme will be contrary to the requirements set by EN1.

In respect of C02 emissions, paragraph 154 of the framework is clear that when determining applications the LPA must take into account the valuable contribution that Renewable Energy makes towards cutting Greenhouse Emissions. This provides carbon emissions data associated with the electricity system as a whole which is updated annually. The figures for carbon emissions take into account the electricity system as a whole, and all of the varieties of electricity generators, including Renewable

Page 340 Agenda Item 6

Energy. The figures are based on the entire electricity grid and provides conversion factors for 2019 published in 2020.

CPRE consider that the emissions data is incomplete including only emissions that would be produced by the average of the UK electricity generation sources. CPRE consider that factors such as; CO2 emissions during the mining, processing, refining, manufacture and transport of all major components, decommissioning and disposal of all components, and; Increased CO2 emissions resulting from gas-fired power stations having to operate inefficiently by raising and lowering their power output to counterbalance the varying power output of the solar farm, should be taken into account. The LPA must consider the information presented. The whole concept of the scheme is to provide low carbon energy.

Emissions are examined at Volume 2 of the ES Chapter 14 – Socio Economics and Sustainability paragraph 14.42 which refers to the UK Government Greenhouse Gas Conversion Factors for Company Reporting. The offset conversion factors for the site are provided through table 14.1 and the conclusion of this is that the site will deliver an offset of 15800000Kg C02 per annum, whereby the project will provide a significant contribution towards the Net Zero targets by 2050. The applicants provide further information pointing out that the IPCC studies which inform the UN Convention on Climate Change determined that ‘a range of technologies can provide electricity with less than 5% of the lifecycle GHG emissions of coal power: wind, solar, nuclear, and hydropower in suitable locations. In the future, further reductions of lifecycle emissions on these technologies could be attained through performance improvements and as a result of a cleaner energy supply in the manufacturing of the technologies.’

The scheme will clearly provide low carbon energy. The applicants have stated that they cannot provide a site specific calculation to the specific C02 production because the exact carbon footprint is linked to each manufacturing component. In any event, the construction of the site to provide carbon offsetting in the long term will necessitate a degree of manufacturing and will require parts to be delivered and accumulated. IN their letter of 13th October 2020, the applicants provide a calculation for roughly how long it will take the Litchardon Solar farm to ‘pay back’ its carbon footprint associated with the manufacture of the panels. Based on the data, the timeframe predicted to ‘pay back’ the carbon footprint of the scheme is 1.1. years of the lifetime of the scheme after which time it will carry on producing low carbon energy offsetting C02 emission from development or decommission of the site:

In this respect the scheme will be a low carbon energy producer, and the LPA supports this, accordant with paragraph 154 a) of the framework.

The applicants have pointed out that advice contained in EN-1 recognises that it is ‘critical’ to support secure and reliable supplies of electricity as well as making the transition to low carbon economy. The provision of the solar scheme will support the move towards Low Carbon sources of Renewable Energy seeks to achieve additional security of supply through sufficient electricity capacity, to meet demands at all times. The proposed solar scheme will contribute positively towards the production of renewable Low Carbon energy within the wider national grid whereby, in accordance with the framework, substantial weight must be given to the provision of such Low Carbon energy.

Page 341 Agenda Item 6

Planning Balance and Conclusion

Assessing the application against the relevant National and Development Plan polices, there are important factors to consider in terms of landscape visual impacts, the effect on local amenity, and the impact on the historic environment. There are also a number of material factors which hold significant weight in determining this application as an approval.

This scheme accords with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework to contribute to the achievement of Sustainable Development, in presumption of the social, economic and environmental sustainable principles providing the following benefits which must be given sufficient weight in determining the application:

Benefits of delivering the scheme:

- This scheme offers opportunity to show that north Devon is committed to reducing its carbon footprint and is actively promoting renewable energy schemes. The proposal will result in an increase in generation of a clean source of renewable energy for North Devon. The scheme will contribute positively towards the provision of Renewable Energy to meet the National aims of reducing Greenhouse gasses, and towards the Strategic Vision for North Devon to move towards Net Zero carbon energy production by 2050 in accordance with part 14 of the framework and policies ST02, ST03, ST16 of the NDTLP.

- The development contributes positively towards the presumption in favour of Sustainable Development reflecting the ‘Golden Thread’ running through the framework in terms of social, economic and environmental objectives of the framework accordant with part 2 of the framework and with policy ST01 and ST07(4) of the NDTLP.

