Public Document Pack

Agenda for Planning Committee Wednesday, 6th January, 2021, 10.00 am

Members of Planning Committee

Councillors E Wragg (Chair), S Chamberlain (Vice-Chair), East Devon District Council K Bloxham, C Brown, A Colman, O Davey, Border House B De Saram, S Gazzard, M Howe, D Key, Heathpark Industrial Park K McLauchlan, G Pook, G Pratt, P Skinner, Honiton J Whibley and T Woodward EX14 1EJ DX 48808 HONITON Venue: Online via the Zoom App. All Councillors and Tel: 01404 515616 registered speakers will have been sent an www.eastdevon.gov.uk appointment with the meeting link.

Contact: Wendy Harris, Democratic Services Officer 01395 517542; email [email protected] (or group number 01395 517546) Issued: Thursday, 24 December 2020

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Williams, Chief Executive page 1 Parish and town council representatives wishing to speak on an application are also required to pre-register in advance of the meeting. One representative can be registered to speak on behalf of the Council from 10am on Friday, 18 December 2020 up until 12 noon on Wednesday, 23 December 2020 by leaving a message on 01395 517525 or emailing [email protected].

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

1 Speakers' list and the revised order for the applications (Pages 4 - 5) The speakers’ list and revised order has been removed.

2 Minutes of the previous meeting (Pages 6 - 11) 3 Apologies 4 Declarations of interest 5 Matters of urgency 6 Confidential/exempt item(s) 7 Planning appeal statistics (Pages 12 - 19) Update from the Development Manager.

Applications for Determination

PLEASE NOTE - The meeting will be adjourned at approximately 1pm for a 30 minutes break

8 20/2089/MFUL (Major) BUDLEIGH AND RALEIGH (Pages 20 - 79) 151 Hectares Of Land Within The Parishes Of East Budleigh, Budleigh Salterton And Otterton From Lime Kiln Car Park (SY072810) To South Of Frogmore House (SY074850) (The Lower Otter Valley).

9 20/1504/MOUT (Major) OTTERY ST MARY (Pages 80 - 128) Land Opposite Barrack Farm, Exeter Road, Ottery St Mary.

10 20/0995/VAR (Minor) BUDLEIGH AND RALEIGH (Pages 129 - 136) Pooh Cottage Holiday Site, Bear Lane, Budleigh Salterton.

11 20/0996/VAR (Minor) BUDLEIGH AND RALEIGH (Pages 137 - 143) Pooh Cottage Holiday Site, Bear Lane, Budleigh Salterton.

page 2 12 20/0918/FUL (Minor) BUDLEIGH AND RALEIGH (Pages 144 - 158) 2 The Cedars, Exmouth Road, Colaton Raleigh, EX10 0LB.

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

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

page 3 Agenda Item 1

[Blank page]

page 4

[Blank page]

page 5 Agenda Item 2 EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL

Minutes of the meeting of Planning Committee held online via zoom on 2 December 2020

Attendance list at end of document The meeting started at 10.02 am and ended at 3.00 pm. The meeting was adjourned at 12.51pm and reconvened at 1.22pm.

176 Minutes of the previous meeting

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 November 2020 were agreed as a true record.

177 Declarations of interest

Minute 179. 20/1001/MOUT & 20/1003/LBC (Major) CLYST ST MARY. Councillors Bruce De Saram, Geoff Pook, Geoff Pratt, Joe Whibley, Kathy McLauchlan, Mike Howe, Olly Davey, Phil Skinner, Steve Gazzard, Personal, Had received correspondence from the Chairman of Clyst St Mary Residents Association in respect of this application.

Minute 179. 20/1001/MOUT & 20/1003/LBC (Major) CLYST ST MARY. Councillor Mike Howe, Personal, Bishops Clyst Parish Councillor. Owns the Post Office and Convenience Store in Clyst St Mary, had attended public meetings with the developer and Save Clyst St Mary Residents Association and had private discussions with the developer on two occasions to discuss noise issues and traffic highway issues and not on the development itself.

Minute 179. 20/1001/MOUT & 20/1003/LBC (Major) CLYST ST MARY. Councillor Olly Davey, Personal, Had a conversation with a concerned resident and had been forwarded one of the objectors submissions to the planning portal.

Minute 179. 20/1001/MOUT & 20/1003/LBC (Major) CLYST ST MARY. Councillor Tony Woodward, Personal, Received an indirect request from a public speaker in respect of this application and had been employed on the Winslade site from 1984 - 1999.

Minute 181. 20/1399/FUL (Minor) SEATON . Councillor Olly Davey, Personal, Devon Wildlife Trust member.

Minute 181. 20/1399/FUL (Minor) SEATON . Councillor Philip Skinner, Personal, As a former Portfolio Holder for Economy had lead the regeneration for Seaton which the Jurassic Centre had been part of.

Minute 183. 20/1234/FUL (Minor) COLY VALLEY. Councillor Geoff Pratt, Personal, East Devon AONB Partnership Member.

Minute 183. 20/1234/FUL (Minor) COLY VALLEY. Councillor Paul Arnott, Personal, Known to one of the directors of the Upper Coly Valley Community Land Trust and as Ward Member had one conversation with the director in respect of this application.

Minute 183. 20/1234/FUL (Minor) COLY VALLEY. page 6 Planning Committee 2 December 2020

Councillor Philip Skinner, Personal, Known to the Chairman of the Upper Coly Valley Community Land Trust.

Minute 184. 20/2082/FUL (Minor) DUNKESWELL & OTTERHEAD. Councillor David Key, Personal, Known to the applicant.

Minute 184. 20/2082/FUL (Minor) DUNKESWELL & OTTERHEAD. Councillor Philip Skinner, Personal, Known to the applicant.

178 Planning appeal statistics

The Committee noted the Development Manager’s report setting out 12 decisions notified and reported that 5 appeals had been dismissed and 7 allowed.

Members’ attention was drawn to the 7 appeals allowed. These included the appeal against application 20/0015/CPE Rhode Hill Far, Uplyme, the Inspector had disagreed with the Council’s decision to refuse the Certificate of Lawful Use determining the dwelling was no longer restricted to the agricultural tie. The appeal against application 19/2093/FUL 1 Victoria Road, Exmouth, the Inspector determined the installation of uPVC windows would be neither unsympathetic nor visually intrusive in the Exmouth Conservation Area. The appeal for application 20/0611/FUL Donnithornes, Mill Street, Ottery St Mary, the Inspector had allowed the appeal for the proposed works as it was felt it would help to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Finally for application 19/2828/PDQ Barn South of Rull Barton, Rull Hill, Whimple, the Inspector had allowed the appeal concluding the proposed change of use did constitute permitted development.

The Development Manager advised although it had been a disappointing month in terms of appeals allowed it should be noted that the council’s performance on dismissed appeals was still above the national average in that regard.

The Development Manager updated Members on the appeal against application 19/1351/FUL Land at Liverton Business Park, Exmouth. Members noted that the High Court had refused the renewal application by a member of the public for permission to apply for a Judicial Review. As a result the Inspectorate’s decision to allow the appeal still stands.

179 20/1001/MOUT & 20/1003/LBC (Major) CLYST ST MARY

Applicant: Mr Peter Quincey (Burrington Estates Winslade Ltd).

Location: (20/1001/MOUT) Winslade Park, Clyst St Mary. (20/1003/LBC) Winslade Park, Winslade Park Avenue, Clyst St Mary.

Proposal: (20/1001/MOUT) Hybrid application to include full planning permission for the demolition of an existing pre-fabricated building, refurbishment of 21,131sqm of commercial (Use Class B1a and D2) floor space, 2,364sqm of leisure space (Use Class D1/D2 and A3), extension to Brook House providing ancillary B1c and B8 floor space, site-wide landscaping, engineering works and the provision of associated car parking spaces. Outline planning permission with all matters reserved except for access for the erection page 7 Planning Committee 2 December 2020

of up to 94 residential units, including affordable housing, replacement cricket pavilion, new toilets/changing facility, reinstatement of associated sports pitches, tennis courts and parkland.

(20/1003/LBC) Internal and external works/alterations to Winslade Manor, Winslade House and the Terrace, refurbishment of the buildings for office use and the Terrace for amenity space.

RESOLVED: (20/1001/MOUT) Approved as per Officer recommendation but with the following additional recommendations:

1. All discharge of conditions on application 20/1001/MOUT to be carried out in consultation with the Ward Member and Chair of Planning Committee; 2. The Development Manager to write to South West Water to express the Committees dissatisfaction at SWW’s brief consultation response to application 20/1001/MOUT and to advise that the Committee expect SWW to deal with, and take responsibility for, any foul drainage matters that arise as part of the development to ensure no impact upon existing residents; 3. Than an Informative be added to the Notice of Decision for 20/1001/MOUT advising the applicant of the need to consult with the public on the preparation of the Design Code and subsequent residential development forming Zones A and D before the related reserve matters applications are submitted to the LPA; 4. The late additional conditions recommended by Environmental Health be added to application 20/1001/MOUT; 5. That the Heads of Terms and subsequent legal agreement for 20/1001/MOUT include overage payment obligations and a contribution towards local doctor’s surgeries subject to the NHS demonstrating that the contribution is justified with the decision on the justification and final contribution amount delegated to the Development Manager in consultation with the Ward Member and Chair of Planning Committee.

20/1003/LBC – Approved as per Officer recommendation.

180 20/1855/FUL (Minor) WOODBURY & LYMPSTONE

Applicant: John Lomax.

Location: Land Adjoining The Workshop, Longmeadow Road.

Proposal: Installation of a sewage treatment package (retrospective application).

RESOLVED: Approved as per Officer recommendation.

181 20/1399/FUL (Minor) SEATON

Applicant: Mr Richard Drysdale.

page 8 Planning Committee 2 December 2020

Location: Seaton Jurassic, The Underfleet.

Proposal: Extension to existing external area to visitor centre to include change of use of part of existing car park; raising of site levels to provide level access path; creation of play and interpretation features (to include 3 metre high earth mound) and seating areas; creation of footpath link to north.

RESOLVED: Approved as per officer recommendation.

182 20/1258/FUL (Minor) EXE VALLEY

Applicant: Mr Ben Blackburn (Drum Construction).

Location: Lower Southmoor Farm, Brampford Speke.

Proposal: Application to replace barn with PDQ consent (20/0129/PDQ) for conversion to 2 no larger residential dwellings, with 2 no detached dwellings.

RESOLVED: Approved as per Officer recommendation.

183 20/123 4/FUL (Minor) COLY VALLEY

Applicant: Mr W Rich.

Location: Land South Of Chilcombe Cross, Northleigh.

Proposal: Proposed residential development comprising 6 no. affordable dwellings and associated works.

RESOLVED: Approved as per Officer recommendation but with a change to the Contaminated Land condition 4 to reflect the latest information submitted by the applicant and revised wording recommended by the Contaminated Land Officer.

184 20/2082/FUL (Minor) DUNKESWELL & OTTERHEAD

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Summers.

Location: Kains Park Farm, Awliscombe.

Proposal: page 9 Planning Committee 2 December 2020

Erection of agricultural building, construction of yard area and associated works.

RESOLVED: Approved as per Officer recommendation.

185 20/1531/LBC (Other) WOODBURY & LYMPSTONE

Applicant: Mrs J Young.

Location: Jasmine Cottage, The Strand.

Proposal: Replace existing passageway roof and install 3no. rooflights; construct wall at end of passageway and insert 1no. window on north elevation; removal of partition walls in utility and construct new partition wall and door opening to create wet room; create level floor across the passageway; install double doors in existing opening between dining and lounge to create bedroom.

RESOLVED: Approved as per Officer recommendation.

Attendance List Councillors present (for some or all the meeting): E Wragg (Chair) S Chamberlain (Vice-Chair) C Brown O Davey B De Saram S Gazzard M Howe D Key K McLauchlan G Pook G Pratt P Skinner J Whibley T Woodward

Councillors also present (for some or all the meeting): P Arnott P Hayward G Jung H Parr J Rowland

Officers in attendance: Chris Rose, Development Manager Shirley Shaw, Planning Barrister Wendy Harris, Democratic Services Officer page 10 Planning Committee 2 December 2020

Sarah Jenkins, Democratic Services Officer Anita Williams, Principal Solicitor (and Deputy Monitoring Officer) Nicola Cooper, Solicitor

Councillor apologies: K Bloxham A Colman

Chairman Date:

page 11 EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL Agenda Item 7 LIST OF PLANNING APPEALS LODGED

Ref: 20/0078/CPE Date Received 24.11.2020 Appellant: Mr Colin Bloomfield Appeal Site: Stream Wood Land NW Of Yawl Cross St Marys Lane Uplyme Proposal: Certificate of Lawfulness for an existing use and operation consisting of the erection of 2no. buildings and their use for a mixed residential, workshop and storage use in connection with management of surrounding woodland Planning APP/U1105/X/20/3263779 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 20/1632/FUL Date Received 27.11.2020 Appellant: Mr Robert Lester Appeal Site: Woolbrook Reservoir Balfours Sidmouth EX10 9EF Proposal: Construction of single storey dwelling Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3264008 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 20/1149/FUL Date Received 08.12.2020 Appellant: Mrs N Bayliss Appeal Site: Land Opposite Exton Lane Exmouth Road Exton Proposal: Construction of two dwellings and creation of new vehicular access Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3264705 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/2283/COU Date Received 09.12.2020 Appellant: Mr I Chubb Appeal Site: The Big Office Chubbs Yard Chardstock Axminster EX13 7BT Proposal: Change of use from office to dwelling (retrospective) Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3264784 Inspectorate Ref:

page 12

page 13

East Devon District Council List of Planning Appeals Decided

Ref: 20/0595/FUL Appeal 20/00044/REF Ref: Appellant: Mr John Lomax Appeal Site: Telecommunications Mast At Mount Pleasant Exmouth Road Aylesbeare Proposal: Provision of additional secure storage space adjacent and within structure Decision: Appeal Withdrawn Date: 17.11.2020

BVPI 204: No Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3255514 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 18/2173/VAR Appeal 19/00049/REF Ref: Appellant: Mr David Manley Appeal Site: Enfield Farm Biodigester Oil Mill Lane Clyst St Mary EX5 1AF Proposal: Variation of conditions 2,5,7 and 10 of planning permission 17/0650/VAR to allow increase annual tonnage of crop input from 26,537 to 66,000 tonnes and increase annual tonnage of digestate exported from the site from 21,354 to 56,000 tonnes and vary wording of Odour Management Plan Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 26.11.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Application for a full award of costs against the Council refused. Delegated refusal, amenity and pollution reasons upheld (EDLP Policies D1 & EN14 and Strategy 7). BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3234261 Inspectorate Ref:

page 14 East Devon District Council List of Appeals In Progress

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

App.No: 18/F0034 Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/C/19/3238383 Appellant: Natalie Jones Address: Otter Valley Golf Centre, Rawridge Proposal: Appeal against the serving of an enforcement notice in respect of the material change of use of the land from that of agriculture to a mixed use of the land for siting of a mobile home for residential purposes, use of the land as an equine stud farm and use of the agricultural barn for livestock, without planning permission. Start Date: 6 July 2020 Procedure: Inquiry Questionnaire Due Date: 20 July 2020 Statement Due Date: 17 August 2020 Inquiry Date: To be arranged

App.No: 20/0312/TRE Appeal Ref: APP/TPO/U1105/7890 Appellant: Mrs Kath Pyne Address: Oasis Toadpit Lane West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1TR Proposal: Fell one Pinus Sylvestris protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Start Date: 12 August 2020 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 26 August 2020

page 15

App.No: 19/2591/VAR Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3254780 Appellant: DS Developments (Exeter) Ltd Address: South Whimple Farm Clyst Honiton Exeter EX5 2DY Proposal: Removal of condition 16 of 16/1826/MFUL (decentralised energy network connection) to remove requirement for connection to the Cranbrook district heating network Start Date: 15 September 2020 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 22 September 2020 Statement Due Date: 20 October 2020

App.No: 19/F0187 Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/F/20/3258749 Appellant: Mr S Broom Address: Court Place Cottage, Court Place Farm, Wilmington Proposal: Appeal against the serving of a listed building enforcement notice in respect of replacement windows and door. Start Date: 5 October 2020 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 19 October 2020 Statement Due Date: 16 November 2020

App.No: 20/0643/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3258736 Appellant: Mr D & Mrs J Presnail Address: Taree Cownhayne Lane Colyton EX24 6HD Proposal: Construction of detached dwelling and associated driveway. Start Date: 12 October 2020 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 19 October 2020 Statement Due Date: 16 November 2020

page 16 App.No: 20/0874/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3258745 Appellant: Mr Tom Chown Address: 56 Millers Way Honiton EX14 1JB Proposal: Proposed demolition of existing garage and construction of new dwelling. Start Date: 13 October 2020 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 20 October 2020 Statement Due Date: 17 November 2020

App.No: 20/0833/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3258150 Appellant: Mr N M Eyres Address: 26 & 26A Mill Street Ottery St Mary EX11 1AD Proposal: Sub-division of existing vacant retail shop unit (26), new internal staircase to modified flat unit (26A) and alterations to existing shop front. Part retrospective. Start Date: 6 November 2020 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 13 November 2020 Statement Due Date: 11 December 2020

App.No: 20/0943/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3258355 Appellant: Mr N M Eyres Address: 26 & 26A Mill Street Ottery St Mary EX11 1AD Proposal: Conversion of part existing vacant shop unit (26) and part first floor flat (26A) into one bedroom town house Start Date: 6 November 2020 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 13 November 2020 Statement Due Date: 11 December 2020

page 17 App.No: 20/0848/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3260272 Appellant: Mr Thomas Lowday Address: Windrush Poltimore Exeter EX4 0AB Proposal; Change of use of residential dwelling and agricultural land to an educational facility to operate as an independent special school (use class D1) and provision of car park spaces, installation of compost toilets and wildlife pond and planting of new woodland Start Date: 18 November 2020 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 25 November 2020 Statement Due Date: 23 December 2020

App.No: 20/0846/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3260621 Appellant: Mr S Thorneywork Address: Lloyds Tsb Bank Plc 8 Fore Street Budleigh Salterton EX9 6NQ Proposal; Construction of 1 bed cottage Start Date: 24 November 2020 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 1 December 2020 Statement Due Date: 29 December 2020

App.No: 15/F0020 Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/C/20/3248557 Appellant: Ms Charmaine Lee Address: Hawkwell Park, Hawkchurch Proposal; Appeal against the serving of an enforcement notice in respect of the non - compliance with a condition on a planning permission restricting the occupation of caravans on the site to gypsies and travellers. Start Date: 8 December 2020 Procedure: Inquiry Questionnaire Due Date: 22 December 2020 Statement Due Date: 19 January 2021 Inquiry Date: To be arranged

page 18 App.No: 20/0668/PDQ Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3261197 Appellant: Terry Grandfield Address: Barn At Orchard Farm Plymtree Proposal; Prior approval for proposed change of use of existing agricultural barn to 4 no. smaller dwelling houses (use class C3) and associated operational development under Class Q(a) and (b) Start Date: 8 December 2020 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 15 December 2020 Statement Due Date: 12 January 2021

App.No: 20/1624/PDQ Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3261200 Appellant: Terry Grandfield Address: Barn At Orchard Farm Plymtree EX15 2LW Proposal; Prior approval for proposed change of use of existing agricultural barn to 4 no. smaller dwelling houses (use class C3) and associated operational development under Class Q(a) and (b). Start Date: 8 December 2020 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 15 December 2020 Statement Due Date: 12 January 2021

App.No: 20/0988/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/D/20/3261816 Appellant: Mr Ian Connock Address: Abbotsford Longmeadow Road Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5LE Proposal; Creation of a means of access to a highway (part retrospective) Start Date: 11 December 2020 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 18 December 2020

page 19 Agenda Item 8 Ward Budleigh And Raleigh

Reference 20/2089/MFUL

Applicant Megan Rimmer (Environment Agency)

Location 151 Hectares Of Land Within The Parishes Of East Budleigh, Budleigh Salterton And Otterton From Lime Kiln Car Park (SY072819) To South Of Frogmore House (SY074850) (The Lower Otter Valley) Proposal Proposed breach of the River Otter embankment, Little Bank and Big Bank to restore the historic floodplain creating intertidal saltmarsh, mudflats and freshwater habitat at Big Marsh, and new freshwater habitat at Little Marsh. Associated works including development of a new footbridge, realignment of South Farm Road, and creation of a new car park. (The Lower Otter Restoration Project). Accompanied by an Environmental Statement.

RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve the Appropriate Assessment attached as Appendix 1 2. Approve the application with conditions as detailed.

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 20 Committee Date: 6th January 2021

Budleigh And Target Date: Raleigh 20/2089/MFUL 28.12.2020 (East Budleigh)

Applicant: Megan Rimmer (Environment Agency)

Location: 151 Hectares Of Land Within The Parishes Of East Budleigh, Budleigh Salterton And Otterton From Lime Kiln Car Park (SY072819) To South Of Frogmore House (SY074850) (The Lower Otter Valley)

Proposal: Proposed breach of the River Otter embankment, Little Bank and Big Bank to restore the historic floodplain creating intertidal saltmarsh, mudflats and freshwater habitat at Big Marsh, and new freshwater habitat at Little Marsh. Associated works including development of a new footbridge, realignment of South Farm Road, and creation of a new car park. (The Lower Otter Restoration Project). Accompanied by an Environmental Statement.

RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve the Appropriate Assessment attached as Appendix 1 2. Approve the application with conditions as detailed.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before members as the officer recommendation is contrary to the views of the parish councils.

This is an application for the restoration of the historic floodplain of the lower Otter river and creation of intertidal saltmarsh, mudflats and freshwater habitat, together with the realignment of South Farm Road, creation of a new car park and new footbridge. The application is accompanied by an environmental statement which assesses impact on habitat, ecology, flood risk, archaeology, landscape and conservation.

The application has been widely consulted on and statutory bodies are generally supportive of the proposal.

Although the purpose of the scheme is to allow the river at this point to be inundated with water, both from the river and the sea, the flood risk assessment and flood modelling results indicate that in fluvial events there will be a reduction in flood depth throughout the study area for all modelled flood events.

20/2089/MFUL page 21 A thorough review of the FRA by the Environment Agency (independent of the project team) found that flood risk will not be detrimental for third parties. Concerns have been raised regarding the positioning and size of the proposed car park; the highway authority would like this to include more car parking spaces and connect by footpath along South Farm Road. Concerns were also raised regarding the consultation process, both in terms of prior consultation undertaken by the applicant and the timing of site notices.

The impacts on trees, local landscape, the setting of heritage assets, use of the estuary and contamination have all been addressed.

It is considered that the proposal is acceptable subject to appropriately worded conditions relating to archaeology, materials of the footbridge, access details and public rights of way, contamination, a construction management plan, groundwater levels, adequate car parking, the provision of a footpath, arboricultural and tree protection details.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Budleigh Salterton Town Council

Councillors voted on the following nine proposals and all the proposals were approved: 1. The field at the northern end of Granary Lane is to be used for the storage of construction materials and equipment - that land is in the parish of Budleigh Salterton but it is outside the Built-Up Area Boundary. Agreed: On completion of the project, the land should be returned to agricultural use and EDDC should be asked for assurance that this will happen. 2. There are very understandable concerns about the increase in traffic flow and density on Granary Lane and action must be taken to mitigate this. Agreed: DCC Highways Officers will be asked to meet with members of the Budleigh Salterton Traffic Group and Granary Lane residents to discuss the implementation of temporary measures for the duration of the project. Officers will also be asked to carry out a Traffic Impact Analysis which should cover the whole of the area to the east of East Budleigh Road and not just Granary Lane. 3. The project states that the footpath, which runs from Lime Kiln Car Park to South Farm Road along the western side of the valley, will be raised above high-water level to protect the cliff face at the bottom of the gardens of Granary Lane from erosion. This will also stop salinity levels rising and impacting on the trees and other vegetation. However, this action will not be completed as part of LORP but as part of the FAB project immediately following completion of LORP. Agreed: Reassurance is needed from EDDC that this proposal will be an integral part of the FAB Project. 4. If the FAB project does not go ahead:

20/2089/MFUL page 22 Agreed: Reassurance from EDDC that the LORP will honour the commitment to raise the footpath. 5. Agreed: Reassurance that residents will receive appropriate compensation for any subsequent damage to the cliff face affecting residents' gardens and that LORP/FAB have liability cover for such an eventuality. 6. One of the immediate effects of the Project will be a rise in water levels which will impact on this vulnerable area. It is imperative that a temporary barrier is put in place along this footpath to protect the cliff area until a permanent raised path is constructed. Agreed: Reassurance from EDDC/EA that such a barrier will be erected. Regarding the proposed car park in South Farm Road. 7. Agreed: Request that EDDC install a height restriction at the entrance to prevent its use by campervans and travellers. 8. In the early stages of the project, there was an extensive consultation process. It has taken approximately two years to produce these current proposals. The time given for local authorities, residents and other interested parties to absorb the information and respond with any comments and concerns, is inadequate, especially while current restrictions preclude a public meeting from taking place. Agreed: In addition to the motion that the application be withdrawn to allow for a full consultation to be undertaken, the applicant should be asked to provide hard copies of the proposals to enable those without internet access to view the proposals. 9. 2020 has seen an increase in water sports activities both in the sea and on the river, especially at high tide. Signs erected by the Pebblebed Heaths Conservation Trust stating there should be no water sports on the river have been widely ignored. This is also in contravention of Community Action CLW3 of the Budleigh Salterton Neighbourhood Plan. The flooding of the lower reaches of the river, especially at high tide, will only serve to encourage water sports activities, with subsequent negative impact on the area's wildlife and the environment in general. Agreed: Reassurance that action will be taken by EDDC/EA/Pebblebed Heaths to ensure that all water sports activities are prohibited throughout the entire area of the project. This Council also asks that additional checks be carried out on the integrity of the upper footpath running from the Lime Kiln Car Park to Donkeys Turn.

Budleigh Salterton Town Council – 26/10/20

Application No: 20/2089/MFUL - The Lower Otter Restoration Project At a meeting of the Town Council held via Zoom on Monday 26 October, Members discussed the above application to create an intertidal salt marsh in the parishes of Otterton, East Budleigh and Budleigh Salterton.

Whilst the plan itself was commended, there was a great deal of concern that many residents, from all three parishes, have been unable to view the plans because they do not have access to the internet; some were not even aware of the application which will affect many residents. Many of those residents who have read the plan feel that they have been given inadequate time to assess its implications and would

20/2089/MFUL page 23 like to have the opportunity to discuss the project in detail with the relevant authorities. Budleigh Salterton Town Council asks that the application be withdrawn until such time as a fully accessible public consultation has been undertaken. Members understand that a public consultation was to be carried out earlier this year and the Covid-19 crisis put paid to that, but technology is so advanced at present that there are many alternatives to the usual "in person" meetings.

I have written to the Environment Agency and Clinton Devon Estates asking that the application be withdrawn and a full a public consultation be carried out. I do however attach a copy of this Council's comments relating to the application itself in case the applicants are not willing to withdraw the application.

Parish/Town Council LORP Recommendations by East Budleigh with Bicton Parish Council Council Meeting held on 27th October 2020: Traffic / Parking There are real concerns about vehicle parking and potential traffic chaos along narrow roads if and when large numbers of visitors descend:  The proposed car park and ancillary parking capacity is unlikely to be sufficient. South Farm Rd could become chaotic in the search for parking and this will be exacerbated by those seeking to avoid payment at the proposed new car park if it is Pay and Display. The consequences are likely to lead to congestion and nuisance parking on narrow roads further afield: Granary Lane / Lime Kiln, Frogmore Lane / Otterton.  There is concern that the narrow Kersbrook Lane will be used by heavy construction traffic taking a short cut (Satnav), thereby leading to chaos and blockage.  We share the view that a future traffic impact assessment should be made for this project.

Flooding:  There are concerns relating to the creation of new flood risks, particularly following heavy rain and / or very high incoming tides:  The stream at Kersbrook could be backed up by high incoming tides causing flooding to residential properties in Kersbrook. Surveys and preventative measures should be considered. There is also concern that the aquifer in Kersbrook could become salinated.  Frogmore Lane is already vulnerable to 'lakes' forming during heavy rain and combined with high tides this could cause residential properties to be flooded. Surveys and preventative measures should be considered.  Granary Lane could be subject to renewed flooding despite the preventative measures previously taken.  The route out of South Farm Cottages appears destined to be flooded at times.

Recreation:  'There is no mention of seating around the footpaths. Seating is highly desirable for the less mobile or for those simply wishing to take in the views. (N.B. planning site would not upload docx or pdf file)

20/2089/MFUL page 24 Despite agreeing with the objectives of the LORP, Otterton Parish Council have voted not to support the scheme due to the impact we believe increased visitor numbers will have on the village of Otterton from a highways perspective.

The applicant has stated in their application that they do not expect an increase in visitor numbers to be experienced in the area, which includes Otterton village, as a result of their development and therefore have not considered the highways impact of the development in the wider area. We disagree with this assessment. Evidence from similar developments in the area demonstrate to the contrary.

Seaton Wetlands, a similar, albeit larger scale development to the east of the Otter valley has been proven to attract over 70,000 visitors a year. These 2019 figures are expected to have been exceeded in 2020 due to the impact of COVID19, and are predicted to continue to increase whilst the pandemic continues, due to the nature of the attraction.

Whilst we recognise that the Seaton Wetlands development is larger than the LORP, when you consider that the LORP is located in an already very popular tourist area, we believe the evidence from Seaton Wetlands suggests that a significant increase in visitor numbers to the area is likely as a result of the LORP.

We therefore believe that it is the responsibility of the applicant to both undertake an evidence based assessment of the potential impact of visitor numbers on the whole of the lower Otter area and consider the impact of the development on both numbers of visitors and visitor's patterns of behaviour. We also believe the LORP should consider appropriate mitigation measures for any expected impacts on the local area from a highways perspective. Ref TC7 Local Plan.

We believe that the impact of the LORP will be an increase in visitor numbers taking advantage of free parking in the village of Otterton and enjoying the walk from Otterton Mill to the LORP area and back. We also believe that the resulting increase in traffic volumes and numbers of cars parking in the village will take the village from the position of being concerned about both traffic and parking, to having a demonstrable problem which would need to be addressed. The Parish Council have suggested that the provision of a free car park near to the river in Otterton would address these issues. An alternative suggestion of the provision of a free car park within the village may address one, but not both of these issues.

Otterton Neighbourhood Plan states at paragraph 4.4.6 (page 39) "If this project goes ahead, it is likely to attract many more visitors to the area because of the anticipated increase in wildlife habitats. Some of these visitors are likely to also visit Otterton. Increased visitor numbers may have further implications for planning for a car park to help alleviate the parking problems in the village." Policy ONP8 concerns traffic and travel around the parish and requires the applicant to provide a traffic management and travel plan for development that generates a significant increase in traffic movements . We believe that the lack of a visitor numbers assessment in the application is an attempt to avoid the consideration of these issues and as such they have not been adequately addressed by the applicant, so it is on this basis that we recommend that EDDC refuse to give planning consent for the LORP application as it stands.

20/2089/MFUL page 25 Technical Consultations

The Devon Countryside Access Forum

The Devon Countryside Access Forum (DCAF) is a local access forum under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW Act). Its statutory remit is to give independent advice "as to the improvement of public access to land in the area for the purposes of open-air recreation and the enjoyment of the area…" Section 94(4) of the Act specifies bodies to whom the Forum has a statutory function to give advice and this includes East Devon District Council and the Environment Agency. The DCAF currently has fifteen members, appointed by Devon County Council, who represent the interests of landowners/managers, access users and other relevant areas of expertise such as conservation and tourism.

This response will be on the agenda for formal approval at the next Devon Countryside Access Forum meeting on 21 January 2021. The Forum's position statements, and previous advice, support the following observations.

The Devon Countryside Access Forum notes and welcomes the fact that many of its comments made in 2014 have been taken on board in the proposals for this project. The Forum recognises that without action some of the important and very popular recreational routes could be lost in future due to rising sea levels.

The Forum is not commenting on the environmental, habitat and landscape changes which are likely to be significant and will provide a different experience. It is nonetheless important that people's overall enjoyment of this area from the recreational access perspective is not diminished.

Scheme access improvements: The Devon Countryside Access Forum has some suggestions which could improve the recreational access benefit of the project and these are outlined below. The numbers refer to the scheme overview graphic: 1. Shingle bar (number 10) This circular walk is relatively level and enjoyed by people who cannot walk far as it gives both sea and estuary views. The Forum notes the intention to remove the path on the rear of the shingle spit and to shorten the path on the crest. It would be appreciated if a way could be found to provide a short circular walk at this point.

2. New South West Coast Path footpath bridge The Devon Countryside Access Forum welcomes the accessibility of this bridge and the proposed gradients to join it. However, the graphic 3.6 - Pedestrian footbridge parapet detail - looks too enclosed for children or people using wheelchairs or mobility scooters to enjoy the views. The Forum requests that consideration is given to 'vision ports', gaps in the cladding, or use of see-through materials to overcome this.

20/2089/MFUL page 26 3. Viewing areas The erection of viewing areas at several locations is supported. However, it is unclear whether these will include seating areas. This would be helpful for people wishing to sit and enjoy the views

4. Gates The changes proposed provide an opportunity to ensure that all gates are accessible. The Devon Countryside Access Forum advises that widths should be 1.5m and gates should open easily on the correct alignment. Correct hinges should be used plus, preferably, trombone handles to facilitate easy opening. Gradients approaching the gates should permit easy access and surfaces compacted enough to allow use of pushchairs or wheeled mobility vehicles. The Devon Countryside Access Forum's position statement on disability is attached (Appendix 1) and, as cited in the statement, the Disabled Ramblers' website has comprehensive information on standards. Disabled Ramblers - Least Restrictive Access Reference is made to a 'pedestrian gate' north of South Farm Road at the start of Otterton FP 1. It is important that this meets accessibility standards, taking into account land manager's concerns about livestock.

5. South Farm Road chicanes The Devon Countryside Access Forum advises that the chicanes should be of appropriate design to allow mobility vehicles through.

6. Budleigh Salterton FP 12 (FAB Link route) (number 27) The Devon Countryside Access Forum notes the proposals to increase the height of this route and make it 'an all-ability' surface. It would be helpful to define 'all-ability'. The addition of boardwalks or raising the ground levels may be required to ensure this route is available more frequently and not just in "the majority of tidal conditions". The Devon Countryside Access Forum notes that the National Cycle Network route crosses South Farm Road before using the road network to approach Budleigh Salterton. As part of this significant project, it would seem an ideal opportunity to assess whether cyclists could be provided with an off-road route through this new landscape. The Forum recommends that Budleigh Salterton FP 12 could be a cycle/shared use route linking South Farm Road at the western end to Lime Kiln car park, with a safe exit onto Salting Hill/Granary Lane, subject to consideration of design and width and involvement of project partners and Fab Link. The Cycle Tracks Act 1984 could be a mechanism to achieve this. Cyclists could be directed this way on an improved path, rather than the current situation where cyclists attempt to use Budleigh Salterton FP 2 as an illegal cut-through.

7. Otterton to White Bridge Although it falls just outside the planning application area, the Devon Countryside Access Forum aspires to create an accessible route along Otterton FP 1 to exit at Otterton.

20/2089/MFUL page 27 Matters in the planning application requiring further consideration:

The Forum has some concerns which it feels need to be addressed or expanded on.

a) Planning application processes To minimise disruption to the public rights of way network and the South West Coast Path, the Devon Countryside Access Forum advises that it is imperative for the Lower Otter Valley Restoration Project and the Fab Link Project to work closely together and, in particular, to ensure the continuity and resilience of Budleigh Salterton FP 12. The Forum has made suggestions to improve this route in point 6, above. All works relevant to this area of land should have been presented for consideration at the same time, so that consultees and members of the public could assess the overall impact and have confidence that proposals in the application could be achieved.

b) Car park (number 9) The footpaths along this valley are particularly well-used and some of the most popular in the County. The Devon Countryside Access Forum welcomes the new car park but is not convinced that it will provide the number of spaces required, particularly if new visitors are attracted by the new landscape and parking is no longer permitted on South Farm Road. At certain times of year provision of car parking may be insufficient and the Forum suggests that additional car parking could be made available on a section of the old landfill site.

c) Breach of the Big Bank and Little Bank (numbers 3 and 4) The resilience of the footpath network across the banks is unclear. The Devon Countryside Access Forum advises that the proposals to lower the footpaths at these points could lead to significant amounts of fluvial and high tide deposits. The accumulation of mud and other debris at regular intervals will add significantly to maintenance costs as well as meaning that the routes could be impassable, particularly for pushchairs and mobility scooters/wheelchairs. The current tidal footpath near Topsham is unusable for much of the time. The use of higher-level boardwalks, allowing water underneath, could be one option to explore although the Forum recognises these would also have to be maintained. These have been used on the Exe Estuary trail. Long term maintenance funding should be explored and incorporated as part of the project cost.

d) East Budleigh FP 3, western edge of Northern Big Marsh (number 20) The Devon Countryside Access Forum has concerns about the provision of refuges in times of high tide. Some members of the public may not read emergency warning notices or be aware of how quickly tide levels can change or the speed of water. Many people are unaware of tide times. It is not clear whether the refuges would be required every high tide or only in exceptionally high tides. Equally, it is unclear whether the raised path levels will accommodate the highest projected levels of freshwater and tidal water. Securing safe higher ground access routes over private land will need to take into account land management requirements and be extremely well-signed.

20/2089/MFUL page 28 Gates would need to be suitable for all users.

e) Temporary diversions As previously stated, these are very popular paths, with 250,000 people annually using the South West Coast Path (SWCP) at this point. The Devon Countryside Access Forum advises that temporary diversions during construction work need to be well-signed and promoted and kept to the minimum possible time. The Design and Access Statement states that the diversion of the SWCP route during construction of the new pedestrian bridge will be along Budleigh Salterton FP 12 and FP 3. It is not entirely clear how the timing of the restoration project and the FAB Link project work on these footpaths will occur to facilitate this.

The Devon Countryside Access Forum would welcome feedback on its comments.

APPENDIX 1: Devon Countryside Access Forum - Physical Disability Access Position Statement. See: https://democracy.devon.gov.uk/documents/s11264/Draft%20disability%20access%20positio n%20statement.pdf:

Campaign To Protect Rural England

Devon CPRE has only recently been asked to look at this project and so has only had a short time to examine the proposal and to comment on the impacts. Our comments on the proposal are given below.

The whole reason for the project appears to be based on two premises: 1. The effects of a rapidly changing climate. 2. An EU regulation to compensate for habitat loss in the Exe estuary due to flood work needed as the result of climate change.

There is no evidence to show that climate change is having any effect on the estuary in terms of sea level rise, extreme rainfall, more frequent storms or flooding. The very slow sea level rise has been going on for thousands of years and the rate of rise has not changed as a result of climate change. The evidence, from the Met Office and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is given in Appendix A Similarly, we have seen no evidence to show that there is a need to improve flood defences in the Exe estuary and thus to show that there is a need for compensatory habitat in the Otter Estuary. As sea level rises, river deltas also rise as silt is deposited where the river meets the sea and thus there should be no loss of intertidal habitat.

Under the proposed project, of particular concern to us is the impact on the landscape. The creation of 28ha of mudflats (highly visible at low tide) and 27ha of saltmarsh to provide 14.5 ha of compensatory habitat is unnecessary. We have not found any cost/benefit analysis to demonstrate that there is a net benefit from the project.

20/2089/MFUL page 29 We have also not found a risk assessment of the project. There is a list of the "risks if we take no action" and a list of the "opportunities if we act now", but there appears to be no list of "the risks if we take action". It is very worrying to find statements like "The Scheme will introduce far greater volumes of tidal water through the existing estuary and mouth area, similar to historic tidal flows that occurred prior to significant man-made intervention. It is expected that these higher tidal flows will see erosional change through natural processes at the estuary mouth, shingle Spit and inner estuary areas. Existing channels are likely to deepen and widen over an initial, rapid, short-term period, followed by a gradual evolution to a new equilibrium state. These changes are considered a positive restoration of the estuary in the long-term." Is there any analysis to back up what appear to be expectations and opinions? What could happen if these assumption are wrong? A full risk assessment should be carried out before a decision is made on this proposal.

(Appendix A is viewable on the website under ‘Documents’)

DCC Historic Environment Officer EDDC Ref: 20/2089/MFUL

Proposed breach of the River Otter embankment, etc. - The Lower Otter Restoration Project: Historic Environment

DCC HET Ref: ARCH/DM/ED 35919

I refer to your consultation on the above planning application. The proposal encompasses a landscape that is of historical/archaeological value in itself, contains many known archaeological sites of prehistoric to post-medieval date and potential for further discoveries as well as palaeoenvironmental evidence. The Lower Otter scheme proposes various intrusive management actions, groundworks and new structures which will expose and destroy archaeological and artefactual deposits associated with a range of heritage assets. The submitted EIA and supporting documents seek to assess the archaeological impact of the scheme and propose mitigation for acceptable loss of assets. While I disagree with some of the conclusions of the EIA, regarding the significance of some of the known or potential archaeology and the nature and extent of appropriate mitigation, I think that the impact of the development upon the historic environment can be mitigated by a staged programme of work. This should investigate, record and analyse the archaeological, geoarchaeological and palaeoenvironmental evidence that will otherwise be destroyed by the proposed development, and should go beyond the proposals contained in the EIA and the submitted Written Scheme of Investigation for Geoarchaeological work.

I therefore recommend that this application should be supported by the submission of a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI), or series of WSIs setting out a staged programme of archaeological, geoarchaeological and palaeoenvironmental work to be undertaken in mitigation for the loss of heritage assets with archaeological interest. The WSI(s) should be based on national standards and guidance and be approved by the Historic Environment Team.

20/2089/MFUL page 30 If a Written Scheme of Investigation is not submitted prior to determination the Historic Environment Team would advise, for the above reasons and in accordance with paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and Policy EN6 (Nationally and Locally Important Archaeological Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan, that any consent your Authority may be minded to issue should carry the condition as worded below, based on model Condition 55 as set out in Appendix A of Circular 11/95, whereby:

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

Reason 'To ensure, in accordance with Policy EN6 (Nationally and Locally Important Archaeological Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan and paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development'

This pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that the archaeological, geoarchaeological and palaeoenvironmental 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, tailored to the range of proposed interventions and groundworks across the scheme. This will include a geoarchaeological evaluation (as per the submitted WSI) to inform further programmes of investigation; field walking and metal detector surveys to identify surface artefacts; targeted evaluation trenching to determine the presence and significance of any heritage assets with archaeological interest that will be affected by the development. Based on the results of this initial stage of works the requirement and scope of any further archaeological mitigation can be determined and implemented either in advance of or during construction works. This archaeological mitigation work may take the form of full area excavation in advance of groundworks or the monitoring and recording of groundworks associated with the construction of the proposed development to allow for the identification, investigation and recording of any exposed archaeological or artefactual deposits. The results of the fieldwork and any post-excavation analysis undertaken would need to be presented in an appropriately detailed and illustrated report, and the finds and archive deposited in accordance with relevant national and local guidelines.

There is also a significant opportunity for a development of this nature to actively promote understanding and enjoyment of and access to the historic environment in association with the natural environment. The written scheme of investigation should therefore set out how the results of the programme of archaeological,

20/2089/MFUL page 31 geoarchaeological and palaeoenvironmental work will be presented to the public, on site and through other forms of dissemination.

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

DCC Footpath Officer

The Public Rights of Way Team has a duty to assert and protect the rights of the public to the full and free enjoyment of public rights of way and to maintain the network. In addition it is also responsible for the maintenance of recreational trails and unsurfaced roads.

Government guidance considers that the effect of development on a public right of way is a material planning condition (Rights of Way Circular 1/09 - Defra October 2009, paragraph 7.2) and that public rights of way and access should be protected and enhanced with opportunities sought to provide better facilities for users by adding links to existing networks (National Planning Policy framework paragraph 98).

Devon County Council's Rights of Way Improvement Plan policy states that, working closely with LPAs, opportunities will be sought for improvements to the rights of way network through planning obligations where new developments are occurring.

It is also the County Council's policy that a holding objection will be made against any planning application which fails to take account of an existing public right of way until the matter is resolved.

Assessment of application

The proposal as submitted would have a direct effect on public rights of way as identified in the planning documents. Specifically, a number of public footpaths will require diversion to enable the development to be carried out as proposed if planning permission is granted. The footpaths affected are identified in Appendix A Figure 1.11 and the proposed alternative routes, where applicable, on Figure 1.18. The applicant will need to submit separate application(s) to East Devon District Council and/or the Department for Transport for order(s) under sections 257 and/or 247 respectively of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to effect the realignment of these footpaths. This process is separate to but can be carried out in parallel to the planning process.

In addition, any other changes to the existing public rights of way, such as changes to surface, levels and structures, will require liaison with and the written consent of the DCC PROW Team as the highway authority.

20/2089/MFUL page 32 The Public Rights of Way Team therefore has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions covering:

Submission of details

Prior to the commencement of development, an access scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority, in liaison with the Devon County Council Public Rights of Way Team. Such scheme shall include provision for the design of public rights of way routes including surfacing, widths, levels, gradients, landscaping, structures and any road crossing points.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity and safety of the public.

Diversion of public rights of way

If it will be necessary to permanently divert or stop-up a public right of way to enable development to take place in accordance with planning permission:

No development affecting the public right of way shall commence until such time as a diversion order under section 257 and/or 247 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) has been made and confirmed.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity and safety of the public.

Information

Please note that the grant of planning permission does not grant the right to close, alter or build over a right of way in any way, even temporarily, this includes, for example, a change in the surface, width or location. Nothing should be done to divert or stop up a public right of way without following the due legal process, including confirmation of any permanent diversion or stopping-up order and the provision of any new path. In order to avoid delays this should be considered at an early opportunity.

If a temporary closure is required during construction works, e.g. for safety reasons, the applicant would need to apply to the County Council for a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order.

Further information about public rights of way and planning is available on our website here.

If permission is granted, please include as footnotes in the decision notice:

The alignment, width, and condition of public rights of way providing for their safe and convenient use shall remain unaffected by the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Public Rights of Way Team.

20/2089/MFUL page 33 Nothing in this decision notice shall be taken as granting consent for alterations to public rights of way without the due legal process being followed.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like further clarification. Many thanks.

Conservation

This proposal has been assessed on the basis of the impact (negative or positive) on the setting of designated and non-designated heritage assets. In general it seems that there are no direct works to any heritage assets or curtilage listed assets, however, the setting of which is the primary focus of the works. There has been fair consideration of the impact as noted in section 12 "Historic Environment" of the Environmental Statement. The area of research outside of the proposed site could have been expanded a little, however, there is some reference to the Conservation Areas and historic settlements containing many listed buildings.

The main concerns with regards to impact are the areas that entail built structures, this includes the viewing areas, culverts, raised footpaths and bridges. The culverts to the North of grade II Pullhayes Farm, is to be concrete. This would introduce a modern, permanent structure into the natural landscape that is unsympathetic and therefore would have, to a small degree, a negative impact to the setting of the listed buildings and any key viewpoints either static or kinetic. It is anticipated that the mitigation, as in other areas, allows for the natural vegetation to eventually cover over the new structures.

The footbridge, although supportive in principle, is of unsympathetic materials i.e. fibre reinforced polymer cladding boards, the cumulative effect over the large area of this bridge is of concern as to the impact on the area and heritage assets in general. In mitigation it is suggested that early samples of the this product and others e.g. burnt wood finished timber, or mixtures of.., are submitted at the earliest convenience to conclude any concerns.

More information on potential areas, extent and details of all signage would be appreciated, as this again could be cause for a potential for unnecessary visual clutter in this natural and historic landscape.