- The development of the site would deliver economic growth within the rural area in terms of employment creation accordant with Part 6 of the framework and polices ST07 (4), ST11, DM14 and DM15 of the NDTLP

- The site will utilise an existing power source in the vicinity of the site accordant with part 14 of the framework and ST16 of the NDTLP

- The site has capability to accommodate the solar PV project on lower grade agricultural land of grade 3b and 4 and does not use ‘Best or most Versatile’ Agricultural land. The future use of the land will be for reduced grazing, maintaining an agricultural use of the land. The development will deliver a source of income to the land owner, diversifying the existing farming business accordant with DM15.

- The proposal will not adversely affect the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Site of Special Scientific Interest accordant with part 15 of the framework and policies ST14, DM15 and DM08A of the NDTLP.

- Given the presence of existing renewable development in this area, it is preferable to locate the proposal here, rather than further afield within the

Page 342 Agenda Item 6

countryside, away from established infrastructure, where there may not be such an abundant supply of lower grade land, and where connectivity may not be attainable without more major over ground infrastructure installation. In this respect, the location of the renewable energy in this location is best suited to accommodate this scheme, where the impact within the wider LCT can be mitigated in accordance with part 15 of the framework and policies ST16 (3) a), and will not have an overall defining influence or adverse cumulative impact on the wider LCT in accordance with ST16 (4) and policies ST14 and DM08A.

- The nature of the site is ‘temporary’ allowing the land to revert back to its former agricultural use once no longer required for the production of renewable energy accordant with part 6 of the framework and policies ST11 and DM14 of the NDTLP.

- The site will require minimal removal and alteration of established hedgerows and vegetation to enable access to the proposal. The site will deliver significant net biodiversity enhancement in the form of new habitat formation, and effective planting secured and delivered through the LEMP accordant with part 14 and 15 of the framework and policies ST14, ST23, DM08 and DM08A of the NDTLP.

- The development of the site will not unduly impact on the local tourism economy in the area accordant with policies ST11, ST13, DM17 and DM18.

- The site access and method of accessing the site through all phases of the scheme are considered to be safe in highways terms. No Highway objections are received. There are no undue impacts to the local highway network as a result of the proposal accordant with policies ST10, DM05 and DM06.

- In terms of flood risk and drainage the scheme is broadly acceptable subject to the discharge of the condition form DCLLFA accordant with part 14 of the framework and policies ST03 and DM04.

- The Impact on heritage Assets is not of undue significant substantial harm and will not lead to the loss of significance of a heritage asset accordant with part 16 of the framework and policies ST15 and DM07 of the NDTLP.

- Technical requirements and issues from statutory consultees, in respect of Environmental Health, Flooding and drainage, Ecology and Architecture can be dealt with through suitable planning conditions.

Potential harm:

- In considering the findings of the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment it is clear that, the size of the development does not allow it to be completely screened within the LCT. The landscape harm and visual effect from the wider surrounding countryside would be moderate, and can largely be mitigated by the soft landscaping in the LEMP, There will be relatively moderate localised harm to visual amenity from PROW. Higher impacts closer to residential property would be mitigated over time by the provision of the LEMP but views from individual properties cannot be wholly mitigated.

Page 343 Agenda Item 6

- In considering the comments of the Conservation Officer weight must be given to the protection of heritage assets, there is no direct substantial harm to the fabric or setting of a heritage asset. The less than significant impact on the setting of the listed buildings must be weighed in the planning balance, in accordance with paragraph 196 of the framework. The LPA considers that the less than significant impact on the heritage assets would not outweigh the significant benefits to be derived from providing this scheme.

- The comments and objections from local residents have been taken into account in considering the proposal. The effect on localised amenity to residential property would be mitigated through the provision of the planting scheme secured in the LEMP, the noise mitigation scheme and the CEMP, accordant with DM01 and DM04 which must be weighed in the balance.

- The comments of CPRE are noted but do not outweigh the benefits of delivering the Renewable Energy

Planning law requires that applications be determined in accordance with the development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38 (6) of the Act and paragraph 47 of the framework).

This proposal would deliver the aims of delivering sustainable development to achieve the 3 overarching objectives of economic, social and environmental dimensions. Planning decisions should play an active role in delivering sustainable development and solutions such as the delivery of Renewable Energy.

Taking the above into account, on balance the delivery of the aims and objectives of the framework, and the benefits that would be derived from approval of this scheme outweigh the adverse effects identified, which would arise from the approval of this proposal.