The associated projects and planning applications for the demolition and rebuilding of the cricket facility and FAB-Link project are important to the success of this proposal. Recommendation - support in principle.

Contaminated Land Officer

We have considered the following documents in relation to this application:

Lower Otter Restoration Project Ground Investigation Report, CH2M, February 2018 Lower Otter Restoration Project, Groundwater and Geo-environmental Risk Assessment, Final

20/2089/MFUL page 34 September 2020, ENVIMSW002045-CH2-000-000-RP-EN-0069 Lower Otter Restoration Project - Environmental Statement, Environment Agency 2020

We consider that the potential risks to human health from proposed changes to the South Farm Road landfill have been largely characterised in the above reports and appropriate risk mitigation measures are suggested. These measures include additional capping of 600mm, piling to prevent erosion of the waste by the stream channel and removal offsite of some material.

We note from the Groundwater and Geo-environmental Risk Assessment that a potential contaminant linkage from inhalation of landfill derived ground gases to end users exists (table 3-5). However, this risk is not given a classification or further consideration in the report. Furthermore, gas monitoring information has not been provided and the potential resulting risk from modification of the landfill/landscape assessed, either to end users or nearby properties. Is it anticipated that the works will impact gas generation or existing migration pathways?

In order that this risk is appropriately characterised and the suggested mitigation measures to protect human health introduced, we recommend that the following condition (CT3) be applied to any consent:

CT3 Phased Condition: Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development, other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation, must not commence until conditions 1 to 4 below have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until condition 4 has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

1. Site Characterisation An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include:

(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination.

(ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:

Human health, Property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, Adjoining land, Groundwaters and surface waters,

20/2089/MFUL page 35 Ecological systems, Archeological sites and ancient monuments.

(iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agencys Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11.

2. Submission of Remediation Scheme Where identified as necessary as a result of the findings of the investigation above, a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared and submitted for approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

3. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development (other than any part of the development required to carry out remediation), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and will be subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

4. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination In the event that contamination is found at any time during the approved development works that was not previously identified, the findings must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. A new investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 1 above and where remediation is necessary a new remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 2. This must be subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 3.

5. Long Term Monitoring and Maintenance Where identified as necessary, a monitoring and maintenance scheme to include monitoring the longterm effectiveness of the proposed remediation over a period to be agreed with the LPA, and the provision of reports on the same must be prepared,

20/2089/MFUL page 36 both of which will be subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of the measures identified in that scheme and when the remediation objectives have been achieved, reports that demonstrate the effectiveness of the monitoring and maintenance carried out must be produced, and submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agencys Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, are minimised and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy EN16.

Environmental Health

Proposed breach of the River Otter embankment, Little Bank and Big Bank to restore the historic floodplain creating intertidal saltmarsh, mudflats and freshwater habitat at Big Marsh, and new freshwater habitat at Little Marsh. Associated works including

I have reviewed the application with regards to Environmental Health impacts of the proposal. The reports identify the key impacts relating to noise specifically from the construction phase and whilst there will be some disturbance to the limited numbers of residential property these are within guideline levels. To ensure that these aspects are carefully managed as detailed in the reports the following condition is recommended.

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

Natural England

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 08 October 2020. The Lower Otter Restoration Project will enable the area to adapt to coastal change whilst creating intertidal habitats, which will enhance its value for wildlife. Significant increases in the area of saltmarsh and intertidal mud are likely to be created through the project as the estuary is allowed to function more naturally.

20/2089/MFUL page 37 Natural England considers that the provision of compensation for the loss of intertidal habitats within the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site is a key element of this project.

SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND’S ADVICE NO OBJECTION - SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATE MITIGATION AND MONITORING BEING SECURED

As a proposal whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity, we consider it may be supported in line with paragraph 175(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

DESIGNATED SITES [EUROPEAN]

Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

There is potential for a likely significant effect on the Exe Estuary SPA and Ramsar site, hence a shadow HRA has been prepared by the applicant. Natural England’s advice is that this proposal may need to be formally checked and confirmed by your Authority, as the competent authority, via an appropriate assessment.

Our advice is that the determining authority can be certain that the proposal will not have any adverse effects on the integrity of the Exe Estuary SPA/Ramsar site. Amendments and additions to the shadow HRA are required to enable it to be sufficiently rigorous and robust enough to be adopted by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). We provide further advice in Annex 1. In accordance with the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), Natural England must be consulted on any appropriate assessment your Authority may decide to make.

DESIGNATED SITES [NATIONAL]

Lower Otter Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Otter Estuary Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ)

We have no objection to the predicted changes to the SSSI or MCZ on the basis that there will be a major increase in the area of habitats created and maintained by natural processes, subject to the following mitigation measures being secured by condition:  Environmental Action Plan including Construction Management Plan (CEMP), as set out in section 8.9.1 of the Environmental Statement (ES);  Prevention of construction impacts on the SSSI in the CEMP;  Visitor management and monitoring strategy to include interpretation boards;  Retention and enhancement of footpath screening, by both planting and fencing, to the Lower Otter SSSI and new intertidal habitats to prevent bird disturbance;  Landscape and Environmental Management Plan.

Further details are given later in this letter.

20/2089/MFUL page 38 Monitoring for protected sites To ensure that the compensation habitat creation is successful and the SSSI and MCZ are protected, the monitoring measures set out in Section 8.11.1 of the ES should secured by condition.  The monitoring methodology and timescale should be to NE approval, including:  The wintering bird survey methodology;  Geomorphological change of the mouth of the River Otter pre and post scheme;  Establishment of new intertidal areas;  SSSI erosion habitat gain and loss.

Permission should not be granted until such time as the implementation of these measures has been secured.

Natural England’s further advice on designated sites/landscapes and advice on other natural environment issues is set out below.

FURTHER ADVICE

DESIGNATED SITES

National sites

The two sites below overlap to some extent.

Otter Estuary SSSI The scheme falls partly within the following nationally designated nature conservation site: • Otter Estuary SSSI

The designated features include a range of saltmarsh communities, tall herb and scrub supporting breeding and overwintering birds. Otterton Point is an important location for vertebrate palaeontology. Further information on the special interest features can be found on Designated Sites View.

Minor changes within the existing intertidal SSSI habitats are not considered to significantly affect the designated features. Loss of short sections of hedgerow within the SSSI are not considered to be significant.

Unit 5 of the SSSI would change from freshwater to intertidal habitat types. The freshwater habitats are artificially maintained behind the embanked footpath, where naturally, saline-influenced habitat would exist. Returning this area to a gradation between lower marsh and upper marsh should be concluded as a positive transition.

20/2089/MFUL page 39 In accordance with paragraph 175(b) of the NPPF, “the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both it’s likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of SSSI’s.”

Mitigation Given the proximity of works to the SSSI, such as around South Farm Road, and the associated potential for damage as a result of storage or disposal of materials, and operation of machinery or plant within the SSSI we advise that the CEMP should specifically prevent damage and any incidents are reported to Natural England. The mitigation measures listed in section 8.9.2 of the ES will moderate SSSI impacts and should be conditioned. We support the retention and gapping up of the hedgerows bordering the South West Coast Path to reduce human disturbance to overwintering birds. The retention of the existing screening hedgerows should be made clearer in the Landscape General Arrangement plans and conditioned.

Enhancement Public sector bodies have a duty to take reasonable steps to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the site is of special scientific interest under Section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

We advise that there may be potential to improve the management of sections of the SSSI, such as the southern section of unit 3, close to South Farm Road.

Otter Estuary Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) The proposed works, as set out in the information provided, are sited partly within a Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) designated under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The Otter Estuary MCZ has been designated due to the presence of:

• Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds • Intertidal coarse sediment • Intertidal mud

The above MCZ was formally designated on the 31 May 2019. Further information, including a factsheet, can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/marine-conservation-zones-otter- estuary

Having reviewed the evidence, we believe that there is no significant risk that the scheme as submitted will hinder the conservation objectives of the MCZ; so long as it is undertaken in strict accordance with best practice pollution control measures which are conditioned in a Construction Management Plan (CEMP) and monitoring is undertaken.

We advise that additional work on the shadow MCZ Assessment is required to enable it to be sufficiently rigorous and robust to be adopted by the LPA as set out in the attached Annex 1.

20/2089/MFUL page 40 World Heritage Site The Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site (WHS), otherwise known as the Jurassic Coast, was inscribed in 2001 for its internationally significant geology, palaeontology and geomorphology. The WHS includes the shingle beach and coastal cliffs.

Natural processes and evolution of the coast and estuary should be encouraged as far as possible in this scheme. Natural England has no objection in relation to the WHS. Over engineering within the SSSI or further reinforcement of the shingle bar would be damaging both biologically and geologically. The diversion of the sewer overflow pipe is necessary to avoid the need to introduce new erosion protection measures.

PROTECTED LANDSCAPES We do not consider that the proposed development would compromise the purposes of designation or special qualities of the East Devon AONB. We would advise that the proposal is determined in line with relevant NPPF and development plan policies and that landscape advice is obtained from the East Devon AONB Partnership.

LOCAL SITES We would expect the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to assess and consider the other possible impacts resulting from this proposal on the following when determining this application: • local sites (biodiversity and geodiversity), including County Wildlife Sites; • local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species.

Natural England does not hold locally specific information relating to the above. These remain material considerations in the determination of this planning application and we recommend that you seek further information from Devon Wildlife Trust in order to ensure the LPA has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal before it determines the application.

PROTECTED SPECIES We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species.

Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. The Standing Advice includes a decision checklist which provides advice to planners on deciding if there is a ‘reasonable likelihood’ of protected species being present. It also provides detailed advice on the protected species most often affected by development. You should apply our Standing Advice to this application as it is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation.

The Standing Advice should not be treated as giving any indication or providing any assurance in respect of European Protected Species (EPS) that the proposed development is unlikely to affect the EPS present on the site; nor should it be interpreted as meaning that Natural England has reached any views as to whether a licence may be granted.

20/2089/MFUL page 41 Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds

The RSPB very much welcomes and strongly supports the Lower Otter Restoration Project (LORP) and the nature-based solutions it offers to help address the impacts of our changing climate, increasing flood events and loss of coastal habitats. We believe the Project has the potential to be a national exemplar of how landowners, statutory bodies and the nature conservation sector can collaborate to deliver landscape scale change that helps address the climate and ecological emergency, bringing huge benefits for nature and people.

Coastal habitats remain very vulnerable to climate change and sea level rise. Consequently, intertidal habitats such as mudflats and saltmarshes are getting squeezed against fixed flood defences. The RSPB calculates at least 60 hectares of intertidal habitat is predicted to be lost each year in the UK unless action is taken (https://www.rspb.org.uk/our-work/conservation/projects/sustainable- shores/). We feel that this is a well thought out and important project that presents a creative and meaningful response to help address this habitat loss.

The LORP meets a range of national and local planning and environmental policies and priorities as detailed in chapter 5 of the Environmental Statement. It will also provide required and vital compensatory intertidal habitat for losses resulting from coastal squeeze in the Exe Estuary, a Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site notified for internationally important populations of wintering waders and wildfowl. We therefore strongly support the Project’s aim to create 28ha of mudflats and 27ha of transitional marsh and saltmarsh and its wider aims to “improve the natural functioning, ecological health and environmental status of the river, demonstrate climate change adaptation and reduce risk to wildlife and public infrastructure under future climate change.”

In addition to directly compensating habitat loss from the Exe Estuary SPA, the restoration of the Lower Otter will bring significant wider ecological benefits through the re-creation of a more naturalised estuary that enables a more dynamic transition from a fresh water to a brackish system. This should greatly add to the value and integrity of the existing Otter Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest and the vulnerable wildlife that depends on it, including wintering waterbirds. It should also increase the area’s resilience to our changing climate through restoration of natural processes and provision of the natural flood risk management benefits that saltmarsh and mudflat are known to provide.

We note that a Landscape and Environment Management Plan will be produced with full details of habitat enhancements, mitigation and monitoring. This plan will be essential to achieve the best ecological outcome from this important scheme and we would be willing to support the development of this plan if further input is required. As one of the scheme’s key objectives is to provide compensatory habitat for losses in the Exe Estuary SPA and Ramsar site, ensuring waterbirds using the new habitats are not disturbed is critical to the successful ecological outcome of the scheme. We welcome the mitigation measures set out in 8.9.2 of the Environmental Statement to minimise disturbance and if these are implemented effectively they will enable people to access and enjoy this wildlife-rich landscape without causing significant disturbance impact on the wildlife. However we note these measures relate to land-

20/2089/MFUL page 42 based disturbance only and we are aware of the current increase in water-based recreation in the Otter Estuary and the potential for this to grow further and extend into winter in suitable weather conditions. In order to encourage birds into the new habitat and to ensure their undisturbed use of intertidal mud and high tide roost islands, it is essential that water-based recreational access to the new habitat is prohibited (eg through a bylaw) from the outset.

We welcome that a Visitor Management Strategy will be developed to ensure a high quality experience for local people and visitors and agree that a monitoring plan should be introduced to help ensure the ecological and environmental outcomes are delivered and not negatively impacted by recreation. It is critical that any planting or infrastructure identified to mitigate recreational disturbance is agreed prior to and implemented during the construction phase. We recommend the Visitor Management Strategy also includes a review schedule in addition to monitoring. We would welcome an opportunity to comment on a draft.

We have included more detailed technical comments in an appendix to this letter which we hope are helpful in supporting a successful outcome. We applaud this ambitious proposal and the work of the Clinton Devon Estate, the Environment Agency and other organisations to deliver a positive impact for nature in East Devon at a scale that has national significance.

South West Water

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

Asset Protection Please find attached a plan showing the approximate location of a public sewers in the vicinity. South West Water will need to know about any building work over or within 3 metres of a public sewer or lateral drain.

We will discuss with you whether your proposals will be affected by the presence of our apparatus and the best way of dealing with any issues as you will need permission from South West Water to proceed.

Devon Wildlife Trust

Devon Wildlife Trust would like to offer our support for the Environment Agency application for the Lower Otter Restoration Project. This is an ambitious landscape scale project that has the potential to radically improve the ecological function of the Lower Otter Valley with very significant benefits for biodiversity and people’s connection with nature.

As a result of the highly complex nature of this project, DWT has focussed our comments on the potential high-level outcomes which would be delivered.

20/2089/MFUL page 43 Linking with policies The large-scale habitat restoration proposed by this project should be supported in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) section 175d: “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles: d) development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported; while opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity.”

In addition, the net gain to biodiversity delivered by this project through largescale restoration of estuarine and wetland habitats, alongside the enhancements to ecological networks in the Lower Otter and its wider setting (including its role for birdlife within a network of estuaries in South and East Devon) satisfy NPPF section 170d: “Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;”

The project fulfils NPPF section 172, which states: “Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also important considerations in these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads.”

East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, in which the project is set, has the following policies, which the project helps to deliver: “BG1 In partnership with others, support and encourage conservation and enhancement actions for key habitat and species within the AONB that maintain and enhance landscape character and the historic environment” “C1 Conserve and enhance the tranquil, unspoiled and undeveloped character of the coastline and estuaries and encourage improvements to coastal sites damaged by past poor-quality development or intensive recreational pressure”

The project delivers in line with strategies 5, 45, 46 and 47 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031, in particular “Maximise opportunities for restoration, enhancement and connection of natural habitats” in strategy 47.

Natural processes in rivers Re-connecting rivers to their natural floodplains, reversing the negative impacts of hundreds of years of human modification, is crucial if we are to help these threatened ecosystems adapt naturally and sustainably to climate change. The importance of ‘Making Space for Water’ is now viewed by DEFRA as a crucial component of preparing the country to face the dual challenges of sea level rises and increasing intensity of storm events. The wildlife and local communities of the Lower Otter Valley face many threats as its ageing infrastructure is placed under

20/2089/MFUL page 44 increasing strain associated with the pressures arising from a rapidly changing climate.

This project seeks to restore the ecological function of the river and estuary enabling it to behave more naturally once again. In so doing it will restore increasingly pressured intertidal habitats and improve the connection between people and wildlife in this, one of the most popular destinations in Devon. We fully support this bold vision of working with nature rather than against it, and firmly believe the project has the potential to be seen as an exemplar in this practice.

East Devon Catchment Partnership The Devon Wildlife Trust co-hosts the East Devon Catchment Partnership alongside Westcountry Rivers Trust. This partnership is supported by a very broad range of stakeholders with the shared goal of achieving significant improvements in ecological health of watercourses in the district. This initiative is listed under the East Devon Catchment Action Plan as being of great value in meeting EU Water Framework Directive and England Biodiversity 2020 Objectives for the River Otter.

Engagement The Devon Wildlife Trust has followed the development of this initiative with great interest since it was initially proposed in 2012. Managed realignment schemes such as the Lower Otter Restoration project are highly complex to deliver and will involve substantial and often highly contentious landscape changes. We recognise that the scale of change will be a genuine cause for concern for the local community, landowners and visitors who know, love and work in this landscape. But conversely many are very excited by the prospect of revived intertidal habitats.

Key to achieving success will be working closely with all audiences, if the project is given permission to progress, which enable people and wildlife to adapt to change and thrive in this changing landscape.

DWT’s relevant experience DWT has developed considerable expertise in the delivery of a range of complex wetland restoration and recreation projects. In the Culm National Character Area we have worked in partnership with a wide range of partners and alongside farming communities to restore and recreate over 5,000 hectares of wet grasslands. Over 100 hectares of wetland was recreated from former sitka spruce plantation which now forms integral components of traditional farming systems. Of particular relevance to the River Otter has been our successful partnership with the Environment Agency where a regulated tidal exchange gate was installed at South Efford Marsh in the Avon estuary of South Devon. Over a short space of time the ecological value of the site has been transformed and alongside that a very popular reserve has been established and new audiences engaged.

Links to other projects Our organisation has a particular interest in the River Otter as we lead the River Otter Beaver Trial and also Upstream Thinking projects. We see this initiative as complementing our own work by improving the wildlife value of this important

20/2089/MFUL page 45 catchment and people’s connection with it yet further.

Devon Wildlife Trust would welcome the opportunity, where appropriate, to provide advice and support in the project design, delivery and ongoing maintenance. Crucially this would include engagement with the local communities and new audiences which would be attracted during the various project phases. In summary, we would like to provide our support for this application for the net benefits it will provide for biodiversity and catalyse natural processes in this landscape. If successful, we look forward to working closely with the project partners on the Lower Otter Restoration Project over the coming months.

Environment Agency

Thank you for your consultation of 23 October 2020 in respect of the above planning application. We have reviewed this planning application in accordance with our duty as a statutory consultee and independent of our project team.

Environment Agency position We fully support the proposed scheme, which will create extensive areas of intertidal habitat and provide compensatory habitats to support the features of interest within the Exe Estuary SPA/SSSI/Ramsar. However, we recommend that the subsequent permission includes a condition to secure a groundwater investigation, monitoring and mitigation strategy in respect of potential impacts from saline intrusion to groundwater resources.

Our recommended condition together with the reasons for our position and detailed advice in relation to groundwater, flood risk, biodiversity and the general water environment are provided below.

Condition - Groundwater investigation, monitoring and mitigation No breaching of the banks approved by this permission shall take place until a monitoring and remediation/mitigation strategy to deal with the risks to groundwater associated with saline inundation of the site has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. The strategy shall include the following components: 1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors, including those off site. 2) A site investigation (including the area known as Little Marsh) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 3) The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation/mitigation strategy giving full details of any measures identified as necessary 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/mitigation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying a timeframe/timetable and any requirements for longer term monitoring of salinization linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

20/2089/MFUL page 46 Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To ensure the protection of local groundwater resources.

Advice - Groundwater resources We have reviewed the Groundwater Risk Assessment and Modelling Reports (Appendix G3 of the Environmental Statement) and we are satisfied that the proposed development has been appropriately characterised and that the impact upon the surrounding groundwater environment has been appropriately assessed. The site investigation, risk assessment and groundwater modelling have utilised industry best practice and have produced a coherent conceptual model for the site, informed by site-specific data, the regional Otter Valley Groundwater Model, and site-specific modelling.

Nonetheless, our review of Chapter 10 of the Environmental Statement (ES) has raised some issues which will need to be clarified prior to the banks being breached. In particular we consider that the following information will need to be provided to support the Groundwater Monitoring Strategy recommended in Table 10.10 of the ES:  Clarification on the difference between low and medium 'Magnitude of Impact' for groundwater in Table 10.2;  Further justification of how cumulative salinization of a Principal Aquifer used for public water supply has been classified as 'low negative' magnitude of impact (Page 10-27).  A section detailing the full range of Mitigation Measures considered for groundwater should be included, explaining why they were rejected and how it was concluded that a ground investigation and monitoring strategy were arrived at, as the best options.  Clarification on whether the effect on groundwater is 'negligible' (Section 10.11.2) or 'moderate adverse to negligible' (Table 10.10).

Our view is that these requirements can be secured by way of a suitably worded planning condition. In particular these points should be clarified when compiling the detailed risk assessment in part (3) of our suggested condition.

Advice - Flood and coastal risk management Much of the surrounding area is already at risk of fluvial, tidal and surface water flooding with Budleigh Salterton, East Budleigh and Otterton having an extensive flood history (e.g. July 2012, November 2012, and December 2014). We also have historical records from 2000 and 1968. It's important to note that this is not a flood defence scheme and does not aim to reduce the current flood risk. However, the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and flood modelling results indicate that in fluvial events there will be a reduction in flood depth (<100mm) throughout the study area for all modelled flood events. A thorough review of the FRA demonstrates that flood risk will not be detrimental for third parties.

The FRA looks in detail into the potential receptors that could be impacted upon by the scheme, these include both properties and infrastructure. Modelling for the

20/2089/MFUL page 47 scheme takes both fluvial and tidal extremes into account and the FRA conforms to climate change guidance and assesses flood risk with an increase in 85% peak flow (upper end). The model results show that in fluvial events there is generally a small reduction in flood depth (<100mm) throughout the study area for all modelled events. Model results for present-day tidal events show that there will typically be a small reduction in depth. With allowance for climate change, the model results show that a significant proportion of the floodplain would be inundated anyway in the baseline present day scenario (without the scheme in place), although the breach does allow some additional water to enter this area, resulting in a small increase in depth.

The following sets out the findings of the FRA in various areas of the study area:

Granary Lane With the current arrangement, frequent fluvial flood events from tributaries flowing from the west as well as rare tidal flood events that overtop the existing embankments cause water to become trapped which then drains out slowly over several days. During these scenarios the Granary Lane outlets are tidally locked for period of days, creating risk of surface water flooding to the properties and restricting the pumping station outlet. The breaching of the embankments as part of the scheme will reconnect the floodplain and therefore during large flood events water will be able to drain back out as the tide recedes and will not be trapped, lessening these associated flood risks.

A 1D modelling assessment was carried out examining the surface water drainage network to assess the four outfalls mentioned along Granary Lane. This modelling has demonstrated that the scheme and introduction of daily tidal inundation will not cause surface water flooding to Granary Lane as a result of tidal locking. To ensure that water does not back up through surface water outlets and onto Granary Lane tidal flaps/non return valves will be installed onto culvert outlets as part of the scheme (discussed in section 8 of the FRA).

Modelling was also undertaken to ensure that the emergency outfall from the Lime Kiln pumping station would not be compromised. It has been found that water would continue to drain effectively out of the storage tank through the overflow pipe in a MHWS event. The Pumping Station storage tank and internal overspill weir, upstream of the emergency outfall pipe did not see increased water levels during either of the events modelled.

Kersbrook The Kersbrook is a small ordinary watercourse which discharges into the Trunk Drain adjacent to South Farm Road Cottages. A non-return valve will be installed into the new culvert to mitigate tidal flood risk. Although in two of the model runs flood depths increase marginally from impeded drainage and tidal locking, peak levels are still below the property threshold level (4.5mAOD) meaning that flood risk to property is not increased.

In order to lessen the risk posed by tidal locking the new South Farm Road highway will include an increased sized culvert outfall into the Kersbrook (at least 900mm). A higher level overspill culvert with non-return valve will be installed adjacent to allow the backing up of surface water to drain quicker in extreme events. Further

20/2089/MFUL page 48 mitigation includes raising levels of a small section of existing highway used as access to numbers 1 and 2 South Farm Cottages which will allow the access road to remain dry in less extreme flood events. In the larger events this route would be affected regardless of whether the scheme is implemented or not. Consultations with the landowner have agreed in principle that No.3 South Farm Cottage can continue (as they do now) to use the access (vehicle and pedestrian) of No. 1 and No. 2 during emergencies or surface water flooding events.

Similar to Granary Lane, present day flood events overtopping the embankment can inundate this area of the Kersbrook, with the duration lasting several days because the floodplain cannot drain freely. Therefore, the proposed Lower Otter Restoration Project will also reduce the duration of flooding in extreme events in this location.

Frogmore Road In this area fluvial flood risk will be reduced as a result of the scheme. For tidal flood events both the pre and post scheme flood modelling results show a small increase in flood depths during the largest future flood scenarios to some land and properties in this area. However, further analysis and the site survey of threshold levels shows that changes in flood levels to properties are within normal modelling tolerance ( /- 5cm) and do not increase the flood risk to any property during the design flood events (tidal 0.5% chance - including with an allowance climate change). We understand from the project team that the additional site survey will be submitted to your authority.

We are also aware that the project team are planning to engage further with residents of Frogmore Road to provide further explanation of the modelling results and to allay concerns about flooding

Erosion The expected erosional changes and increased flows/velocities at the mouth will occur through natural processes, which will help restore the estuary to its more natural state providing a beneficial change to the surrounding environment. Although short term rapid changes are expected, these erosional changes are predicted to slow in the medium term as the system reaches a quasi-equilibrium state to behave in a way to that similar to present day.

Although there are uncertainties around the future geometry of the estuary mouth, potential erosion is a result of natural processes and would take place with or without the scheme in place. Sensitivity testing has been undertaken to determine whether there are potential indirect impacts of the scheme on flood risk due to changes in estuary mouth morphology. The change in geometry results in an increase in water levels across the site of approximately 100mm in the MHWS event.

The South West Water Pipe which runs across the estuary mouth is proposed to be diverted to limit risks of damage from the increased tidal prism and any associated erosion.

Advice - Biodiversity The proposal will result in a net benefit for wildlife through the creation of extensive areas of intertidal habitat, the provision of compensatory habitats to support the

20/2089/MFUL page 49 features of interest within the Exe Estuary SPA/SSSI/Ramsar site and through the reconnection of the Budleigh Brook to the River Otter and its floodplain. It is acknowledged that there will be changes to some existing habitats of wildlife value that will not benefit all plant and animal communities currently present but it is considered that any losses will be more than compensated for by the creation of new habitats.

Advice - Water quality We are satisfied that potential impacts on bathing waters have been appropriately considered and risks identified. The timing of operations will be considered to minimise amenity impact and will avoid any bathing water compliance issues. The sewer running under the mouth of the Otter will be rerouted and protected from scour.

Nonetheless, we note the consultation response from South West Water which sets out its requirements with regard to works affecting its network. We recommend that the applicant clarifies how South West Water's requirements are being satisfied.

East Devon AONB

Summary (Full response on website) It can be seen from the above details that the lower Otter valley is an extremely important landscape area for wildlife as well as for its function as a floodplain and estuarine habitat. It is no coincidence therefore that the area is identified as one of the special qualities of the AONB. The iconic pine trees on the headland at Otterhead are recognised across the region and beyond and with its access network and proximity to the World Heritage Site coastline and South West Coast Path National Trial, the area is an extremely popular visitor attraction as well as an important informal recreational area for the nearby local communities of Budleigh Salterton, East Budleigh, Otterton and further afield. Never has this been more apparent than in current times.

The NPPF calls for valued landscapes to be conserved and enhanced with the greatest weight being given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) (NPPF 172). Paragraph 172: Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also important considerations in these areas and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads. The scale and extent of development within these designated areas should be limited.

The AONB team has been represented on the Lower Otter Restoration Project (LORP) alongside other AONB Partnership organisations; our involvement being identified as a Priority Action in the AONB Partnership Plan (2109). In linked work, the AONB has also sought to integrate the undergrounding of the 11Kv powerlines in the estuary area through a landscape enhancement programme with Western Power Distribution; this has sought to align with the France Alderney

20/2089/MFUL page 50 Brittany (FAB LINK) EU power supply project. We also collate data on the use of the footpath network in the river valley as one of the most popular routes in East Devon. There is a clear link to the national and local Landscape Character Assessments (LCA) for this proposal. These landscape assessments refer to the opportunity to restore and enhance estuarian habitats, manage and expand wetland habitats, plan for coastal change and adaptation, identify and create areas of new coastal and estuary fringe habitats and maintain/manage riparian and estuarine natural and seminatural habitats and natural channels, which currently serve to alleviate coastal flooding, divert nutrient and sedimentation sources and would aid resilience to future sea level rise.

The Devon Redlands National Character Area (NCA) identifies landscape opportunities to “ Plan for coastal change as a result of erosion and climate change induced sea level rise, maintaining the overall extent and quality of estuarine and coastal habitats, notably saltmarsh, mudflats, reedbeds and sand dunes (including the internationally important Exe Estuary and Dawlish Warren SAC) and identifying options for future adaptation and managed realignment”.

The EDDC East Devon LCA specifically refers to the project proposals in the LCT 4A/4B assessments. “Support opportunities to re-naturalise the Otter Estuary, as set out in the Lower Otter Restoration Plan.”

These statements fundamentally recognise that the landscape in these areas, for wider environmental priorities and gains, needs to consider and plan for change and adaptation.

The character assessments recognise the need for change and the fact that in the current climate crisis, national, regional and local ambitions for climate adaptation, carbon reduction, increased tree planting and net zero are all going require adaptation and change in our landscapes. Some will be more challenging than others; all will impact on local communities in varying ways. This proposal represents a positive adaptation opportunity to the pressures facing the lower Otter valley and addresses many environmental objectives. It is a hugely complex proposal that has also sought to address multiple local needs and other projects such as the FAB LINK project, Budleigh Salterton Cricket Club relocation and access requirements, whilst providing compensatory habitat and seeking to address future climate, flood and coastal risks.

The applicant confirms that the proposal will undoubtedly impact on the landscape character of the AONB. However, in seeking to return the area to a more sustainable and naturalised river valley and estuarine habitat, the former features and landscape characteristics created over centuries of human influence will need to be altered or removed or reversed, with adaptions to maintain access and habitat mitigation/replacement provided elsewhere within the wider area.

We are aware from our engagement in the LORP that the applicant has sought to address the concerns and worries of stakeholders. It will be important that the positive environmental, habitat and access enhancements proposed and outlined in this application do not serve to exacerbate any of the wider concerns expressed in the consultations thus far. It will also be important that the approach taken to

20/2089/MFUL page 51 additional infrastructure is landscape led and there is scope to reconsider design and implementation aspects further to lessen any impacts.

Planning Consultation Response With this in mind, there are subsequent elements/considerations that the applicant has referenced and which will need to be addressed in more detail should the application be approved, in order to reduce potential impacts and ensure a successful scheme is delivered for all.

We suggest that community/stakeholder engagement in the following should play an important role in the implementation and on-going management of this ambitious and forward-looking proposal: • A Landscape and Environment Management Plan with opportunities for citizen science and community engagement and measures that serve to enhance the SSSI and MCZ • A Visitor Management Strategy that addresses all forms of access and transport both land and water based and aligns closely with an…. • Interpretation Strategy that includes how the site and area is promoted more widely within East Devon and Devon/SW • Infrastructure/design elements

World Heritage Site/Jurassic Coast - Sam Scriven

The Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site (WHS), otherwise known as the Jurassic Coast, was inscribed in 2001 for its internationally significant geology, palaeontology and geomorphology. It is protected by a variety of UK planning and conservation laws and by specific guidance within NPPF and NPPG.

The outcomes for the Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site (WHS) as a result of the Lower Otter Restoration Project (LORP) will be overwhelmingly positive, reconnecting the active shingle beach that lies within the WHS with a more natural fluvial estuarine system behind it. This supports the following management policies for the WHS as set out in the Jurassic Coast Partnership Plan 2020 – 2025:

CSS1: The conditions of GCR sites and SSSIs will be maintained and / or improved, when appropriate and possible, in ways that are consistent with or build on natural processes, taking account of other conservation objectives.

CSS5: The conservation and enhancement of biodiversity, the historic environment and landscape character in the WHS and setting will be supported in ways that are complementary with its OUV.

In this context, the proposals set out in LORP will improve both the OUV and the Setting of the WHS.

We note that the project includes the provision of interpretation at various locations. In support of Jurassic Coast Partnership Plan Engagement and Learning policies (EL1 - EL7) we recommend that a proper interpretation plan is created for the whole project area in order to make effective use of the significant opportunity for public engagement and interpretation. Rarely do landscape-scale interpretation

20/2089/MFUL page 52 opportunities like this arise. Appropriate levels of funding and resources should be allocated in order to maximise the public benefit of the project. The Jurassic Coast Trust would be keen to collaborate with the project leaders to pursue these opportunities.

Other Representations

At the time of writing the report, 565 representations have been received, which include 295 in support and 240 objections. A wide range of comments have been made. The most frequent reasons for objection are: Lack of consultation; loss of wildlife; flooding (specifically to Frogmore Road, Granary Lane and Otterton; Insufficient parking at South Farm Road; the wrong scheme; loss of trees and hedgerows; too many visitors; issues to do with the landfill site; water sports using the estuary; mosquitoes; traffic in Granary Lane and South Farm Road; contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan; erosion of the spit at Otter Mouth; not joined up with the FAB Link project; loss of agricultural land, and issues during construction.

The most frequent reasons for supporting the application are: Enhancement of habitat; will manage the estuary better; will adapt to climate change; improve public access; benefit local economy; and preserve footpaths.

It is clear from the consultation period and responses that campaigns, both for and against the proposal, have generated comments, some of which are from outside of the District.

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 3 (Sustainable Development)

Strategy 5 (Environment)

Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside)

Strategy 21 (Budleigh Salterton)

Strategy 33 (Promotion of Tourism in East Devon)

Strategy 44 (Undeveloped Coast and Coastal Preservation Area)

Strategy 45 (Coastal Erosion)

Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs)

Strategy 47 (Nature Conservation and Geology)

Strategy 49 (The Historic Environment)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D2 (Landscape Requirements)

20/2089/MFUL page 53 D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

EN4 (Protection of Local Nature Reserves, County Wildlife Sites and County Geological Sites)

EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features)

EN6 (Nationally and Locally Important Archaeological Sites)

EN8 (Significance of Heritage Assets and their setting)

EN13 (Development on High Quality Agricultural Land)

EN14 (Control of Pollution)

EN16 (Contaminated Land)

EN19 (Adequacy of Foul Sewers and Adequacy of Sewage Treatment System)

EN21 (River and Coastal Flooding)

EN25 (Development Affected by Coastal Change)

E20 (Provision of Visitor Attractions)

RC1 (Retention of Land for Sport and Recreation)

RC4 (Recreation Facilities in the Countryside and on the Coast)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development)

TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways)

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

Neighbourhood Plans

Budleigh Salterton Neighbourhood Plan (Made)

Policy H4: Built-up Area Boundary Policy B1: Identity of town and seafront Policy B2: Protection of key views and vistas Policy B3: Heritage Assets Policy NE1: Conservation of the Natural Environment Policy NE3: Conservation of Biodiversity Policy NE4: Maintain Trees and Hedgerows Policy NE5: Development within the Coastal Preservation Area Policy CLW2: Relocation of Budleigh Salterton Cricket Club

20/2089/MFUL page 54 East Budleigh Neighbourhood Plan (Made)

Policy P3: Protection of highest grade agricultural land Policy L1:- Enhancing Recreational Facilities Policy L2 – Budleigh Salterton Cricket Ground Policy G1 - To protect and enhance the network of public rights of ways and bridleways around the Parish Policy N1:- Protecting and enhancing the landscape, biodiversity and local countryside character Policy B1: Heritage Assets and their Setting Policy B2 – General Design Principles Policy F1 - Flood Risk Assessment Policy F2 - Surface Water Run-off

Otterton Neighbourhood Plan (In Preparation)

Protecting and Enhancing the Conservation Area and other Heritage Assets – Policy ONP2 Protecting and Enhancing the Natural Landscape – Policy ONP4 Protecting and Enhancing Wildlife in the Natural Environment – Policy ONP5 Traffic and Travel Around the Parish – Policy ONP8

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

Site Description

The site comprises the whole of the Lower Otter Valley, an area of historic floodplain south of East Budleigh and Otterton, extending to the mouth of the Otter at Budleigh Salterton. It comprises a range of intertidal habitats including saltmarsh and intertidal creeks. A network of freshwater drains crosses the site and a trunk drain lies along the western boundary. At the mouth of the estuary a shingle spit has been formed.

The estuary and marshes support a wide range of bird species, including waders and wildfowl, forming a network of habitat extending from the Axe to the Exe.

The site is crossed at roughly the midway point by South Farm Road, which serves a number of farms and buildings, and a historic landfill site. A number of footpaths, including the South West Coast Path, cross the site. Adjacent to the Lime Kiln Car Park at the southern end of the site, is Budleigh Salterton Cricket club. The site is bounded by properties on Granary Lane and Frogmore Road to the West.

Proposal

It is proposed to restore the historic floodplain of the River Otter. This would be achieved by creating breaches in existing embankments to allow water from both the River Otter and the Estuary to inundate the site, creating intertidal saltmarsh and mudflats. In addition, South Farm Road will be realigned and raised at a point just to the south of the existing road, and a small car park created at its western end. A new road bridge will be required, and a new footbridge to the South. Existing footpaths

20/2089/MFUL page 55 will be realigned and the landfill site capped and planted with grassland and woodland. The spit to the South will be allowed to evolve naturally, necessitating the removal of the southern part of the loop path known as Donkeys Turn. The cricket club will be moved from its current location to land off of East Budleigh Road, permission for which has been granted under a separate planning application. In summary, the proposal would involve the following:

 Creating a 70m breach through the River Otter Estuary embankment near the Lime Kiln Car Park in Budleigh Salterton;  Providing a pedestrian footbridge over the 70m wide breach to maintain access to the South West Coast Path;  Creating a 200m wide breach in Little Bank and covering the existing spillway with earth;  Creating a 170m wide breach in Big Bank;  Reinstating the public footpaths through the breached Little Bank and Big Bank;  Realigning the Budleigh Brook and removing the aqueduct across Little Marsh;  Constructing a cattle crossing (bridge) for the realigned Budleigh Brook;  Raising and re-aligning South Farm Road, including installation of a 30m span highway bridge in the west of South Farm Road, creation of a car park for the public on its western end; and,  Partially removing the western portion of the landfill (on South Farm Road), additional fill material placed as cover over remaining landfill area and providing perimeter erosion protection

For clarity, the proposal is not seeking to create a visitor attraction.

ANALYSIS

The main issues for consideration are the principle of development, flooding, biodiversity, trees and landscaping, highways and parking, footpaths, historic environment impacts and construction impacts.

Principle of Development

The site is within the open countryside but is subject to a number of designations. The entire site is within the East Devon AONB, whilst the estuary and cliffs at Otterton point are designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The Otter Estuary Marine Conservation Zone is located within the area, and the spit lies within the Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage site. Parts of the site are designated within the local plan as within the Coastal Preservation Area, County Wildlife Site, the floodplain and designated as open space (the cricket club).

In addition to the Local Plan and three neighbourhood plans which cover the parishes of Budleigh Salterton, Otterton, and East Budleigh, there are a number of other plans and strategies which need to be referred to, including the Devon Waste Plan, the National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England, the Durlston Head to Rame Head Shoreline Management Plan Review (SMP) , the South West River Basin Management Plan, the Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site Management Plan and the East Devon AONB Partnership Plan, as well as the NPPF. 20/2089/MFUL page 56

The purpose of the project is for managed realignment of the estuary and to meet the Environment Agency's statutory requirement to compensate for habitat loss. Due to likely changes due to climate change, action is needed to prevent inundation due to flooding, and to restore the ecological health of the valley. Concerns regarding increased visitor numbers and the impact on the area have been raised, however the proposal does not include any plans for a visitor centre or features and is not intended to encourage additional visitors to the area. It is acknowledged that the creation of intertidal saltmarsh and mudflats would encourage a number of wading birds, and therefore potentially visitors to view those birds, however the scheme is not comparable to Seaton Wetlands which actively encourages visitors by way of a visitor centre and bird hides. It is acknowledged that this is a busy area with walkers using the coast path in particular, and it is therefore critical that this path is maintained and connections to the wider footpath network made clear.

The proposal would clearly significantly change the area, particularly by way of breaches to the embankments which would irreversibly change the habitat and visual appearance of the estuary.

Policies within the local plan and elsewhere refer to conserving the landscape character of the area, increasing biodiversity, and safeguarding public access. The NPPF requires net biodiversity gains where possible, and for the conservation and enhancement of priority habitats.

The application is supported by the South West Coastal Group who comment that LORP will deliver significant biodiversity and recreation gains for the river and its estuary; will establish a more sustainable management regime, and will recreate the river to the floodplain to achieve good ecological potential.

The RSPB comment that the project has the potential to be a national exemplar of collaboration to help address the climate emergency and to bring huge benefits for nature and people; will directly compensate loss from the Exe Estuary SPA, and bring wider ecological benefits through the creation of a more naturalised estuary that enables a more dynamic transition from a freshwater to a brackish system.

Natural England state that there will be a major increase in the area of habitats created and maintained by natural process, and request screening of footpaths to prevent bird disturbance.

The Devon Wildlife Trust state that the project delivers in objectives set out in the Local Plan, in particular Strategy 47, as it reconnects the river to its floodplain, which will restore the intertidal habitats and increase the connection between people and wildlife.

The AONB Partnership comment that the proposal represents a positive adaptation opportunity to the pressures facing the lower Otter and addresses many environmental objectives, and has sought to address many local needs and other projects whilst providing compensatory habitat and seeking to address climate, flood and coastal risks.

The Jurassic Coast Trust comment that the outcomes of the project on the World 20/2089/MFUL page 57 Heritage Coast will be overwhelmingly positive, reconnecting the active shingle beach with a more natural fluvial estuarine system behind it, which supports policies within the Jurassic Coast Partnership Plan. There would appear to be strong support from the above bodies which shows the importance of the scheme and the need for it in terms of ecology, biodiversity and geomorphology, and in maintaining the area for recreation.

To balance this, the CPRE comment that they are not convinced of the need for the project and consider that climate change impacts have been overstated.

There are a number of detailed matters which are described below:

Flooding

The proposal site lies entirely within the flood zone of the River Otter and is susceptible to fluvial, coastal and surface water flooding. Without the implementation of a restoration of flood management scheme the impact of future climate change is expected to increase the risk of uncontrolled breaching of the existing estuary embankment, inundating the area with tidal water, which would affect South Farm Road (and thus cut off properties reliant on this road), as well as a number of the houses, gardens and farm buildings backing on to the area.

The proposed scheme will result in the inundation of the floodplain by tidal water on a daily basis. Hydraulic modelling has been undertaken which estimates the impact of the proposal on the area. The model shows that in fluvial events there is a small reduction (less than 100mm) in flood depth throughout the study area. However where there are newly created channels there will be an increase in flood depth. A number of receptors (Generally properties) have been assessed for flood risk potential in extreme flood events. The model shows that 1-3 South Farm Cottages will not flood, however there is the potential for the access to No. 3 to be cut off at spring tides every two years.

One property has the potential for an increase in flood risk (Thorn Mill Farm at Frogmore Road) and this is in a very limited scenario; that of a 0.5% (1-in 200-year) annual probability tidal event, including the climate change effects predicted 97 years' from now, for the most conservative scenario. Under all other tidal scenarios and flood probabilities, there is no increase in flood risk.

Further analysis and the site survey of threshold levels in Frogmore Road shows that changes in flood levels to properties are within normal modelling tolerance ( /- 5cm) and do not increase the flood risk to any property during the design flood events (tidal 0.5% chance - including with an allowance climate change).

Overall the risk of fluvial flooding will be reduced compared to a 'do nothing' scenario.

Areas at risk of surface water flooding are predominantly within the fluvial floodplain of the River Otter or along the corridors of the smaller watercourses such as the Budleigh Brook and Kersbrook. There is an area of the site where an increase in tidal inundation of the floodplain could result in an increase in surface water flood risk due to surface water drainage systems being tide locked.

20/2089/MFUL page 58 Consideration has also been given to the potential increase in surface water runoff due to additional areas of hardstanding at South Farm Road. The works to South Farm Road will result in a slight increase in impermeable area from approximately 3,300m2 to approximately 3,500m2. Whilst this will result in a slight increase in surface water runoff, this will be draining to a tidal area and is therefore not expected to have an adverse impact on flood risk downstream or to the nearby Kersbrook.

There is also an existing historical surface water issue at the low-lying area of highway in Granary Lane. The assessment of surface water flood risk for outfalls from Granary Lane and the low-lying section of highway near No.2 Granary Lane, concluded that the proposed LORP scheme (and introduced tidal water) will not worsen the risk of flooding to receptors. Where existing outfall pipes have no form of non-return valve, these will be installed as part of the proposed LORP scheme. The existing trunk drain will remain and be connected to the new tidal creek system, where ebb tide flushing flows will help reduce silt build up at the pipe outlets.

The impact on groundwater levels has been adequately assessed, however further information will need to be provided to support the Groundwater Monitoring Strategy recommended in Table 10.10 of the Environmental Statement. This can be considered by way of a condition.

Without the implementation of the proposed LORP scheme, future climate change (sea level rise and increased storm frequency) is expected to increase the risk of uncontrolled breaching of the existing estuary embankment. If this were to occur, then the floodplain could immediately start to inundate with tidal water, putting many receptors and South Farm Road at high risk of flooding.

Biodiversity

The Scheme will provide a number of key benefits in the long-term that will enhance or improve the area's biodiversity. However, there will also be some adverse construction effects. Key benefits include:

 The restoration of more natural environments, processes and enhanced habitats that will attract greater numbers and more varied wildlife.  The restoration of the River Otter floodplain, reconnecting the river to its floodplain and reverting unnatural areas back to intertidal habitat, which, once established, will provide an increased habitat resource for overwintering birds, benthic estuarine invertebrates and intertidal, estuarine and migratory fish species in the Otter catchment.  A more sustainable estuary system, operating more naturally, closer to its historic form before major human intervention took place. Fewer intrusive activities such as bank repairs, farming practices, etc, will take place, enabling the establishment of ecologically valuable habitats which will be used by a variety of species.  The Scheme provides measures to maximise the benefit for wildlife of the restored habitats by ensuring that disturbance by human activity is minimised, for example by not constructing a visitor centre or larger car parks which would encourage visitors above the existing level.

20/2089/MFUL page 59 A report for an appropriate assessment has been undertaken and is appended to the report; however the conclusion is that there would not be likely significant effects alone and/or in combination on features associated with the proposed scheme.

Trees and Landscaping

It is proposed to remove large groups of existing trees/woodland, scattered trees and long lengths of hedgerow in the floodplain area, and cut to ground level some areas of trees/vegetation at the outer edges of the floodplain; to enable construction of scheme elements or to mitigate disturbance to protected species before future tidal inundation.

In order to mitigate this, it is further proposed to plant new trees and hedgerows to the north of the site, areas outside of the zone of tidal inundation and on the historic landfill site area. These will replace those lost by the scheme. There will be improvements to existing hedgerows and infilling of gaps. Areas of new vegetation will also be planted for screening purposes for the new habitat areas.

Areas of trees which are subject to tree preservation border the western part of the site; these will not be affected by the proposal.