Therefore the officer recommends approval of this scheme in accordance with the adopted development plan. It is for Committee to weigh and balance the officer recommendation in coming to a decision. Approval of the application is therefore recommended subject to the imposition of planning conditions.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

The provisions of the Human Rights Act and principles contained in the Convention on Human Rights have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report. The articles/protocols identified below were considered of particular relevance:

Article 8 – Right to Respect for Private and Family Life THE FIRST PROTOCOL – Article 1: Protection of Property

Recommendation Approved Legal Agreement Required:- No

Page 344 Agenda Item 6

Conditions

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

Reason The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans/details:

Figure 1 Location Plan received on the 30/06/20 Figure 2 Site Layout Plan received on the 30/06/20 Fig 1.3- Fig 1.3 Site Plan received on the 24/07/20 Fig 6.2- Fig 6.2 Panel Substructure Options received on the 24/07/20 Fig 6.3- Fig 6.3 Gate 1 Site Access Plan received on the 24/07/20 Fig 6.4- Fig 6.4 Gate 2 Site Access Plan received on the 24/07/20 Fig 6.5- Fig 6.5 Gate 3 Site Access Plan received on the 24/07/20 Fig 6.6- Fig 6.6 Gate 4 Site Access Plan received on the 24/07/20 Fig 6.7- Fig 6.7 Gate 5 Site Access Plan received on the 24/07/20 Fig 6.8- Fig 6.8 Site Access Details Connection Compound received on the 24/07/20 Fig 6.9- Fig 6.9 Field Gate Detail received on the 24/07/20 Fig 6.11- Fig 6.11 Transformer Unit Detail received on the 24/07/20 Fig 6.13- Fig 6.13 Substation Detail received on the 24/07/20 Fig 6.19- Fig 6.19 Compound Fence Detail received on the 24/07/20 Fig 6.20- Fig 6.20 Site Fencing Detail received on the 24/07/20 Fig 9.1- Fig 9.1 Site Plan with Lidar Contrours received on the 24/07/20 Fig 9.2- Fig 9.2 Surface Water Floor Path & Direction received on the 24/07/20 Fig 4.2- Fig 4.2 Detailed Shaded Terrain Model received on the 15/10/20 Fig 6.23- Figure 6.23 Location of CCTV Cameras received on the 15/10/20 Fig 6.24- Figure 6.24 Typical CCTV Post received on the 15/10/20 Fig 11.4- Figure 11.4 Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) (5km radius) received on the 15/10/20 Fig 11.9 Mitigation proposals with detailed layout for LEMP. Figure 11.9.pdf received on the 10/03/21 Document Titled ‘Lower Litchardon Landscape and Ecological Management Plan’ rev 04 received on 10/3/21

('the approved plans').

Reason To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of proper planning.

3. When the land ceases to be used as a photovoltaic park for renewable power production or at the end of the period of 35 years from the date of grid connection (such date to have been given to the Local Planning Authority within one month of

Page 345 Agenda Item 6

grid connection) whichever shall first occur, the use hereby permitted shall cease and all materials and equipment brought on the land in connection with the use permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its previous state or as otherwise agreed, in accordance with details that have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the decommissioning works taking place. Such details shall include the time scale for decommissioning.

Reason In order to protect the visual amenity and character of the surrounding countryside and to ensure the development only exists for the lifetime of the development in accordance with policies ST02, ST16, DM01, DM04 and DM08A of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

4. If within the 35 year period referred to in condition 3 the solar pv development does not generate any electricity to the national grid for more than 6 months in a continuous period of 12 months, then details of a scheme, to repair or remove the solar pv development and all associated infrastructure, buildings, equipment and access points, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its written approval within 3 months of the end of that 12 month period. If removal of the development is required, all development and associated equipment, infrastructure and access shall be removed within 12 months of the details being approved and the details shall include a method statement and timetable for the dismantling and removal of the solar pv development and of the associated above ground works and foundations to a depth of at least one meter below ground; and, the details shall include a method statement, a traffic management plan, and a timetable for any necessary restoration works following removal of the solar pv development. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason To minimise any detriment to the visual amenity of the surrounding area and ensure decommissioning works do not have adverse highway or amenity impacts in accordance with Policies ST14, DM01, DM04, DM05 and DM08A of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

5. No work shall be commenced on any part of the development hereby permitted until full details of all external finishes for all cabinets, transformers, switchgear housings/substations and proposed surfacing of access tracks and details of supporting poles for CCTV cameras have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason In the interests of the appearance of the development and locality in accordance with Policies ST04, DM04 and DM08A of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

6. All electrical cabling between the panel rows and the on-site connection building, substations and transformer units shall be located underground. Thereafter the excavated ground shall be reinstated to its former condition within 2 months of the commissioning of the solar farm in accordance with a scheme which has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the

Page 346 Agenda Item 6

commencement of works on site.