Highways and Parking

The scheme would require the complete relocation of South Farm Road. Currently the road crosses the floodplain and is a single track road with places to park. A number of informal laybys have been formed which allow motorists to park cars to visit the area. This continues on both sides of White Bridge. In some cases parking has encroached upon sensitive areas within the SSSI.

The proposal would remove this road and construct a new road to the South, which would include a new car park. The applicants have agreed to this providing at least 40 spaces, which would replace the existing informal parking, and 10 cycle spaces. Visitors would not therefore need to drive beyond this point, however there is still a need to construct a new road to provide access to residents and businesses at South Farm.

In addition, the applicant has agreed by way of a condition to construct a footpath from South Farm Road to its junction with Granary Lane, to allow access for those travelling by bus.

Access would be maintained to 1-3 South Farm Cottages by retaining a small spur off the existing road. Concerns have been raised regarding the visual impact of the proposed car park from the cottages. Although raised above the existing level, this would still be below the level of the cottages and situated some 40 metres distance, with the road, brook and existing highways separating the area from the front of the properties.

It is emphasised that the principal access to the site for visitors will be from Lime Kiln Car Park, which is much larger, and that whilst this will be an attractive area to visit

20/2089/MFUL page 60 in the Summer, the peak season for visits from nature lovers is intended to be in the Winter, due to the presence of overwintering birds in the mud flats and saltmarsh.

Residents and Otterton Parish Council have expressed an interest in the provision of further car parking in their parish to remedy existing and proposed problems with parking. It is however considered that the proposed car park and footpaths provide adequate car parking for the development itself. This is subject to the provision of car parking spaces as specified by the highway authority, particularly given the emphasis on the Southern area being the most appealing to visitors.

Footpath

It is proposed to make a number of changes to the footpaths through the site. This is because many of the footpaths flood and are not surfaced to be accessible for all. A new 70 metre span, 2.5 metre wide footbridge will be constructed at the Southern edge of the site, close to Lime Kiln Car Park, to enable accessible usage of the footpath to the east of the marsh. This will also include provision for some viewing areas.

Concerns have been raised by FAB Link (The France Alderney Britain power link project). This project involves the construction of a sub-sea connector with cables that come into the Country at Budleigh Salterton. The FAB project are concerned regarding the construction of footpath 12, due to the need to coordinate work programmes to accommodate the proposed cable. Permission has already been granted to FAB Link to raise the level of this footpath by between 300mm and 600mm, under planning application 17/1866/MFUL. Whilst raising is not included in the current proposal, it is intended to do this in conjunction with FAB Link, however further details will be required to achieve this.

Historic Environment

Whilst there are no heritage assets within the area of the project, a number of listed buildings are close to the site and the impact on their setting needs to be considered. In particular, the proximity of culverts to Grade II listed Pullhayes Farm is referred to. This would have a less than substantial impact on the heritage asset, especially considering the buildings location in the centre of a number of other buildings which are not listed; however it is considered that the public benefits of this aspect of the proposal through reduced flooding outweighs this impact.

The Cottage is situated 20m to the West of the scheme, and it is considered that the scheme will make a small positive contribution to this heritage asset. The War memorial is situated above the site, 180m to the West. The Scheme forms part of the wider landscape setting of this asset and allows for an appreciation of its value through views from the west. As such, the Scheme is considered to make a small positive contribution to the asset’s overall value as part of this wider landscape setting.

There are 46 listed buildings and a Conservation Area which are more than 200 metres from the scheme but still within the study area. However it is not considered that there will be any significant impact on these heritage assets from the scheme.

20/2089/MFUL page 61 There are also a number of known archaeological sites within the area, and a Written Scheme of Investigation is required prior to development taking place.

Works during construction

An outline Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been prepared in support of the Lower Otter Restoration Project planning application. The purpose of this CMP is to describe the anticipated environmental impacts associated with construction activities and to present proposals for management and mitigation of those impacts within the construction methodology. Particular attention is given to the management of impacts on neighbouring properties, sensitive users, biodiversity and the highway network.

A number of concerns have been raised regarding the future use of materials storage areas. The CMP states that once storage areas are no longer required they will be returned to their previous use. Concern has been raised about the proximity of construction vehicles to Otter Rise which is located adjacent to a proposed material storage area. The Environment Agency has stated that they are looking into the potential for revising the access route to this storage area.

It has also been noted that there are concerns about access to the east of White Bridge during construction of the new South Farm Road. During the estimated two- week closure of South Farm Road an alternative existing access route (from the rear of South Farm to Otterton village) will likely be agreed for the businesses and residential properties (see Appendix G of the Transport Statement). However, the diversion route is unlikely to be suitable for HGVs or large emergency service vehicles. A sequencing strategy for the new highway to existing tie in works will need to be developed. This will allow a staged approach, which limits actual closure to very brief periods overnight and with materials/plant ready as a contingency to rapidly and safely allow emergency services through the construction area if required. The exact details will be need to be subject of a condition and developed further by the appointed contractor.

Residents of Granary Lane are also concerned about the potential for increased construction traffic to exacerbate existing issues along the road. The Transport Statement and CMP identify that there would be specific routes for construction (HGV) traffic on approach to the site along the B3178 (East Budleigh Road and Coastguard Road), South Farm Road and Salting Hill. Granary Lane would only be used for its short length between the B3178 East Budleigh Road and South Farm Road. Signs would need to be used to discourage other traffic associated with the scheme (for example commuting construction workers) from using Granary Lane

Other Concerns Raised

The Consultation Process

Consultation has been ongoing since 2013 through the setting up of a stakeholder group. A public consultation took place in 2014 and a website set up shortly afterwards (www.lowerotterrestorationproject.co.uk). This has been the main source of information since that date. Further stakeholder groups and a public consultation

20/2089/MFUL page 62 was held in 2017. It was intended to undertake a further public consultation prior to submission, this was not possible due to COVID restrictions.

Further concerns were raised regarding the dates on the site notice erected to advertise the application. These gave an earlier date than the overall expiry date, which was later due to the need to advertise the application in the local newspaper, which has a later date because the initial advertisement did not refer to the application as EIA development. Whilst frustration at the differences in consultation dates is understandable, comments have been submitted and accepted since the date on the site notices expired and, given the number of comments received on the application, it is considered that the statutory requirements for publicity have been met.

Erosion at Granary Lane

A number of residents of Granary Lane have raised concerns that the project will result in the erosion of the cliff base along Granary Lane. In 2015 a report was prepared by a consulting geologist to identify potential impacts from the project on these cliffs. It highlights that the cliffs were originally formed by meltwater torrents in a periglacial climate in the late Pleistocene and subsequently modified by wave action at a time when the estuary mouth was open and subject to the action of storm waves. The subsequent reduction and finally cessation of wave activity when the estuary became almost wholly blocked by shingle in medieval times left the cliffs abandoned. Erosion ceased when the estuary silted up and the cliff became protected by a salt marsh. With the proposed project in place the cliff will be protected by the public footpath on a raised bank. In the event that the footpath is overtopped by flood/tidal waters, it is unlikely to erode the foot of the cliffs as the water will be too confined to generate significant waves and water velocities in this area will be low.

The Landfill Site

Surveys, including water and gas samples, have been taken from within and adjacent to the old landfill. In addition, trial pits have been excavated to establish the content, condition and stability of the tipped material. As part of the project part of the western section of the landfill will be removed. The sides of the remainder of the disused landfill will be protected by a combination of rock revetment, erosion protection matting and extended side slopes depending on the speed of flow in each area. It will also be covered with inert material. Overall, there would be a very low risk of contaminants being removed (through leaching or erosion) from the landfill. In the future with climate change, potentially a metre of sea level rise in the next 100 years, tide levels within the site will increase. With the project in place it is possible that the landfill may become inundated occasionally from the tide. However, due to the inert soil covering proposed, vegetation growth and the low flow speeds of the tide, the risk of contaminants being removed from the landfill will remain low.

Salinisation

Concern has been expressed about the salinisation of groundwater, particularly the aquifer at Kersbrook. Much work has been done on the risk to groundwater, and this

20/2089/MFUL page 63 has concluded that there is a low risk to South West Water's boreholes (especially the Kersbrook borehole). It is noted that SWW have not objected to the proposal.

Agricultural Land

Approximately 48.8 ha of existing agricultural grazing pasture will be replaced with intertidal habitat. This is poor grazing land designated as Grade 4 within the land classification system, and therefore does not comprise Best and Most Versatile Land as stated in Policy EN13 of the Local Plan.

Watersports

A number of concerns have been raised relating to the increased use of the estuary for water sports, which has particularly been evident over the last summer. There is a right of navigation on tidal waters with access only from the estuary, however there is no right of access from the land. As landowner and ongoing land manager, Clinton Devon Estates have stated that they do not intend to allow access to the new intertidal area from the land. The intention is not to encourage water sports and legal advice is currently being sought by the applicant to determine whether restrictions/ bylaws may be put in place.

Shingle bar

Concerns have also been raised that the shingle bar/spit at the mouth of the estuary will be washed away as a result of the project. Originally the estuary lacked the present day shingle bar and had a wider mouth (up to 500m) bounded by steep cliffs. The main estuary channel was canalised and large areas of the floodplain were embanked in 1810 - 1815. The resulting reduction in tidal prism (volume of tidal water able to flow in and out of the estuary) and flows through the estuary mouth supported the ongoing process of development of the shingle bar (see section above) and the shingle spit has grown to its present day extent. To maintain its present condition the spit requires continual maintenance. The preferred option at this location would be to see the lower estuary respond naturally to change and to move away from intervention. It is important to note that this area is part of the World Heritage Site and Otter Estuary SSSI.

The initial period following the main breach (around one year) is likely to see relatively high rates of erosion in the existing inner estuary channels and mouth due to the increased tidal prism and velocities. The channel widening and deepening will cause the shingle spit to shorten and may erode the landward face of the shingle barrier. The rear of the shingle bar (not an official public right of way) will need to be closed, however, the main footpath along the crest will remain unaffected.

Mosquitoes

The type of habitat created under the project is generally unsuitable for invasive mosquito species, and experts from Public Health England (PHE) believe that increased health risks from this project associated with biting insects is low with careful design and management.

20/2089/MFUL page 64 Research conducted at the site showed no current evidence of Aedes detritus, which is the common nuisance species associated with brackish habitat. Anopheles claviger was common and associated with the flooded grassland and freshwater ditches. This species isn't associated with nuisance biting. If the intertidal zone is regularly flooded and drained then suitability for mosquitoes will remain low. The key factor that will determine future mosquito pressure related to habitat changes is drainage. The project is therefore acting on information supplied by PHE and also the outputs from the Wetlands LIFE project to help guide detailed design, thus minimising the likelihood of increased risk from mosquitoes

CONCLUSION

This is a significant application within the Lower Otter Valley which will result in a change to the existing landscape, which has been managed over the past two centuries. The ambition to return the river to a more natural watercourse will result in the inundation of water to the project area and will result in large areas of new habitat creation. In addition, significant rerouting of the existing South Farm Road is required, and there will be a requirement for additional car parking and a new footbridge to provide adequate facilities for those accessing the area by car, on foot or by bike.

The scheme is widely supported by a number of significant conservation bodies which have an interest in the site, this is a result of a number of years of consultation on the project including working groups.

The Flood Risk Assessment and modelling have fully considered the impact of the scheme on nearby residents and businesses, and have concluded that the risk is minimal.

Concerns have been raised regarding the positioning and size of the proposed car park which will be addressed by a planning condition, which will also include the requirement for a footpath from the proposed car park.

Impacts on trees, local landscape, the setting of heritage assets, use of the estuary and contamination have also been addressed.

It is considered that the proposal is acceptable subject to conditions set out below.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE the appropriate assessment attached as Appendix 1

APPROVE the application subject to the following conditions:

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

20/2089/MFUL page 65 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

3. No development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out at all times in accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: To ensure, in accordance with Policy EN6 (Nationally and Locally Important Archaeological Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan and paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development)

4. Prior to the commencement of development, an access scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority, in liaison with the Devon County Council Public Rights of Way Team. Such scheme shall include provision for the design of public rights of way routes including surfacing, widths, levels, gradients, landscaping, structures and any road crossing points.

(Reason: In the interests of the amenity and safety of the public in accordance with Policy TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031)

5. No development affecting the public right of way shall commence until such time as a diversion order under section 257 and/or 247 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) has been made and confirmed.

(Reason: In the interests of the amenity and safety of the public in accordance with Policy TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031)

6. Samples of the materials for the proposed footbridge shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the relevant parts of the work are commenced. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved samples before the bridge is in use. (Reason: In order that the external appearance of the bridge is satisfactory in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

7. Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development, other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation, must not commence until conditions 1 to 4 below have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the

20/2089/MFUL page 66 unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until condition 4 has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

1. Site Characterisation An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include:

(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination.

(ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:

Human health, Property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, Adjoining land, Groundwaters and surface waters, Ecological systems, Archeological sites and ancient monuments.

(iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agencys Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11.

2. Submission of Remediation Scheme Where identified as necessary as a result of the findings of the investigation above, a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared and submitted for approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

3. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development (other than any part of the development required to carry out remediation), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be

20/2089/MFUL page 67 given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and will be subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

4. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination In the event that contamination is found at any time during the approved development works that was not previously identified, the findings must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. A new investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 1 above and where remediation is necessary a new remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 2. This must be subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 3.

5. Long Term Monitoring and Maintenance Where identified as necessary, a monitoring and maintenance scheme to include monitoring the longterm effectiveness of the proposed remediation over a period to be agreed with the LPA, and the provision of reports on the same must be prepared, both of which will be subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of the measures identified in that scheme and when the remediation objectives have been achieved, reports that demonstrate the effectiveness of the monitoring and maintenance carried out must be produced, and submitted to the Local Planning Authority. This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11.

(Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, are minimised and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy EN16 (Contaminated Land) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

8. A Construction and Environment Management Plan must be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works commencing on site, and shall be implemented and remain in place throughout the development. The CEMP shall include at least the following matters: Transport

20/2089/MFUL page 68 routes and measures to control traffic impacts, location of building compounds and of construction worker parking, any road closures, wheel washing measures, air quality, dust, water quality, lighting, noise and vibration, pollution prevention and control, and monitoring arrangements. Construction working hours shall be 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. There shall be no burning on site. There shall be no high frequency audible reversing alarms used on the site.

(Reason: To protect the amenities of existing and future residents in the vicinity of the site from noise, air, water and light pollution in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

9. No breaching of the banks approved by this permission shall take place until a monitoring and remediation/mitigation strategy to deal with the risks to groundwater associated with saline inundation of the site has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. The strategy shall include the following components: 1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors, including those off site. 2) A site investigation (including the area known as Little Marsh) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 3) The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation/mitigation strategy giving full details of any measures identified as necessary 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/mitigation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying a timeframe/timetable and any requirements for longer term monitoring of salinization 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 ensure the protection of local groundwater resources in accordance with Policy EN21 (River and Coastal Flooding) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031)

10. Prior to any works being carried out to South Farm Road detailed plans of the proposed car park and a timetable for the phasing of the works for the removal of the existing car parking spaces and the delivery of the new car park shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall show a minimum of 40 car parking spaces and 10 cycle parking spaces with associated facilities. The South Farm Road Car Park shall be provided in accordance with the approved details and shall remain available for public use thereafter.

20/2089/MFUL page 69 (Reason: In order to provide sufficient parking for the scheme in accordance with Policy TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) in the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031)

11. A scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority which shows the provision of a footway from the proposed footpath entrance to the South Road Car Park on the eastern side of South Farm Road to connect with Granary Lane and East Budleigh Road. The footpath shall be constructed and relevant permissions sought from the Highway Authority prior to the use of the proposed car park. (Reason: To allow priority pedestrian and cycle movements, and to facilitating access to high quality public transport and appropriate facilities that encourage public transport use in accordance with Policy TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

12. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural Method Statement submitted by Jacobs and dated September 2020. Provision shall be made for the supervision of the tree protection by a suitably qualified and experienced arboriculturalist and details shall be included for the keeping of a monitoring log to record site visits and inspections along with: the reasons for such visits; the findings of the inspection and any necessary actions; all variations or departures from the approved details and any resultant remedial action or mitigation measures. On completion of the development, the completed site monitoring log shall be signed off by the supervising arboriculturalist and submitted to the Planning Authority for approval and final discharge of the condition. (Reason - In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and D3 - Trees and Development Sites of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

13. No trees, shrubs or hedges within the site which are shown as being planted or retained on the approved plans shall be felled, uprooted, wilfully damaged or destroyed, cut back in any way or removed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees, shrubs or hedges removed without such consent, or which die or become severely damaged or seriously diseased within five years from the occupation of any building, or the development hereby permitted being brought into use shall be replaced with trees, shrubs or hedge plants of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. (Reason - In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and D3 - Trees and Development Sites of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

20/2089/MFUL page 70 NOTE FOR APPLICANT

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

Please note that the grant of planning permission does not grant the right to close, alter or build over a right of way in any way, even temporarily, this includes, for example, a change in the surface, width or location. Nothing should be done to divert or stop up a public right of way without following the due legal process, including confirmation of any permanent diversion or stopping-up order and the provision of any new path. In order to avoid delays this should be considered at an early opportunity.

If a temporary closure is required during construction works, e.g. for safety reasons, the applicant would need to apply to the County Council for a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order.

The alignment, width, and condition of public rights of way providing for their safe and convenient use shall remain unaffected by the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Public Rights of Way Team.

Nothing in this decision notice shall be taken as granting consent for alterations to public rights of way without the due legal process being followed

Plans relating to this application: env statement : General 28.09.20 app A - fig 1.1 Correspondence env statement : General 28.09.20 app A - fig 1.2 Correspondence env statement : General 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.3 Correspondence env statement : General 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.4 Correspondence env statement : General 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.5 Correspondence env statement : General 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.6 Correspondence env statement : General 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.7 Correspondence

20/2089/MFUL page 71 env statement : General 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.8 Correspondence env statement : General 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.9 Correspondence env statement : General 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.10 Correspondence env statement : General 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.11 Correspondence env statement : General 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.14 Correspondence env statement : General 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.18 Correspondence env statement : Environmental 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.19 Statement env statement : Environmental 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.20 Statement env statement : Environmental 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.21 Statement env statement : Environmental 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.22 Statement env statement : Environmental 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.23 Statement env statement : Environmental 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.24 Statement env statement : Environmental 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.25 Statement env statement : Environmental 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.26 Statement env statement : Environmental 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.27 Statement env statement : Environmental 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.28 Statement env statement : Environmental 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.29 Statement

20/2089/MFUL page 72 env statement : Environmental 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.30 Statement env statement : Environmental 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.31 Statement env statement : Environmental 28.09.20 app A : fig 1.32 Statement env statement : Environmental 28.09.20 app A : fig 11.17 Statement env statement : Environmental 28.09.20 app A : fig Statement 1.12+1.13 env statement : Environmental 28.09.20 app A : fig Statement 1.15+1.16

DR-C-0001 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-C-0002 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-C-0003 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-C-0004 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-C-0005 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-C-0006 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-C-0007 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-C-0008 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-C-0009 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-C-0020 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-C-0021 P01 Sections 28.09.20

DR-C-0022 P01 Sections 28.09.20

DR-C-0023 P01 Sections 28.09.20

DR-C-0024 P01 Sections 28.09.20

DR-C-0026 P01 Sections 28.09.20

20/2089/MFUL page 73

DR-C-0027 P01 Sections 28.09.20

DR-EN-0050 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-EN-0051 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-EN-0052 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-EN-0053 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-EN-0054 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-EN-0055 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-L-0012 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-L-0013 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-L-0014 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-L-0015 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-L-0016 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-L-0017 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-L-0018 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-L-0019 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-LP-0001 P01 Proposed Site Plan 28.09.20

DR-LP-0002 P01 Proposed Site Plan 28.09.20

DR-LP-0003 P01 Other Plans 28.09.20

DR-LP-0005 P01 Location Plan 28.09.20

DR-LP-0006 P01 Location Plan 28.09.20

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

20/2089/MFUL page 74 Appropriate Assessment

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

Application Reference 20/2089/MFUL

Brief description of Proposed breach of the River Otter embankment, Little Bank and Big Bank to proposal restore the historic floodplain creating intertidal saltmarsh, mudflats and freshwater habitat at Big Marsh, and new freshwater habitat at Little Marsh. Associated works including development of a new footbridge, realignment of South Farm Road, and creation of a new car park. (The Lower Otter Restoration Project). Location 151 Hectares Of Land Within The Parishes Of East Budleigh, Budleigh Salterton And Otterton From Lime Kiln Car Park (SY072819) To South Of Frogmore House (SY074850) (The Lower Otter Valley) Site is: Within 10km of Dawlish Warren SAC and the Exe Estuary SPA site

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

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

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

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

(See Appendix 1 for list of interest features of the SPA/SAC) Step 1 Screening for Likely Significant Effect on the Lower Otter

Risk Assessment Could the Qualifying Features of the Yes – the proposal is for ‘compensatory habitat’ for the loss of intertidal habitats European site be within the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site. affected by the During the operational stage there is likely to be an increase in the interchange of proposal? birds between Exe and Otter estuaries. The new intertidal habitats will be recognised as SPA land and subsequently benefit from legal protection. Consider both However the habitats within the planning application boundary are not construction and functionally linked to the Exe Estuary SPA. operational stages. There is no link between the scheme and habitats on the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths.

Conclusion of Screening

Page 1 of 5 Updated October 2018 page 75 Is the proposal likely to East Devon District Council concludes that there would not be Likely Significant have a significant effect, Effects ‘alone’ and/or ‘in-combination’ on features associated with the proposed either ‘alone’ or ‘in scheme. combination’ on a European site? See evidence documents on impact of development on SPA/SAC at: East Devon District Council - http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/369997/exe- overarching-report-9th-june-2014.pdf

An Appropriate Assessment of the plan or proposal is not necessary.

Local Authority Officer Darren Roberts Date: 4th December 2020

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

Appendix 1. List of interest features:

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

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

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

Dawlish Warren SAC Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site (under the Habitats Directive): Annex I habitat: Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (‘white dunes’). (Strandline, embryo and mobile dunes.) Page 2 of 5 Updated October 2018 page 76 SD1 Rumex crispus-Glaucium flavum shingle community SD2 Cakile maritima-Honkenya peploides strandline community SD6 Ammophila arenaria mobile dune community SD7 Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune community Annex I habitat: Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (‘grey dunes’). SD8 Festuca rubra-Galium verum fixed dune grassland SD12 Carex arenaria-Festuca ovina-Agrostis capillaris dune grassland SD19 Phleum arenarium-Arenaria serpyllifolia dune annual community Annex I habitat: Humid dune slacks. SD15 Salix repens-Calliergon cuspidatum dune-slack community SD16 Salix repens-Holcus lanatus dune slack community SD17 Potentilla anserina-Carex nigra dune-slack community

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

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

East Devon Heaths SPA:

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

Objectives:

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

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC:

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

Page 3 of 5 Updated October 2018 page 77 nature of these heathlands, as this species is typical of wet heath in the more continental parts of the UK. Populations of southern damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale occur in wet flushes within the site.

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

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

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

S1044. Coenagrion mercuriale; Southern damselfly

Objectives:

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

Exe Estuary SPA

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

Objectives:

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

Exe Estuary Ramsar

Principal Features (updated 1999)

Page 4 of 5 Updated October 2018 page 78 The estuary includes shallow offshore waters, extensive mud and sand flats, and limited areas of saltmarsh. The site boundary also embraces part of Exeter Canal; Exminster Marshes – a complex of marshes and damp pasture towards the head of the estuary; and Dawlish Warren - an extensive recurved sand-dune system which has developed across the mouth of the estuary.

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

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

Page 5 of 5 Updated October 2018 page 79 Agenda Item 9 Ward Ottery St Mary

Reference 20/1504/MOUT

Applicant Mr David Black

Location Land Opposite Barrack Farm Exeter Road Ottery St Mary

Proposal Outline planning application with all matters reserved except access for up to 150 new dwellings, a 210 Space primary school, construction of a new roundabout on Exeter Road, a new junction onto Cadhay Lane, and associated infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt the appropriate assessment 2. Secure affordable housing and habitat mitigation through a Section 106 legal agreement 3. Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 80 Committee Date: 6th January 2021

Ottery St Mary Target Date: (Ottery St Mary) 20/1504/MOUT 21.10.2020

Applicant: Mr David Black

Location: Land Opposite Barrack Farm Exeter Road

Proposal: Outline planning application with all matters reserved except access for up to 150 new dwellings, a 210 Space primary school, construction of a new roundabout on Exeter Road, a new junction onto Cadhay Lane, and associated infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt the appropriate assessment 2. Secure affordable housing and habitat mitigation through a Section 106 legal agreement 3. Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before members as it represents a departure from the development plan and as the officer recommendation is contrary to the views of the ward member and the parish council.

Part of the application site lies within an area allocated for Community and Educational Uses under Strategy 24 of the Local Plan. However, what is proposed in the application departs substantially from the allocation in that it seeks to build houses on this, and adjoining land, and to construct a primary school on adjacent land further to the west of the allocation. In such circumstances the application needs to be considered in the context of sustainable development and a determination made as to whether the benefits of the proposal outweigh the harm of departing from the adopted allocation. The impacts on the local highway network, trees, local landscape, the setting of heritage assets, flooding and wildlife have all been addressed.

The provision of housing on agricultural land outside of a BUAB, below policy level of affordable housing, and the visibility of the site from various viewpoints within the town and local area all weigh against the proposal. However, the overriding benefits of the proposal through providing a new primary school to replace an existing school which is required due to identified dangers from flooding, control of the impact from the housing at the reserved matters stage,

20/1504/MOUT page 81 together with provision of affordable housing within the town and the construction of a new roundabout which would improve highway safety are considered to outweigh the dis-benefits of the scheme.

Accordingly, on balance, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable subject to the package of measures proposed in the application to mitigate any harm, secure affordable housing, including an overage clause, and habitat mitigation through a legal agreement and appropriately worded safeguarding conditions.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Ottery St Mary - Cllr Vicky Johns I am sending in my strong objection to the above planning application, with the following reasons;

1. It is contrary to the Ottery st Mary & West Hill Neighbourhood plan and East Devon Local Plan. This plan involved a lot of work and was voted for unanimously and democratically by the local people. The plan sets out what is acceptable use for this piece of land and the applicant is trying to change the use of the land that is protected by the plan, this is in itself wrong. 2. Ottery St Mary has already exceeded the amount of housing deemed necessary within East Devon plan and the additional housing would increase the pressure and problems on the infrastructure. 3. The affordable housing deemed for areas outside the built up boundary is 50% and yet this application is only offering 30% which is in itself contrary to the East Devon Local plan. 4. The area could add to the flood risk of housing along that road and to Thorne Farm way, many residents are already aware of the problems of surface water running off the field without the added concern of even more housing and so a non- permeable surface adding to even more water. This was highlighted by the Environment Agency and South West Water. 5. The area has a lot of wildlife living in it and around it that will all be disturbed not to mention the types of plant life living there. The ground is constantly wet hence the name 'Cadhay Bog'. 6. The increased traffic is a major concern of everyone, this road is the main road into Ottery from the Exeter side and as such is constantly busy adding to this just increases the danger. School pick up and drop off times are exceptionally busy and adding another school and more housing just increases the danger. 7. The application has stated that the traffic will leave by the Cadhay Lane road, anyone that knows this road knows how narrow that road is. The road is a single road pretty much all of the way with only the odd passing part, the increase of traffic would be significant and not, in my opinion, workable. A house along that road asked to build a single house in their own garden and was turned down because of the increase in traffic and the difficulty of that road, so obviously 150 houses and a school would be a no as well. 8. People are being encouraged to walk and yet this school is on the furthest point out of Ottery without a proper path or cycle lane. The access to the area would

20/1504/MOUT page 82 involve either crossing a very busy road or walking along a very busy road neither of which would be suitable for very young primary school aged children, let alone the disabled. 9. Removing the school from Tipton St John would, in my opinion, basically rip the heart out of the village. Tipton is a very close community minded village where people walk their children to school and enjoy being a part of the community. We have been advised that the school floods and and that there is a danger to the children and yet every Tipton parent that I have spoken to has advised that since the reason works in Tipton the school has not flooded. The roads out of Tipton flood but these are the same roads that the children will have to commute to get to a new school in Ottery St Mary, so the issue remains the same just further to go to get the children back home. 10. We have been advised that the majority of children reside in Ottery and yet over 80 children currently attend Tipton school with only 31 coming from Ottery, so the others are from Tipton and other areas. 11. There are a number of reports from the applicant that have insufficient evidence, as pointed out by both the Environment Agency and South West Water. 12. We have been advised that the school will cost approximately £7million pounds with the Diocese funding £1million and the rest being made up by the sale of the houses and yet there are no calculations to prove this or as to how those figures were reached. 13. As an outline planning application I feel that there is just not enough information and what little information there is is very limited. For example by implying that the school building and housing will not change the area that much when it is quite apparent that it will.

We are aware that the Tipton school needs rebuilding as the buildings are not fit for purpose however has the funding for that been looked into? The government have advised that there is funding for schools and yet we have seen no evidence of that being looked into.

With the information that I have in front of me I strongly object to this application but I reserve the right to change my opinion if further information comes to light.

West Hill And Aylesbeare - Cllr Jess Bailey

As adjoining ward member I would like my OBJECTION to this application to be noted. My concerns are as follows: 1. It runs contrary to the adopted Ottery St Mary and West Hill neighbourhood plan and EDDC local plan, so there is no planning policy support for it. 2. The proposed increase in housing will put further pressure on local services in Ottery St Mary - Ottery St Mary has already experienced significant housing numbers in recent years. 3. The roads in the vicinity are already very congested and I do have significant concerns about road safety. 4. The percentage of affordable housing offered is below what is required in the EDDC local plan. 5. The Environment Agency has objected because insufficient evidence has been provided to assess the flood risk.

20/1504/MOUT page 83 Ottery St Mary Town Council

This application was discussed at the West Hill Parish Council meeting on 4th August 2020. Although Councillors acknowledge the need for a new primary school, they did not support the application as: 1. The application does not comply with the Neighbourhood Plan or Local Plan. The Local Plan Strategy 24 safeguards part of this site for educational and community use, but does not support additional housing. The application does not comply with Neighbourhood Plan Policy NP25 in that the amenity of surrounding residents will be affected, there is inadequate provision for access and parking, and the ability of the Kings School to expand in the future will be compromised. 2. Lack of impact analysis on the community: a. Kings School is at capacity. The proposed development does not allow for expansion at the Kings site with only a small area safeguarded. b. Community services such as the Medical Centre are already under pressure. c. Infrastructure is under pressure from current traffic volumes and very limited parking in Ottery centre. Additional traffic volumes will increase problems on narrow roads in Ottery and surrounding area. d. Current significant congestion problems near Kings School will be exacerbated by traffic to/from the new school, particularly at drop off and pick up times. 3. No benefit for the community other than the provision of a primary school. 4. The proposed development will be on good quality agricultural land. Details:- Outline planning application with all matters reserved except access for up to 150 new dwellings, a 210 Space primary school, construction of a new roundabout on Exeter Road, a new junction onto Cadhay Lane, and associated infrastructure

Town Council Comments: Ottery St Mary Town Council vigorously opposes this planning application on the grounds that: a) It is development outside the built up area of the boundary, which is contrary to the Ottery St Mary & West Hill Neighbourhood Plan and East Devon Local Plan b) Is building houses on land designated for education and community use, which is contrary to the Ottery St Mary & West Hill Neighbourhood Plan and East Devon Local Plan c) The houses in the East Devon Local Plan for Ottery St Mary have already been exceeded and these additional houses would increase pressure and problems on the infrastructure d) The five year housing land supply required by the Government is already being demonstrated by East Devon District Council, therefore there is no justification for this application e) The affordable housing offered is 45 so 30%, not 50% which would be 75 and is contrary to the East Devon Local Plan f) Concern that the development would increase pollution and flood risk, recognising the concerns already expressed by the Environment Agency and South West Water g) Concerned that the development would lead to damage to wildlife

20/1504/MOUT page 84 h) Concerned that it would lead to development of countryside and the landscape i) Concern that it would result in adverse visual impact, being on steeply rising ground on the edge of Ottery St Mary j) Increased traffic congestion and an expressed concern about the lack of evidence provided by the applicant to demonstrate that the traffic problems would be properly dealt with and the Council is not happy with the proposals they put forward and the prospect of their realistic delivery k) Concern about the impact of not only taking the school out of Tipton St John village but the negative impact on the community, social infrastructure, families and particularly the children who would be directly affected by having to travel to a new school they have been happy at in a new location from Tipton to Ottery St Mary. The Council feels that by removing the school would tear the heart out of the village. l) The Council has a concern about the lack of public transport links as some pupils currently at the school in Tipton travel from Newton Poppleford and Sidmouth. This proposal would also increase the school run traffic around the Kings School area, whereas it should be encouraged for people to be more active and walk to school in a safe environment.

Technical Consultations

DCC Flood Risk Management Team

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

Observations: We only accept FEH rainfall for new applications in line with best practice. The FSR is based on a dataset from 1970s and is out-of-date.

The applicant should provide evidence to show that long term storage has been included within the calculations.

The applicant should clarify that the attenuation basins on the Northern Boundary will remain outside of flood zones 2/3 to prevent significant decreases in capacity from flood events. The applicant should consider, if they haven't already, engagement with local schools to ensure that when the SuDS are implemented they can deliver wider educational benefits.

Conservation

This application has been assessed on the setting of the nearest listed buildings and character of the Conservation Area of Ottery St. Mary. In general the application site sits outside of the Conservation Area and away from the core historic development

20/1504/MOUT page 85 area. It is influenced by the steep topography that rises above the town and river. There is some concern that there may be minimal impact on the significance of the heritage assets through the potential for key views towards the town. This may be through the ridge heights of the principle structures located within the heart of the site. At this stage, it is suggested that the possibility for any key views are considered in the review of any development.

Environment Agency

Thank you for contacting us in relation to conditions for this application.

Environment Agency position (06/11/20)

Notwithstanding our previous position in which we considered further information should support the application in relation to the flood risks on site over the lifetime of the development, we consider that the proposed development may be acceptable subject to the inclusion of the following condition relating to flood risk, which intends to protect the areas at flood risk from any development, including land raising or storage of material until further assessment is undertaken.

Condition – Flood Risk Buffer Area No development, including landscaping works shall take place within 50m of the Thorne Farm Stream unless a more accurately defined flood zone has been demonstrated through adequate flood risk assessment and appropriate flood modelling, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, taking advice from the Environment Agency. A scheme for any development within the 50m buffer area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason – As indicated in our previous responses, we consider that the application at present does not clearly define the appropriately developable areas of the site with reference to the area at the north of the site mapped as flood zone 2 and 3 (medium to high risk). The flood maps cannot be used as a site-specific indication of the flood risk, and may be under-representative.

The above recommended condition takes a conservative approach to protecting the area currently at flood risk, consistent with Environments Agency flood maps, as well as taking account for any potential increase in floodplain extents resulting from climate change over the lifetime of the development. If the applicant wishes to propose development in this area a part of a reserved matters or other, application, further flood assessment is required to be undertaken to clearly define the flood risks in this area.

Please contact us again if you require any further advice.

Environment Agency position (12/10/20)

Following review of the response to our comments from Sam Hurdwell of HBS Norse Group (dated 23rd September 2020), we consider that our previous position is still applicable in that we consider further information is required to fully assess the flood

20/1504/MOUT page 86 risks posed to the site over the lifetime of development. However, we recognise that the application is an outline proposal with no set layout. In this case we consider that planning conditions would be necessary to secure an undeveloped buffer area in the north of the site without further flood modelling undertaken by the applicant. The reason for this position and advice is provided below.

Reason - We reiterate that we do not have an in-principle objection to the proposed development at this site, however an outline application should establish the parameters within which development is acceptable. We consider that the application at present does not clearly define the appropriately developable areas of the site to take the proposal beyond outline stage. We consider that it is necessary for the applicant to undertake further assessment of the flood risks to the site from the Thorne Farm Stream and consider climate change over the lifetime of the development in order to identify the areas suitable for development, to steer development to the safest locations. This should include assigning site specific design flood levels to the topographic layout.

Advice - Notwithstanding this, we recognise that your authority may be minded to approve the application because it is at outline stage. If this is the case, we would consider it inappropriate to approve the application without securing a generous 'buffer' area in the north of the site within which no development (including no land raising) shall occur without further flood modelling. Please contact us again if you are minded to approve the application to discuss this approach.

Please contact us again if you require any further advice.

Environment Agency position (11/08/20)

We raise an objection to the proposed development on the grounds that insufficient information has been submitted to fully assess the flood risk to the proposal over the lifetime of the development. The reason for this position and advice is provided below.

Reason - Most of the development site is located within flood zone 1, however the northern boundary of the development encroaches into flood zone 3, identified by Environment Agency flood maps as having a high probability of flooding. This boundary is also adjacent to the Thorne Farm Stream which is classed as a main river at this location. We have reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) prepared by Hamson Barron Smith (dated March 2020). Whilst we have no in-principle objection to the proposal on the basis that the new built development is located in flood zone 1 (low probability of flooding), we advise that further consideration is required in the assessment relating to the Thorne Farm Stream and the potential influence on the development layout.

Under the climate change discussion, it would be appropriate to consider the likely increase in fluvial flows in the watercourse and subsequent impacts on the extent of out of bank flooding, which will extend beyond the mapped extent of Flood Zone 3. It will be necessary to consider a 'design' flood level for a long-section along the watercourse and demonstrate how this relates to the boundary of the built development through consideration of the topography. A clear, unobstructed

20/1504/MOUT page 87 floodplain corridor should be retained for such an extreme design event and it should be shown that garden boundary fences/hedges do not encroach in to this area.

Linked to this, the applicant will also need to demonstrate that the SuDS lagoon can remain operational during the extreme design flood event. A consideration of the extent of Flood Zone 2 would be appropriate in this analysis. This may also be a consideration of the Lead Local Flood Authority who can provide advice on appropriate surface water management.

Overcoming our objection The applicant may overcome our objection by submitting additional information to satisfy the concerns raised within this letter. Please re-consult us on any additional or revised information submitted.

Please contact us again if you require any further advice.

Devon County Highway Authority

Observations:

This application is in outline with all matters reserved except for accesses onto the existing highway network, these include a new roundabout on the B3174 Exeter Road to the south of the proposed development, a new emergency access and foot/cycleway access on the B3174 Exeter Road to the south of the proposed development and a new vehicular (through route) access in Cadhay Lane to the north of the proposed development.

Most of the proposed development internal infrastructure is indicative only however, if this application is approved, it will determine access points for all modes of travel to and from the site. This will largely determine the main through traffic route of the site and where the internal accesses are likely to be located for the proposed primary school and residential dwellings.

As Highway Development Management Officer for East Devon I have previously been involved in consultations and discussions with NPS (acting for Devon County Council) on the highway aspects of the application however, this does not prevent me giving an impartial and professional response to this application. I have been consulted as Overseeing Organisation (DCC/NPS) in respect of the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit process and have observed that this process has been conducted to the appropriate standards and protocols. I understand that the applicant has had discussions with The King's School and the LED Leisure Centre about possible alterations to the Cadhay Lane traffic calming. I have not been party to these discussions and whilst they are mentioned within the application, they do not form part of the outline application and will be subject to reserved matters application/s.

It should be noted that within this application alterations to the extent of existing speed limit and changes of traffic priority will be required to facilitate the new roundabout junction on the B3174 Exeter Road and the new access to the site on Cadhay Lane. Whilst such extensions to the speed limit and changes of priority can be agreed in principle in this application. Any speed limit changes and change of

20/1504/MOUT page 88 priority proposed and any subsequent alterations to traffic calming in Cadhay Lane will be subject to the Highways and Traffic Orders Committee consideration before they can be implemented on site.

Section S106 Contributions

Highway Works:

Potential highway works as set out in the Transport Assessment accompanying the application are to be agreed with Devon County Council highways and will be documented within the S106 agreement including any necessary Traffic Regulation Order/s. The Local Highway Authority will require full funding contributions for all new or altering works on the existing highway when reserved matter design details are known.

Access Proposals:

Pedestrian Pedestrian access to the site, it is proposed a new pedestrian access path will be constructed along the northern side of Exeter Road; linking the south east corner of the site with the existing footway at the junction of Exeter Road and Cadhay Lane.

Cycle/Pedestrian The site has pedestrian and cycle links to the town with the existing shared cycleway and footpath from Thorne Farm Way area to Canaan Way car park, and town centre, only. Within the site, pedestrian access will be subject to the final layouts of the reserved matters application, however it has been currently shown as a mixture of shared vehicular and pedestrian routes, shared cycle and pedestrian routes, and pedestrian only routes.

Public Transport:

Two new bus stops are proposed along Exeter road to provide adequate public transport links to the development.

Delivery Vehicles and Private Vehicles: It is proposed the main vehicular access to the site will be from Exeter Road (B3174) via a new Midi roundabout which will form a robust speed management device to ensure drivers adopt an appropriate and safe speed as they enter the development and the town, speed data readings indicate that at present vehicle speeds at this location on Exeter Road are excessive. A fourth arm to this roundabout is considered to provide improved access to Barrack Farm to the south side of Exeter Road.

Through Traffic: A vehicular access point will be off Cadhay Lane, this has been designed to divert traffic coming southwards through the new development to ease the existing congestion issues experienced around the entrance to The King's School and leisure facilities.

20/1504/MOUT page 89 Emergency Access: A third vehicular access junction has also been considered to the south east of the site. However, this will be for emergency vehicle access only to ensure emergency vehicles have an alternative route through the development should the other become inaccessible

Transport Assessment

Scoping: Scoping discussions have taken place with both the Development Control Officer for East Devon (Jerry Upfield) and Highways England (HE). Discussions with Jerry Upfield concluded that he was satisfied with the scope of the TA and the assessment of the local highway network that has been undertaken. Whilst I, as Highway Development Management Officer for East Devon Area, was consulted by the author of the TA (WSP) regarding the scope of the TA, this does not stop me from making objective and impartial comments upon the proposed development and the TA.

I understand that discussions are ongoing with Highways England with regards to possible impacts upon their network of the A30 and the Daisy Mount Junction. New Junction Criteria - Stage 1 Road Safety Audit. As Local Highway Authority DCC requires that all proposed new accesses onto existing A, B and C roads, where there has not been an access before, are accompanied by at least a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and that corresponding Designer Responses to problems raised in the Stage 1 RSA accompany the RSA process throughout the full design process. This is to ensure that matters of safety are identified independently at an early stage and that these can then influence designs now and going forward and with the more detailed plans at a later stage.

In this case the Stage 1 RSA has been undertaken by WSP, who are also authors of the TA and have also made the Designers Response to the Stage 1 RSA. This scenario was put to me as the 'Overseeing Organisation' (NPS/DCC) and I did not see that there would be any conflict of interest if the road safety auditors and the designers were from the same company - providing that they are from completely separate offices and locations and do not have any prior involvement with the design proposals, even though they are employed by the same company.

The Design Team are from WSP - Exeter Office and the Stage 1 RSA Team was from WSP - Bristol Office. One S1 RSA team member holds a Road Safety Certificate of Competence meeting the requirements of the European Directive 2008/96/EC and GG119 paragraph 3.9 and appendix G and the terms of reference of the Road Safety Audit were as described in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Standard GG 119 Road Safety Audit. The Stage 1 RSA and Stage 1 RSA Designers Response has been submitted to the LPA and forms part of the application details. I have visited the site and noted the Problems Raised, Recommendations and the Designers Responses in the Stage 1 RSA and I have not found any other matters of safety that have not been addressed in the report.

20/1504/MOUT page 90 Traffic Predictions

I have looked at the predicted traffic generation (TRICS) from the development of the school and dwellings and the diversion on Cadhay Lane and apart from the apparent lack of school staff numbers (6.2.2.) referred to above, I have no reason to doubt the figures put forward or their future growth analysis.

Development Proposals:

Primary School 6.2.2. The existing Tipton St John Primary School is located at the centre of Tipton St John close to the River Otter and has approximately 95 pupils and 20 staff. Following the proposed relocation, the school will accommodate 210 pupils. The existing Tipton St John Primary School has approximately 95 pupils and 20 staff which equates to a pupil/staff ratio of 0.21 staff per pupil. If this ratio is maintained at the new site it would mean that, at capacity, there would be 44 staff and 210 pupils, making a total of 254 two-way people movements per day attracted to the school site. Whilst the TA gives TRICS data for 210 pupils it does not appear to give details of the staffing ratios at the comparison sites or any proposed staffing numbers for the new school. Therefore the Local Highway Authority wishes to know what the proposed staffing levels at the new school are likely to be, at capacity, and whether these staff movements have been accounted for in the predicted school movements and in the total movement predictions for the development overall.

School Clubs: In recent years with multi-occupational households it is has been the trend for Primary and other Schools to offer out-of-hour school clubs so that pupils can be offered breakfast prior to the school academic day and a variety of school clubs after the school day. These clubs have the effect of extending some pupil and staff movements to and from school to outside of those times normally associated with the start and finish of the school day and whilst such movements are hard to quantify. It should be noted that especially in the afternoon/evening, attendance of after school clubs, travel movements can be extended into the evening travel peak hour of 17:00 - 18:00, whereas movements to the school in the morning peak tend to correspond with the existing peak travel time of 08:00 - 09:00.

150 Dwellings

As these can only be indicative at present, I have no comment to make about them.

New Roundabout

The proposed new roundabout will require more detailed designs at the reserved matters stage. It is thought that a midi-sized four arm roundabout would be adequate to serve the traffic from the development and that diverted from Cadhay lane. There will be adequate pedestrian crossing points on all arms of the roundabout.

20/1504/MOUT page 91 New Junction from Cadhay Lane The development proposes a new access junction to the site from Cadhay Lane. It is intended to change the priority of southbound vehicles so that they will use this junction to the development 'Through Route' to the new roundabout and then either go east towards the town centre or west towards the A30 and its connections to Exeter and other localities.

The County Highway Authority reserves the right to comment on any further applications for this development.

Recommendation:

THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, RECOMMENDS THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN ANY GRANT OF PERMISSION

1. Prior to commencement of any part of the site the Planning Authority shall have received and approved a Construction Management Plan (CMP) including: (a) the timetable of the works; (b) daily hours of construction; (c) any road closure; (d) hours during which delivery and construction traffic will travel to and from the site, with such vehicular movements being restricted to between 8:00am and 6pm Mondays to Fridays inc.; 9.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays, and no such vehicular movements taking place on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays unless agreed by the planning Authority in advance; (e) the number and sizes of vehicles visiting the site in connection with the development and the frequency of their visits; (f) the compound/location where all building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste will be stored during the demolition and construction phases; (g) areas on-site where delivery vehicles and construction traffic will load or unload building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste with confirmation that no construction traffic or delivery vehicles will park on the County highway for loading or unloading purposes, unless prior written agreement has been given by the Local Planning Authority; (h) hours during which no construction traffic will be present at the site; (i) the means of enclosure of the site during construction works; and (j) details of proposals to promote car sharing amongst construction staff in order to limit construction staff vehicles parking off-site (k) details of wheel washing facilities and obligations (l) The proposed route of all construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes. (m) Details of the amount and location of construction worker parking. (n) Photographic evidence of the condition of adjacent public highway prior to commencement of any work;

2. This permission shall not constitute an approval of the internal layout plan submitted with the application, because it has been treated as being for illustrative purposes only

20/1504/MOUT page 92 REASON: For the avoidance of doubt

3. No development shall take place until details of the layout and construction of the accesses have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the development is brought into use. REASON: To ensure the layout and construction of the access is safe in accordance with the NPPF.