Reason In the interests of the visual amenity of the area in accordance with policies ST04, DM04, and DM08 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

7. No external artificial lighting or CCTV cameras other than those shown on the approved plans shall be installed during the operation of the site as a solar PV facility, without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason In the interests of the visual amenity of the area, and to enable the Local Planning Authority to consider issues of light pollution and amenity of local residents at the appropriate time in accordance with policies ST04, DM01, DM04, DM08, and DM08A of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country planning (General Permitted development) Order 2015 (As amended) no fixed plant or machinery, cabling (over or under ground), buildings structures and erections, fences or private ways shall be erected, extended, installed or rearranged without prior permission from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, it is appropriate to maintain control of development proposals that may have an impact on the amenities of local residents or landscape and ecological interests of the countryside in accordance with polices ST04, DM01, DM04, DM08 and DM08A of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

9. No other part of the development hereby approved shall be commenced until the site access, parking facilities, commercial vehicle loading and unloading areas, visibility splays, turning areas, access roads and drainage of access have been provided in accordance with the approved highway details. Access to the site for construction traffic shall be via the agreed delivery routes illustrates on Plate B1 - Routes for Construction Traffic to Site Entrances'.

Reason To ensure that adequate facilities are available for traffic attracted to the site in accordance with ST10, DM05 and DM06 of the North Devon And Torridge Local Plan.

10. Prior to the commencement of development, including any site clearance, groundworks or construction within each sub-phase (Construction, Operation and Decommission phases) (save such preliminary or minor works that the Local Planning Authority may agree in writing), a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to manage the impacts of construction and decommission of the site during the life of the works, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt and where relevant, the CEMP shall include:-

Page 347 Agenda Item 6

a) measures to regulate the routing of construction and decommissioning phase traffic; b) the times within which traffic can enter and leave the site; c) details of any significant importation or movement of spoil and soil on site; d) details of the removal /disposal of materials from site, including soil and vegetation; e) the location and covering of stockpiles; f) details of measures to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site / wheel- washing facilities; g) control of fugitive dust from demolition, earthworks and construction activities; dust suppression; h) a noise control plan which details hours of operation and proposed mitigation measures; i) location of any site construction office, compound and ancillary facility buildings; j) specified on-site parking for vehicles associated with the construction works and the provision made for access thereto; k) a point of contact (such as a Construction Liaison Officer/site manager) and details of how complaints will be addressed. The details so approved and any subsequent amendments as shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be complied with in full and monitored by the applicants to ensure continuing compliance during the construction of the development.

Reason To minimise the impact of the works during the construction of the development in the interests of highway safety and the free-flow of traffic, and to safeguard the amenities of the area and to protect the amenity of local residents from potential impacts whilst site clearance, groundworks and construction is underway in accordance with Policies DM01, DM02 and DM05 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

11. All temporary construction yards and temporary access tracks required to provide temporary storage of materials, parking and access in conjunction with the development shall be removed within three months of the completion of the works of the scheme and within three months of the cessation of the scheme following its decommissioning after 35 years time period of productivity and the land restored to its former condition.

Reason To protect the character, appearance and quality of the countryside in which the development is positioned in accordance with policies ST04, DM04, DM08 and DM08A of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

12. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping within the Landscape Ecological Management Plan titled 'Lower Litchardon Landscape and Ecological Management Plan Rev 04' received 1st March 2021 and landscaping mitigation shown on LEMP plans titled

- Mitigation Proposals with Detailed Layout - west, Figure 11.9 sheet 1 of 4'

Page 348 Agenda Item 6

received on 1st March 2021 - Mitigation Proposals with Detailed Layout - Central North, Figure 11.9 sheet 2 of 4' received on 1st March 2021 - Mitigation Proposals with Detailed Layout - Central South, Figure 11.9 Sheet 3 of 4 received on 1st March 2021 - Mitigation Proposals with Detailed Layout - East, Figure 11.9 sheet 4 of 4 received on 1st March 2021

shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation or the substantial completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variations.

Reason To assimilate the development into the landscape and to safeguard the appearance and character of the area and the amenities of residential property in accordance with Policies ST04, ST14, DM01, DM04 and DM08A of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

13. In this condition 'retained trees, hedges and shrubs' means an existing tree, hedge or shrub, which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars [insert drawing no’s]; and paragraphs (a) and (b) below shall have effect until the expiration of 5 years from [the date of the occupation of the building for its permitted use].

(a) No retained tree, hedge or shrub shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any tree, be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the local planning authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998: 2010 Tree Work - Recommendations.

(b) If any retained tree, hedge or shrub is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree, hedge or shrub shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the local planning authority.