Natural England

DESIGNATED SITES [EUROPEAN] - FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED

Habitats Regulations Assessment - Recreational Impacts on European Sites This development falls within the 'zone of influence' for the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC, as set out in the Local Plan and the South East Devon European Sites Mitigation Strategy (SEDEMS). It is anticipated that new housing development in this area is 'likely to have a significant effect', when considered either alone or in combination, upon the interest features of the SAC/SPA due to the risk of increased recreational pressure caused by that development.

In line with the SEDEMS and the Joint Approach of Exeter City Council, Teignbridge District Council and East Devon District Council, we advise that mitigation will be required to prevent such harmful effects from occurring as a result of this development. Permission should not be granted until such time as the implementation of these measures has been secured. Natural England's advice is that this proposed development, and the application of these measures to avoid or reduce the likely harmful effects from it, may need to be formally checked and confirmed by your Authority, as the competent authority, via an appropriate assessment in view of the European Site's conservation objectives and in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2017 (as amended).

This is because Natural England notes that the recent People Over Wind Ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union concluded that, when interpreting article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, it is not appropriate when determining whether or not a plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a site and requires an appropriate assessment, to take account of measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on that site. The ruling also concluded that such measures can, however, be considered during an appropriate assessment to determine whether a plan or project will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European site. Your Authority should have regard to this and may wish to seek its own legal advice to fully understand the implications of this ruling in this context.

Natural England advises that it is a matter for your Authority to decide whether an appropriate assessment of this proposal is necessary in light of this ruling. In accordance with the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), Natural England must be consulted on any appropriate assessment your Authority may decide to make.

20/1504/MOUT page 93 Sites of Special Scientific Interest Impact Risk Zones The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires local planning authorities to consult Natural England on "Development in or likely to affect a Site of Special Scientific Interest" (Schedule 4, w). Our SSSI Impact Risk Zones are a GIS dataset designed to be used during the planning application validation process to help local planning authorities decide when to consult Natural England on developments likely to affect a SSSI. The dataset and user guidance can be accessed from the data.gov.uk website

Protected Species

We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species.

Natural England has produced standing advice[1] 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 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. Net gain (East Devon)

We advise you to follow the mitigation hierarchy as set out in paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and firstly consider what existing environmental features on and around the site can be retained or enhanced or what new features could be incorporated into the development proposal.

In accordance with the paras 170 & 174 of the NPPF, opportunities to achieve a measurable net gain for biodiversity should be sought through the delivery of this development. Note however this metric does not change existing protected site requirements. In the Chancellor's 2019 Spring Statement, the government announced that it "…will mandate net gains for biodiversity on new developments in England to deliver an overall increase in biodiversity".

Accordingly and to future proof the proposed development, we advise that the proposals are reviewed in light of this commitment towards the delivery of biodiversity net gain. On 29 July 2019, Natural England released the updated and improved Biodiversity Metric 2.0. This replaces the earlier 'Defra biodiversity metric'.

We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

20/1504/MOUT page 94 Contaminated Land Officer

The site appears to be predominantly farmland. However, it is located on the edge of existing development and several former pits are shown to have been located within the site boundary. We would therefore recommend that the following condition (CT3) be applied to any permission granted.

Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development, other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation, must not commence until conditions 1 to 4 below have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until condition 4 has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

1. Site Characterisation An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include:

(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination.

(ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:

Human health, Property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, Adjoining land, Groundwaters and surface waters, Ecological systems, Archeological sites and ancient monuments.

(iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agencys Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11.

2. Submission of Remediation Scheme Where identified as necessary as a result of the findings of the investigation above, a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared and submitted for approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria,

20/1504/MOUT page 95 timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

3. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development (other than any part of the development required to carry out remediation), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and will be subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

4. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination In the event that contamination is found at any time during the approved development works that was not previously identified, the findings must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. A new investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 1 above and where remediation is necessary a new remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 2. This must be subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 3.

5. Long Term Monitoring and Maintenance Where identified as necessary, a monitoring and maintenance scheme to include monitoring the longterm effectiveness of the proposed remediation over a period to be agreed with the LPA, and the provision of reports on the same must be prepared, both of which will be subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of the measures identified in that scheme and when the remediation objectives have been achieved, reports that demonstrate the effectiveness of the monitoring and maintenance carried out must be produced, and submitted to the Local Planning Authority. This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agencys Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, are minimised and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy EN16.

20/1504/MOUT page 96 Housing Strategy Officer Melissa Wall

This sites lies outside the built up area boundary for Ottery St Mary and therefore is considered open countryside. In accordance with Strategy 34 we should be seeking 50% affordable housing on-site.

The applicant has submitted a viability assessment as part of their application and is proposing to provide 30% (45 units) as affordable housing. The offer of 30% affordable housing takes into account the shortfall in funding for the school of £5.2 m and the need to generate a land value of this figure to enable the school to be built. The tenure mix of the affordable units is as per policy with 70% for rent and 30% for other routes into home ownership such as shared ownership. This would amount to 32 units for rent and 13 home ownership. This viability assessment was jointly commissioned by EDDC and DCC and the lower level of affordable housing has been agreed due to the exceptional circumstances.

Under strategy 34 where less than policy compliant levels of affordable housing are being provided an overage clause will be sought within the S106 agreement, this also applies where the residential development is 'enabling development' and a reduction in affordable housing helps to ensure another planning objective is achieved. As in this situation the new houses and disposal of development land with planning permission will assist and enable the delivery of another objective, a new school. Therefore I would expect to see an overage clause in the Section 106 agreement.

Ottery has seen large amounts of development in recent years and with this affordable housing. These affordable units have all now been delivered. Despite this there is still a good level of housing need with 91 applicants in bands A-D wanting affordable rented homes in Ottery St Mary and a further 74 in band E. The current need for affordable rented homes in the district is 2,309 (bands A-D) which rises to 4,242 when you include band E. The need is mostly for 1 and 2 bedrooms although there is also need for 3 and 4 bedroom family homes for rent. The provision of affordable homes on-site should meet the need and provide a mix of house sizes for rent with more 1 and 2 beds. Any flats should be very carefully designed and large blocks avoided as these tend to have management issues. The affordable units should be tenure blind and pepper potted throughout the site.

Devon County Archaeologist

I refer to the above application and your recent consultation. A programme of archaeological investigation has been undertaken across the proposed development site. These investigations have demonstrated that the archaeological potential of the site is low and that the scale and situation of this development will not have any impact upon any significant heritage assets.

No further archaeological mitigation is required and the Historic Environment Team has no comments to make on this planning application

20/1504/MOUT page 97 Devon County Council Education Dept

Devon County Council as the Education Authority fully supports the above planning application which would enable the relocation of Tipton St John Primary School out of the floodplain, provide high quality educational facilities and ensure that the future need for additional primary pupil places within Ottery St Mary and the surrounding villages can be met.

Currently there is a real health and safety concern at Tipton St John Primary School as the lower site is located in the flood plain (EA flood zone 3) and there is a significant risk of flooding of both the access road and the school buildings. The school has experienced flooding in recent years, including 2016, twice in 2014 and once in 2012. The Environment Agency has advised that the school is at a high risk of flooding and that this risk will increase as a result of climate change and that all efforts should be made to relocate the school to a safer location in accordance with Government planning policy.

The existing school timber buildings on the lower site are cramped and inadequate and need almost continuous repair specifically to the lower structure to remedy the decay.

For over a decade the Education Authority has actively explored funding opportunities and potential sites for a new school in the vicinity of Tipton St John, however these have been unsuccessful The search for a new site has been widen to Ottery St Mary because looking at current and future cohorts of children attending Tipton St John Primary School, it is clearly apparent that the majority of pupils do not live within the school's catchment area and this trend is only set to increase. At the same time there is an increasing need for primary school places to be provided within Ottery St Mary. The statutory responsibility for ensuring there are sufficient places rest with the Education Authority and as such needs to fund the relocation. The cost of a new 210 place primary school is estimated at £7.2 million and therefore there is an estimated £5.2 million shortfall in funding with no obvious funding stream from government hence the mixed-use application with all proceeds from residential land funding the new school.

Retaining the school on its current site isn't a sustainable option. From the perspective of the Education Authority, the proposal which is the subject of this planning application is currently the only feasible deliverable option for Tipton St John Primary School to be relocated out of the flood plain and to have new buildings. Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

EDDC Landscape Architect - Chris Hariades

(For full response see website)

Conclusion

The application site falls outside of the Built-Up Area Boundary for Ottery St Mary. Although there is an allocation in the southwest corner of the site for education/

20/1504/MOUT page 98 community use the illustrative layout plan shows housing proposed for this location. None of the application is therefore supported in the Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plan.

Contrary to the findings of the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment the site is considered to have unacceptable landscape and visual impacts due to its elevated open position within a predominantly rural context, beyond the established urban envelope. The topography of the site with moderately steep to steep slopes would present design challenges and would make it difficult to achieve the layout shown in the illustrative site plan.

There is a lack of detail information provided for the proposed site access points which form part of the outline application and which would be required to make a proper assessment of their appropriateness.

For the above reasons the application is considered contrary to the following Local Plan Policies: Strategy 37 (Development in the Countryside); Strategy 46 - Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs; D1 (Local Distinctiveness) and should be refused on this basis

South West Water

I refer to the above application and would advise that South West Water has no objection subject to foul flows only being connected to the public combined sewer network.

It is noted that the FRA submitted with the application proposes a potential discharge of surface water to the public combined sewer in Exeter Road which is unacceptable.

Surface water must either be managed by one of the following;

On site by means of ground infiltration.

Discharge to the Thorn Farm Stream to the north.

Discharged to the dedicated public surface water sewer located in Thorn Farm Way as shown in blue on the attached plan. (Found in the documents section)

Exeter & Devon Airport - Airfield Operations+Safeguarding

This proposal has been examined from an Aerodrome Safeguarding aspect and does not appear to conflict with safeguarding criteria providing that the recommendations within the Cyrrus NDB Technical Safeguarding Assessment CL- 5474-RPT-002 1.0, which is based on revised plan NPS-DR-A-(00)-001 Rev P3, are adhered to and it is assured that the heights of the highlighted houses 124-131 are limited to 61.5m AMSL and the roofs are pitched at approximately 45 degrees for these plots and that metallic substances, such as foil backed insulation, tiles with high metallic content or supporting metallic structure, are not used for the

20/1504/MOUT page 99 construction of the roof elements. Solar panels either PV or Thermal should not be allowed for these plots also.

Additionally, due to the proximity of the development to the airports navigational aid it is recommended that additional security measures are employed to reduce the risk to life from contact with high voltage and the risk to aviation security by interference with a navigational aid. Security fencing and increased signage to secure the site is recommended to ensure the site is protected.

Accordingly, Exeter Airport will have no safeguarding objections to this development provided the recommendations are implemented and adhered to and there are no changes made to the current application.

Kindly note that this reply does not automatically allow further developments in this area without prior consultation with Exeter Airport.

NHS Local

Introduction Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The creation and maintenance of healthy communities is an essential component of sustainability as articulated in the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework, which is a significant material consideration. Development plans have to be in conformity with the NPPF and less weight should be given to policies that are not consistent with the NPPF. Consequently, local planning policies along with development management decisions also have to be formulated with a view to securing sustainable healthy communities. Access to health services is a fundamental part of sustainable healthy community.

As the attached document demonstrates, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (the Trust) is currently operating at full capacity in the provision of acute and planned healthcare.

It is further demonstrated that this development will create potentially long term impact on the Trust ability provide services as required.

The Trust’s funding is based on previous year’s activity it has delivered subject to satisfying the quality requirements set down in the NHS Standard Contract. Quality requirements are linked to the on-time delivery of care and intervention and are evidenced by best clinical practice to ensure optimal outcomes for patients. The contract is agreed annually based on previous year’s activity plus any pre- agreed additional activity for clinical services. The Trust is unable to take into consideration the Council’s housing land supply, potential new developments and housing trajectories when the contracts are negotiated.

Further, the following year’s contract does not pay previous year’s deficit retrospectively. This development creates an impact on the Trust’s ability provide a services required due to the funding gap it creates. The contribution sought is to mitigate this direct impact.

20/1504/MOUT page 100

CIL Regulation 122 and 123 The Trust considers that the request made is in accordance with Regulation 122: “(2) A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is— (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and 4 (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.”

S 106 S 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) allows the Local Planning Authority to request a developer to contribute towards the impact it creates on the services. The contribution in the amount £214,889.00 sought will go towards the gap in the funding created by each potential patient from this development. The detailed explanation and calculation are provided within the attached document. Without the requested contribution, the access to adequate health services is rendered more vulnerable thereby undermining the sustainability credentials of the proposed development due to conflict with NPPF and Local Development Plan policies as explained in the attached document

Further comments 16.12.20:

The attached was submitted on the Trust’s behalf in connection with planning application 20/1504 for land at Barrack Farm, Exeter Road, Ottery St Mary.

We would be grateful if both documents might be removed from further consideration by the Council in connection with this specific planning application.

Devon County Council, Minerals & Waste

Land opposite Barrack Farm, Exeter Road, Ottery St Mary (20/1504/MOUT) I refer to your consultation of 1st October 2020 concerning the above application, which was sent some time after validation of the application. My understanding is that the consultation was prompted by an enquiry by the applicant, and I wish to underline the importance of your Council meeting its statutory obligation to consult with the County Council in its role as mineral planning authority for applications falling within a Mineral Consultation Area.

The western part of the application site, including the proposed school and some of the proposed housing indicated on the illustrative masterplan, lies within the Mineral Consultation Area for the nearby sand and gravel resource. The extent of this resource is defined on the Policies Map for the Devon Minerals Plan by a Mineral Safeguarding Area, which extends to within 50m of the western boundary of the application site.

The Devon Minerals Plan forms part of the statutory development plan within East Devon, with Policy M2 seeking to protect mineral resources within Mineral Safeguarding Areas from sterilisation or constraint by non-mineral development. Table 8.1 of the Plan indicates that the resource within the vicinity of the application site - the Budleigh Salterton Pebble Beds - is a strategic resource of County importance.

20/1504/MOUT page 101

The application is accompanied by a 'Preliminary Mineral Resource Assessment', which concludes that "the proposed development will not sterilise important mineral resources" and that "the mineral resource at the site is not of strategic importance". However, it is considered that this Assessment is flawed for the following reasons: (a) the Assessment's consideration of resource sterilisation seems to be limited to the mineral resource within the site, rather than considering the potential constraint on areas of resource within the neaby Mineral Safeguarding Areas; and (b) the discussion in section 4.5 of the Assessment disregards the long term purpose of mineral safeguarding, which is to avoid the permanent sterilisation of mineral resources and ensure their availability well beyond the period of the current Minerals Plan. The availability of sufficient sand and gravel resources at allocated sites is not a sound reason to allow sterilisation of unallocated resources that may be required in the long term when allocated resources have been worked out.

It is recognised that there are no economic sand and gravel resources underlying the application site, and direct sterilisation of the mineral resource will not occur through the proposed development. However, it is necessary to consider the potential for the development to constrain future extraction of mineral resources within the nearby Mineral Safeguarding Area through introduction of land uses that are sensitive to the effects of quarrying including housing and a school.

Directly to the west of the application site is an outcrop of the Peble Beds that sits astride the B3174 and includes commercial and residential premises to the south of that road. Given the limited extent of this area of resource and the constraints on potential extraction imposed by the road and existing properties, it is considered that this block of sand and gravel is unlikely to be economic to quarry now or in the future.

To the north west of the application site, between Cadhay Bog and Cadhay Wood, is a more substantial block of sand and gravel that is of comparable extent to the area at Straitgate Farm allocated for extraction by Policy M12 of the Devon Minerals Plan. While there may be hydrogeological and ecological constraints on extraction within this area, future quarrying cannot be ruled out at this stage and a precautionary approach to the safeguarding of this resource from constraint by other development should be taken in line with Policy M2.

At its closest point, the application site would be around 200m from the edge of this block of sand and gravel resource, with the illustrative site layout indicating that the areas closest to the resource would be used for SuDS attenuation, habitat areas, public open space and sports field, with new housing and the school building located further away. It is considered that this degree of separation between quarrying and sensitive properties is likely to be adequate to prevent future mineral extraction within the area to the north west of the application site having adverse impacts through noise and dust on future residents and school users, assuming that standard environmental control measures are included in any future mineral planning permission.

Based on the discussion above, it is concluded that the proposed residential and school development would not sterilise or constrain sand and gravel resources within the nearby Mineral Safeguarding Areas and that the proposal accords with Policy M2 of the Devon Minerals Plan. Devon County Council therefore has no objection in its

20/1504/MOUT page 102 role of mineral planning authority. Details of this application have been passed to the Devon Stone Federation (DSF) by Andy Hill, the Devon Minerals Officer. The DSF represents aggregate mineral operators in Devon and is a consultee for planning proposals within Mineral Safeguarding Areas and Mineral Consultation Areas defined in the adopted Devon Minerals Plan. In commenting on applications, the DSF considers whether the proposals are consistent with Policy M2 of the Devon Minerals Plan, which seeks to prevent mineral resources from being sterilised by incompatible surface development.

In this case the proposal is an outline application for a substantial new residential development with a school, public open space, access and drainage, including a SUDS area with only access reserved. The western part of the site lies within a Mineral Consultation Area defined to protect the adjacent sand and gravel deposit from sterilisation from sensitive surface development.

The application is accompanied by a Mineral Resource Assessment, but the DSF does not support the conclusions that as there are no aggregate resources within the site itself, the development does not have potential to sterilise the nearby mineral resources. The Mineral Consultation Area was defined as a buffer surrounding the nearby Mineral Safeguarding Area to identify land within which new development may have potential to constrain the future extraction of the nearby mineral depending on its sensitivity. Furthermore the claim that there are adequate resources allocated within the current Mineral Plan to meet the landbank requirements is not a relevant consideration. Mineral safeguarding is intended as a long term measure to help ensure that essential aggregate resources area available for future generations. The latest version of the Mineral Safeguarding Guidance jointly published by the BGS and the Planning Officers Society is available via this link https://mineralproducts.org/documents/MPA_POS_Minerals_Safeguarding_Guidanc e_Document.pdf

The DSF notes that the nearest part of the Mineral Safeguarding Area, to the west of the site, is already constrained by the B3174 and existing development, however to the north west is a larger block, which retails the potential for extraction in the long term and therefore the possibility for sensitive development to sterilise the underlying mineral remains.

We note however that the illustrative layout submitted with the outline application shows the north western part of the site, closest to this larger block as open space, SUDs and school sports field. Provided the layout that is submitted at the detailed stage remains as shown on the illustrative layout or similar, then the DSF does not consider that these uses are sufficiently sensitive to potential future extraction of the sand and gravel in the deposit to the north west to justify grounds for objection in principle to the proposals in this outline application.

However we request that should the Council grant permission that it ensures that DCC as the Mineral Planning Authority, and the DSF as the appropriate body representing the mineral operators are both consulted at the detailed stage.

20/1504/MOUT page 103 Other Representations

A significant number of representations have been received in relation to the application. These include 132 objections to the development, and 17 in support. A wide range of issues have been raised by the objectors. The most frequent concerns are as follows:

The proposal is contrary to the Development Plan (91 comments); traffic and highway issues (78); flooding issues (60); the infrastructure of Ottery is unable to cope (66); School should remain in Tipton (38); Questioning the funding of the development (21); the impact on Cadhay Lane (17); impact on Kings School ( 17); too much housing in Ottery already ( 13); surface water run off issues (9); impact on wildlife (9); there is no flooding at the Tipton site (6); impact on County wildlife site/ Cadhay bog (5); lack of local jobs (4); the roundabout is not needed (4); loss of agricultural land (4); issues regarding the flightpath(3); loss of hedgerows and trees (3); the Ottery hospital site should be used (3); lack of local jobs (4); and the impact on the quarry (3).

Comments in support of the proposal state the following: The issue of flooding is real (8 comments); the proposed school better reflects the catchment area (7); all options for the school have been considered (6); the existing school buildings are at the end of their life (6); better school facilities are needed (5); the scheme helps with traffic on Exeter Road (3); the Neighbourhood Plan says school places are needed (3)

PLANNING HISTORY

None

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies

Strategy 2 (Scale and Distribution of Residential Development)

Strategy 1 (Spatial Strategy for Development in East Devon)

Strategy 3 (Sustainable Development)

Strategy 4 (Balanced Communities)

Strategy 5 (Environment)

Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside)

Strategy 24 (Development at Ottery St Mary)

Strategy 34 (District Wide Affordable Housing Provision Targets)

20/1504/MOUT page 104 Strategy 36 (Accessible and Adaptable Homes and Care/Extra Care Homes)

Strategy 37 (Community Safety)

Strategy 38 (Sustainable Design and Construction)

Strategy 43 (Open Space Standards)

Strategy 49 (The Historic Environment)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D2 (Landscape Requirements)

D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

EN4 (Protection of Local Nature Reserves, County Wildlife Sites and County Geological Sites)

EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features)

EN8 (Significance of Heritage Assets and their setting)

EN13 (Development on High Quality Agricultural Land)

EN14 (Control of Pollution)

EN21 (River and Coastal Flooding)

EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development)

H2 (Range and Mix of New Housing Development)

RC5 (Community Buildings)

RC6 (Local Community Facilities)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development)

TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways)

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones)

Ottery St Mary and West Hill Neighbourhood Plan (Made)

Policy NP1: Development in the Countryside

20/1504/MOUT page 105 Policy NP2: Sensitive, High Quality Design Policy NP4: Settlement Containment Policy NP5: Local Green Spaces Policy NP7: Flood Defences Policy NP8: Protection of Local Wildlife Sites and Features of Ecological Value Policy NP9: Accessible Developments Policy NP12: Appropriate Housing Mix Policy NP13: Accessible and Adaptable Homes Policy NP14: Demonstrating Infrastructure Capacity Policy NP16: Supporting Schools Policy NP25: Land Identified for Education uses in Ottery St Mary

Government Planning Documents

NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

Site description

The site comprises of three fields of 10.3ha. They are situated to the West of Ottery St Mary, on the left hand side of Exeter Road when approached from the Daisymount roundabout, and on the west side of Cadhay Lane. The fields are currently let to tenant farmers and are used for intermittent grazing. There are hedgerows between the fields. The site slopes up from Exeter Road to the north and west, and thence slopes down towards a small brook on the Northern boundary. An area of woodland is within the north-west corner of the site. The site is bordered to the East by Kings School and a skatepark, with some houses on Cadhay Lane and Exeter Road. The remainder of the site is bordered by farmland and woodland.

Proposal

This is an outline application for the development of a new primary school and up to 150 new homes. The school would be situated in the Western part of the site. The homes would be distributed across the remainder of the site. A new access point is proposed to be created on Exeter Road, and a new through road to Cadhay Lane would also be created. Various estate roads are also shown on the layout plan.

The proposal is for 30% of the houses to be affordable.

The application has arisen due to the need to relocate the existing Tipton St John Primary School away from its current location. It has been identified in the accompanying viability report (which has been independently assessed) that in order to fund the relocation of the school, approximately £5.2m in funding is required which cannot be met from existing funding. As a result, the report identifies a number of scenarios which would deliver this amount of funding, including options for up to 175 homes, and up to 35% affordable housing.

The conclusion of the viability report was that in order to construct the school, 175 dwellings would be needed with 30% affordable housing. However, a scheme of 150

20/1504/MOUT page 106 dwellings which would achieve a deficit of £0.6m was chosen with the County Council taking the financial risk that this may not achieve the full amount of funding. It is understood that other funding will be used to make up this deficit.