(c) The erection of protective barriers and any other measures identified as necessary for the protection of any retained tree, hedge or shrub shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of the development, or in accordance with an approved method statement and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written consent of the local planning authority.

Page 349 Agenda Item 6

Reason To safeguard the appearance and character of the area in accordance with Policies ST04, ST14, DM04 and DM08A of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

14. Prior to the development hereby approved being brought into use, the biodiversity net gains and ecological mitigation, as indicated on the approved plans within the Landscape Ecological Management Plan document entitled

- Lower Litchardon Landscape and Ecological Management Plan rev 04 - Mitigation Proposals with Detailed Layout - west, Figure 11.9 sheet 1 of 4' received on 1st March 2021 - Mitigation Proposals with Detailed Layout - Central North, Figure 11.9 sheet 2 of 4' received on 1st March 2021 - Mitigation Proposals with Detailed Layout - Central South, Figure 11.9 Sheet 3 of 4 received on 1st March 2021 - Mitigation Proposals with Detailed Layout - East, Figure 11.9 sheet 4 of 4 received on 1st March 2021

shall be provided in full and retained thereafter.

Reason To achieve net gains in biodiversity in compliance with Policy ST14, DM04, DM08 and DM08A of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

15. Should any unexpected contamination of soil or groundwater be discovered during development of the site, the Local Planning Authority should be contacted immediately. Site activities within that sub-phase or part thereof, should be temporarily suspended until such time as a procedure for addressing any such unexpected contamination, within that sub-phase or part thereof, is agreed upon with the Local Planning Authority or other regulating bodies.

Reason In the interest of human health in accordance with Policy DM02 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

16. During the construction phase no machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site outside the following times:

a) Monday - Friday 07.00 - 18.00, b) Saturday 09.00 - 13.00 c) nor at any time on Sunday, Bank or Public holidays.

Reason To protect the amenity of local residents in accordance with Policy DM02 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

17. In the event that Glint and/or Glare becomes apparent, in accordance with good

Page 350 Agenda Item 6

practice, and following confirmation in writing by the Local Planning Authority that a significant issue exists, a Glint and Glare assessment must be submitted within one month of the date of identification of a Glint and Glare issue. The scheme shall describe details of proposed mitigation measures and include procedure for addressing any unexpected glint or glare impacts that may become apparent once the development becomes operational and where such impacts are confirmed as being significant in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason To ensure that any Glint or Glare impacts which may be identified are properly mitigated throughout the lifetime of the application in the interests of the appearance of the countryside, and of the amenity of the area and any neighbouring living conditions or highway conditions in accordance with policies ST04, DM01, DM04, DM05 and DM08A of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

18. Prior to first operation of the development an acoustic report assessing the impact of noise (including low frequency noise) and proposing a noise mitigation scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The mitigation measures shall be maintained and complied with thereafter in accordance with the acoustic report and no new plant shall be used without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, mitigation measures shall ensure that the agreed target criteria of a BS4142:2014 +A1:2019 rating level of 35dB LAeq is achieved at all nearby residential properties (including at outside amenity areas) existing at the time permission is granted.

Reason To protect the amenity of the area and neighbouring occupants/residents against the effects of noise in accordance with Policies DM01 and DM02 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

19. No development hereby permitted shall commence until the following information has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

(a) A detailed drainage design based upon the approved Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (b) Detailed proposals for the management of surface water and silt runoff from the site during construction of the development hereby permitted. (c) Proposals for the adoption and maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage system. (d) A plan indicating how exceedance flows will be safely managed at the site.

Reason The above condition is required to ensure the proposed surface water drainage system will operate effectively and will not cause an increase in flood risk either on the site, adjacent land or downstream in line with SuDS for Devon Guidance (2017) and national policies, including NPPF and PPG and planning policies ST03 and DM04 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. The conditions should be pre-commencement since it is essential that the proposed surface water drainage system is shown to be feasible before works begin to avoid redesign /

Page 351 Agenda Item 6

unnecessary delays during construction when site layout is fixed.

20. No development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the 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 DM07 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011 - 2031 and paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development. This is a pre-commencement requirement to ensure that no archaeological evidence is lost from the beginning of development.

21. The land between the rows of solar arrays will be used for the purposes of grazing of livestock for the duration of the 35 year life span of the proposed solar farm.

Reason In the interests of promoting the rural economy and ecological and biodiversity management of the site in accordance with policies DM08, DM08A and DM14 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

22. All foul drainage, including foul surface water run-off, must be disposed of in such a way as to prevent any discharge to a well, borehole or spring or any watercourse, including dry ditches with a connection to a watercourse.

Reason To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy DM02 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

Page 352