ANALYSIS

The main considerations in the determination of this application relate to  The principle of the proposed development  Affordable Housing  Design and Layout  Loss of agricultural land  Appropriate assessment  Impact on the setting of the listed building(s)  Impact on highway safety  Impact upon residential amenity  Flooding/surface water drainage  Landscaping  Ecology  Other issues including planning obligations  Planning balance and conclusion

Principle of Development

The site is outside of the development boundary for Ottery St Mary where development is not permitted under Strategy 7 of the Local Plan. There is an allocation for community and education use in part of the site adjacent to Kings School. Strategy 24 of the Local Plan states that this is required due to further development within Ottery St Mary generating the need for additional primary school provision. An area of land in the North in the proximity of the stream is designated as a flood risk area, with the area of woodland to the North West designated a County Wildlife Site. Due to the location outside of the development boundary, there is a requirement for 50% of any proposed housing to be affordable, which is less than the 30% put forward in this proposal.

A neighbourhood plan has been adopted for Ottery St Mary and West Hill parishes. The proposal conflicts with policy NP1 of the Plan, which states that development in the countryside must maintain the rural character of the area, and there are no policies which explicitly support residential development in this location or permit exception to local plan policies.

However the proposal does not conflict with Policy NP4 of the NP because it is not shown as an area of containment between Ottery and West Hill on the proposals map, and NP16 which promotes the provision of new and expanded schools within the parish. Policy NP25 also promotes the use of the site identified in the Local Plan for education and community purposes for the provision of a new school, providing it is demonstrated that it is not required by the Kings School.

The proposal has therefore been advertised as a departure from the development plan. It is acknowledged that the school is not situated in the location allocated in the Local Plan, and that there is no policy support for housing. The applicant argues that there is a specific need for a school in this area in order to replace a school which

20/1504/MOUT page 107 requires to be relocated from Tipton St John, and that residential development is required in order to fund the building of the school. Furthermore, the applicant argues that the requirement for 50% affordable housing would result in inadequate receipts in order to build the school. A viability appraisal has been submitted with the application.

The applicant argues that there is a specific need for a school in this area in order to replace a school which requires to be relocated from Tipton St John, and that residential development is required in order to fund the building of the school.

The comments of the applicant are supported by many others, in particular the Board of Governors of the existing school, who state the following:

“The school has a small, split site divided into two by a road. The lower site of the school is on a floodplain and is vulnerable to flooding along the road and submergence of the grounds around the buildings. The result is an inability to guarantee safe access and egress from the site and a large order flood can cause the incursion of water into the classrooms, as happened in 2008.

“The Board has worked with the Environment Agency (EA), Devon County Council, local councillors and the MP to mitigate the flood risk but the minor improvement works undertaken by the EA since 2016 to manage surface water issues on the Metcombe Brook in the area around Tipton Vale were intended to have a 'benefit in managing flows for low order flood events on the Metcombe Brook, but will be insignificant for large order (i.e. more extreme) events and flooding from the River Otter.' (See EA letter November 2019 in Appendix C of the Planning submission).

“The village of Tipton no longer provides a sustainable number of pupils for a school and the proposed relocation to the western edge of Ottery St Mary is a response to the growing numbers of primary age children in the Ottery area whist remaining as close to Tipton St John village as possible and near to The King's School, to which the vast majority of the pupils progress.

The children of Tipton St John village will continue to be within the catchment area of the relocated school.

“A new purpose-built school would provide the pupils and staff with the educational benefits of appropriate space and opportunities within and outside the school, rather than the cramped and inadequate accommodation and facilities on the existing site. There would be a hall, library, school playing fields, classrooms of a size which meet government standards, smaller rooms and spaces for meetings, group work and staff preparation and planning, and also a sufficient number of toilets - all of which are lacking at the existing school.”

There is therefore the requirement to determine whether there are material considerations which would allow for a departure from the development plan, under paragraph 47 of the Framework. This will be discussed at the end of the report.

20/1504/MOUT page 108 Affordable Housing

The site is outside of the built up area boundary for Ottery and therefore the Local Plan envisages that it should provide 50% affordable housing. The applicants have provided a viability assessment indicating that it is not viable to provide the 50% target, and to build the primary school. This is due to a shortfall in funding to build the school of £5.3m. A number of scenarios have been tested, with the scenario of 175 dwellings and 30% affordable housing producing more than the required funding. However the applicant has put forward a scheme of 150 dwellings with 30% affordable housing, which would deliver less than the required funding, particularly as the viability report was written prior to the inclusion of the new roundabout, which significantly increases costs.

The 30% figure would amount to 45 units, which under the policy of the Council would equate to 32 units for rent and 13 for shared ownership.

Although the figure is less than the 50% policy requirement, the delivery of 30% affordable housing is welcomed and there is a need within Ottery for affordable housing. Should the application be approved, this would be subject to an overage agreement which would ensure that a percentage of any additional profit comes to the Council to provide additional affordable housing in the area.

Design and Layout

Scale, layout and appearance are reserved matters which are required to be considered in detail with a subsequent application, however indicative plans are submitted and it is necessary to consider the siting and potential design of the school and residential areas.

The school is proposed within the Western part of the site, just below its highest point. It is proposed as a 210-space primary school arranged in a rectangular fashion approximately 50 metres by 20 metres. To the rear (West) it is proposed to site sports fields flanked by habitat areas. A small parking area for staff and visitors is proposed in front of the school.

The housing is proposed to be arranged along the frontage of Exeter Road and a series of streets, including a block of apartments in the centre of the site. There is some housing on the North field although no development is proposed close to the flood plain or within the Western part of the field, close to the Cadhay Bog Wildlife Site.

In order to access the housing, it is shown that the hedgerows will need to be breached in four locations.

Loss of agricultural Land

The proposal would result in the loss of agricultural land. Policy EN13 of the Local Plan protects the Best and Most Versatile land from development. This is described as land within Grades 1, 2 and 3a under the agricultural classification system. The land is shown in the mapping system as Grade 3 and is not subdivided further.

20/1504/MOUT page 109 The land is used mainly for grazing, although some part of the land at the highest part has been used for maize growing in the past. Due to the sloping nature of the remainder of the land it is not considered suitable for intensive agricultural use. It should also be noted that one of the fields is allocated in the local plan for non- agricultural use. On this basis is not considered that the proposal would result in the significant loss of BMV agricultural land.

Habitat Regulations and Appropriate Assessment:

Natural England has advised that an Appropriate Assessment must be carried out as the site lies within close proximity of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths, this assessment must consider whether the proposal will adequately mitigate any likely significant effects of the aforementioned area. This has been included as a separate report. It is considered that the proposal adequately mitigates any impacts upon the Pebblebed Heaths and will not result in any likely significant effects. Natural England have been given 21 days to comment on this appropriate assessment. Assuming that they are happy with the report, and subject to securing the necessary financial contribution through a S.106 Agreement, the proposal will not have any likely significant effects and is acceptable in this regard

Conservation and Archaeology

The closest buildings to the site which are listed are approximately 750 metres from the closest point of the site. These are Cadhay House, which is Grade 1 listed, and Otter Mill, which is Grade 2 listed. The Grade 2 Registered Park and Garden at Cadhay is some 590m north of the site.

Because of the elevation of the site it will be visible from various parts of the Conservation Area, however there are no long or short distance views from the Conservation Area which will be directed towards the proposal site. Glimpses are possible at long range from the Heritage Assets, particularly Cadhay House, and the Grade II* Listed Chanters House. These are long distance views from which it is difficult to appreciate aspects of historic significance. Overall, the proposed development is not considered to affect the aspects of setting that contribute towards the significance of either the Conservation Area or other heritage assets and would not affect the ability to appreciate their significance.

There is considered to be potential for previously unknown below-ground archaeological deposits to be present within this landscape and the central and southern parts of the site are considered to have topographical potential for both prehistoric burials (in the form of ring ditches around former barrows) and later prehistoric/Romano-British settlement. However, the archaeological potential of the site is low and that the scale and situation of this development will not have any impact upon any significant heritage assets. The County Archaeologist has stated that no further archaeological mitigation is required

Highways

Whilst the proposal is in outline, matters of access are not reserved matters and therefore are required to be considered in full with this proposal. The proposed

20/1504/MOUT page 110 accesses to the site are from a new roundabout on Exeter Road, and a new junction onto Cadhay Lane. In addition, a number of internal roads are shown on indicative plans, although these can be considered as reserved matters as part of the layout.

The new roundabout proposed as part of the scheme is a 4 arm 'midi' roundabout, designed to slow traffic entering the town from the Exeter direction. This would address current issues of speeding into the town. The fourth arm is to enable safe access to Barrack Farm.

The Cadhay Lane junction has been designed to ensure that traffic generated by the development does not impact on the area around the entrance to The King's School and leisure facilities. In addition this acts as an alternative route for those using Exeter Road to access Cadhay and Fairmile, without having to use part of Cadhay Lane which is particularly busy at the start and end of school days.

In addition, a proposed emergency access is shown on Exeter Road, closer to the existing housing. It is stated that this will be for emergency vehicles only.

A Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA) has been submitted. This is a thorough assessment of the scheme as submitted in terms of any highway design or safety issues. The audit identified a number of problems which required solutions. These include provision of pedestrian dropped crossings, continuation of footways, facilities for crossing the roundabout for cyclists, widening of the proposed footway along Exeter Road, a refuge island opposite the bus stop, adequate road surfacing, adequate surface water drainage, visibility checks, new layout warning signs, extension of the speed limit on Cadhay Lane, and the cutting back of vegetation at the Cadhay Lane junction.

The RSA has been responded to by the designers. Many of the issues (such as road surfacing and drainage) will be addressed at the detailed design stage. The design response challenges the need to give priority to those on Cadhay Lane, and to extend the footway along Cadhay Lane.

The Highway Authority notes that the application is in outline form only but with access to be determined. On that basis, it deems the proposal for the new roundabout and Cadhay Lane access acceptable, whilst noting that there is a requirement for detailed technical designs for these to be submitted, and that the internal layout is not approved at this stage.

Drainage

The site is mainly located within Flood Zone 1, meaning a low risk of flooding. A small area along the northern boundary adjacent to the watercourse known as Thorne Farm Stream is identified as medium risk (Flood Zones 2 and 3). The proposed layout shows this to be undeveloped or public open space.

In addition to fluvial flooding, the site has been assessed for potential flooding from surface water. Currently the area is at low risk from surface water flooding, however the introduction of built development has the potential to alter this, and surface water will need to be managed by an appropriately designed drainage system.

20/1504/MOUT page 111 It is proposed to use infiltration systems or soakaways in order to control the runoff. However, soakaway testing has not been completed and in order to mitigate any increase in volume, long term storage is proposed in the form of attenuation basins on the northern and southern ends of the site, which would capture water coming down from the more elevated parts of the site.

The foul drainage will require a pumping station to serve the northern catchment, with a pumped rising main link to the southern parts of the site before a gravity connection to the existing combined SWW sewer.

A management plan will need to be drawn up which considers the responsibilities of each part of the drainage system, this will include the maintenance of SuDs within the site.

After an initial objection from the lead local flood authority (LLFA) and the Environment Agency (EA), a revised flood risk assessment was submitted, this resulted in objections being withdrawn. The LLFA have withdrawn their objection subject to conditions which include information on soakaway results, a detailed drainage design, proposals during construction and details of adoption.

Landscaping

A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment was submitted with the application. This show the landscape setting of the site, considers the proposal from key views and makes an assessment of local landscape character.

The key views which have been assessed as having a high impact are in the following areas- Cadhay Lane, Pixie Walk and properties adjacent to the school. In addition the area around St Saviours Road further within the town, which has views towards the site. The view from a number of footpaths will also be affected, including footpath 94 (Cadhay), 23 (River walk), 50 (Sidmouth Road) and 18/19 (Chineway Hill). The latter is over 2 miles from the site but on an elevated position directly looking over the town and to the fields beyond.

The conclusions of this assessment are that the construction phase results in temporary large and medium adverse effects on the area. It states that the impact on the area will be noticeable and will become part of the urban edge in time. There are considered to be moderate, or slightly adverse impacts after the construction phase on Cadhay Lane, St Saviours Road and footpaths in Cadhay and on Chineway Hill.

The findings of this report have been challenged by the Council's Landscape Officer, who states that the site has an unacceptable landscape and visual impact due to its elevated open position beyond the established urban envelope. There is also a criticism of the methodology used in the taking of the photographs and the omission of key view points.

The applicant has responded to many of the technical points and has included further viewpoints and photographs. However, there is clearly an agreement that the

20/1504/MOUT page 112 proposed development will change the built form of the town and will be noticeable from key viewpoints within the town and to the east.

Ecology

A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal report was undertaken in May 2019. Bat activity and dormouse surveys were subsequently undertaken during 2019. The Ecological Impact Assessment draws on this information and includes an updated desk study to provide baseline data for the Site and assess the ecological implications of the development.

The site comprises improved and poor semi-improved grassland fields bound by hedgerows with woodland and a vegetated stream present in the north. The Site lies 3.65km from the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC/ East Devon Heaths SPA, and Cadhay Bog County Wildlife Site borders the north west of the Site. The Site itself was found to have evidence of a range of protected and notable species, including badgers, bats, dormice and nesting birds. The Site also has habitat suitable for amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, hedgehog and polecat.

The development will result in the loss of the majority of the grassland and will require removal of multiple hedgerow sections to provide access into and throughout the site. However, the majority of the hedgerow habitat will be retained and the north western field (containing woodland and poor semi-improved grassland) will be outside of the development area and will be managed for wildlife.

The following mitigation and compensation measures are proposed to minimise impacts on important ecological features:  European site mitigation contributions to LPA to offset recreational impacts on East Devon Heaths SPA.  Adherence to a CEMP to minimise impacts of water and air pollution on the designated sites and downstream habitats;  A SuDS scheme will be included to limit impacts from runoff and water pollution, and attenuation ponds created as part of this will be enhanced for wildlife;  Provision of on-site Open Space to provide alternative opportunities for exercising dogs, rather than using CWSs and the SPA/SAC;  Buffer zone to protect Cadhay Bog CWS, including allocation of the north western field as a wildlife area.  Retention and protection of the majority of hedgerows, woodland and stream;  Native hedgerow planting to compensate for habitat loss on a 2:1 basis;  POS to include wildflower grassland and scattered trees;  Retention and protection of badger sett;  Application for a European Protected Species Licence for dormice, with suitable vegetation removed under a Method Statement at an appropriate time of year, taking into account dormice and other wildlife;  Planting of thorny shrubs to deter human and pet access into the CWS, woodland and badger sett;  Lighting strategy for bats and other nocturnal wildlife;  Measures to avoid harm to badgers and other wildlife during construction;

20/1504/MOUT page 113  Installation of bird boxes, dormouse boxes, bat boxes and insect bricks;  Hedgehog holes in solid fences; and,  Long-term management plan to include appropriate management of habitats to maximise wildlife benefits.

The ecological report states that overall, the development will result in a net gain in biodiversity, provided the mitigation and enhancements are undertaken in accordance with the report.

Impact on amenity of residents

There are two area where proposed residential properties are close to existing properties. The indicative site layout shows a number of plots (118-123) which back towards existing properties in Cadhay Close. The closest back to back distance is approximately 25 metres. Whilst this may be an acceptable relationship in terms of overlooking, further details will need to be provided in terms of levels, locations of windows etc. There is the ability to alter the location of these plots at the reserved matters stage, given that layout is a matter yet to be determined and there appears to be scope to rearrange the plots within this area.

There are also a number of plots shown along Exeter Road. These will be separated by the existing houses by a public open space so there will not be an impact from the houses on the existing properties.

Planning obligations

As part of any application of 10 dwellings or more, affordable housing is required. In this case, 30% affordable housing will be required as part of a Section 106 agreement. An overage clause will also be required.

NHS England originally requested the following: - Contribution towards the cost of care of new residents for 1 year following occupation of each dwelling as there is a lag between housing completions and receiving NHS funding - these contributions are for unplanned development i.e. departures from the development plan. At this point in time, the request for funding on non-allocated sites is justified in principle but the evidence behind the amount requested from the NHS is not in sufficient detail to ascertain how the money will be spent and if the amount requested is correct given that different patients would require care others would not. Accordingly, this request is not justified at the present time and does not meet the tests for securing a financial contribution. However, just before the publication of this report this report they asked that their comments be removed from consideration.

Habitat mitigation (non-infrastructure contribution) of £190 per dwelling will also be required.

Other issues

There are a number of issues which have been raised by consultees and objectors which are addressed below.

20/1504/MOUT page 114 It is stated that the site is under the flightpath for planes accessing Exeter Airport. A Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) facility is installed adjacent to the development site. This navigation aid serves aircraft on approaches to Runways 08 and 26 at the Airport. Due to the proximity of the NDB to a number of plots (124-130) these houses should be limited in height and not fitted with metallic substances, including PV and solar cells. Providing these issues are satisfied, there is no objection from the operations manager at Exeter Airport.

The proximity to mineral extraction has been questioned. Whilst there is the potential for future extraction within 200 metres of the site boundary, the degree of separation between quarrying and sensitive properties is likely to be adequate to prevent future mineral extraction within the area having adverse impacts through noise and dust on future residents and school users, assuming that standard environmental control measures are included in any future mineral planning permission.

It has been raised that King's School will be unable to expand or accommodate those within the catchment area. The school current caters for its catchment area and permits students from outside of the area to attend as there is spare capacity. It has been stated that the school does not wish to expand its numbers further and is able to construct new buildings within its existing grounds, as evidenced by a recent application for new classrooms (20/2311/FUL).

It has also been stated that the hospital is underused and could provide an alternative location for the school. It is not considered that this land, even if available, would be sufficiently large enough to accommodate a new primary school, and would result in the loss of a community asset.

It is stated that the flooding issues at Tipton have been overstated, and that the school should remain in the village. Comments in support of the application have been received from many directly involved with the school, who state clearly that the threat from flooding is real, that the existing buildings are no longer suitable for education, and that the school would benefit from relocation. Given that the catchment area for the school also includes Ottery St Mary there is no requirement for the school to remain in Tipton St John.

Planning balance and conclusion

The proposal seeks to provide a new primary school for the area, whist erecting new residential development, and to construct a new road through the site. The development is on greenfield land that is not in accordance with the allocation in Strategy 7 and Strategy 24 of the EDDC Local Plan. As such, the proposal represents a departure from the development plan. It is therefore considered important to undertake an assessment against the three strands of sustainability to ascertain whether the benefits of the proposal (other material considerations) outweigh the harm arising from the proposed development and its location outside of the allocation and BUAB for Ottery St. Mary.

20/1504/MOUT page 115 Economic

The proposal would result in a number of jobs within the construction phase, although these would be temporary. The proposed school will create employment in excess of those already employed at the existing school, due to the increase in the size of the school. Overall the proposed development can be seen to have economic benefits that weigh in favour of the proposal.

Social

The application proposes to provide a 210 space new primary school which will accommodate pupils from Tipton St John, Ottery St Mary and surrounding areas. This will provide better facilities than the current school and become a focal hub in this part of the town and it is likely that the facility will also be used by the community for other uses. As identified elsewhere in this report there is a genuine need to relocate this school given the limitations of the existing accommodation and the flooding issues with the existing site. In the absence of any alternative means of making this happen it is considered that the ability to achieve this through this proposed development creates significant social gains from the scheme that weigh in its favour.

It is also proposed that 30% of the proposed housing will be affordable. Whilst less than the 50% required within Strategy 34 of the Local Plan, this would provide a significant amount of affordable housing for local people. Accordingly, it is considered that there would be significant social benefits to the local community through this proposal.

Environmental

The use of unallocated land to provide housing where it is in agricultural use and can contribute towards the nation's food supply is a dis-benefit of the proposal. A further dis-benefit of the proposal is the loss of hedgerows and the visibility that the site will have within the landscape and from residential dwellings. The creation of a new road through the site will result in more traffic, however the creation of a new roundabout and footpath will result in the slowing of traffic and an increase in safety. And whilst the application proposed residential development on a greenfield site outside of any BUAB, the site for the proposed housing is to the west of the town which has better road links than elsewhere in the town.

In conclusion taking the above into account, the overriding benefits of the proposal through providing a new primary school and affordable housing, providing social and economic benefits, are considered to outweigh any harm caused by the proposed housing and outweighs the fact that the proposal represents a departure from local plan policy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That Members:

1. Adopt the appropriate assessment attached to this report

20/1504/MOUT page 116 2. Approve subject to the following matters to be secured by a Section 106 legal agreement:

- Habitat mitigation (non-infrastructure contribution) of £190 per dwelling - 30% of housing to be affordable - Overage clause for the above

3. Approve subject to the following conditions:

1. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. (Reason - To comply with section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.).

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

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

4. No development shall take place until a detailed phasing plan including all necessary works to implement the development has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out other than in strict accordance with the Phasing Plan as may be agreed unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - to ensure the development proceeds in a properly planned way from an early stage and to limit any unacceptable impact on the locality in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan)

5. Prior to commencement of any part of the site the Planning Authority shall have received and approved a Construction Management Plan (CMP) including: (a) the timetable of the works; (b) daily hours of construction; (c) any road closure; (d) hours during which delivery and construction traffic will travel to and from the site, with such vehicular movements being restricted to between 8:00am and 6pm Mondays to Fridays inc.; 9.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays, and no such

20/1504/MOUT page 117 vehicular movements taking place on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays unless agreed by the planning Authority in advance; (e) the number and sizes of vehicles visiting the site in connection with the development and the frequency of their visits; (f) the compound/location where all building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste will be stored during the demolition and construction phases; (g) areas on-site where delivery vehicles and construction traffic will load or unload building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste with confirmation that no construction traffic or delivery vehicles will park on the County highway for loading or unloading purposes, unless prior written agreement has been given by the Local Planning Authority; (h) hours during which no construction traffic will be present at the site; (i) the means of enclosure of the site during construction works; and (j) details of proposals to promote car sharing amongst construction staff in order to limit construction staff vehicles parking off-site (k) details of wheel washing facilities and obligations (l) The proposed route of all construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes. (m) Details of the amount and location of construction worker parking. (n) Photographic evidence of the condition of adjacent public highway prior to commencement of any work;

(Reason - To ameliorate and mitigate, at an early stage, against the impact of the development on the local community in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031)

6. No development shall take place until further technical details of the layout and construction of the accesses shown in drawings 68131-GA-001 P03 and 68131- GA-002 P02 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the development is brought into use.

(Reason: To ensure the layout and construction of the access is safe in accordance with the NPPF and Policy TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031)

7. Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development, other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation, must not commence until conditions 1 to 4 below have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until condition 4 has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

1. Site Characterisation

20/1504/MOUT page 118 An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include:

(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination.

(ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:

Human health, Property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, Adjoining land, Groundwaters and surface waters, Ecological systems, Archeological sites and ancient monuments.

(iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11.

2. Submission of Remediation Scheme Where identified as necessary as a result of the findings of the investigation above, a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared and submitted for approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

3. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development (other than any part of the development required to carry out remediation), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be

20/1504/MOUT page 119 produced, and will be subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

4. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination In the event that contamination is found at any time during the approved development works that was not previously identified, the findings must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. A new investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 1 above and where remediation is necessary a new remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 2. This must be subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 3.

5. Long Term Monitoring and Maintenance Where identified as necessary, a monitoring and maintenance scheme to include monitoring the longterm effectiveness of the proposed remediation over a period to be agreed with the LPA, and the provision of reports on the same must be prepared, both of which will be subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of the measures identified in that scheme and when the remediation objectives have been achieved, reports that demonstrate the effectiveness of the monitoring and maintenance carried out must be produced, and submitted to the Local Planning Authority. This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11.

(Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, are minimised and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy EN16 (Contaminated Land) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

8. The recommendations within the Cyrrus NDB Technical Safeguarding Assessment CL-5474-RPT-002 1.0, which is based on revised plan NPS-DR-A- (00)-001 Rev P3 shall be adhered to and the heights of the highlighted houses 124-131 are limited to 61.5m AMSL and the roofs are pitched at approximately 45 degrees for these plots and that metallic substances, such as foil backed insulation, tiles with high metallic content or supporting metallic structure, are not used for the construction of the roof elements. Solar panels either PV or Thermal should not be allowed for these plots also.

Additionally, due to the proximity of the development to the airports navigational aid it is recommended that additional security measures are employed to

20/1504/MOUT page 120 reduce the risk to life from contact with high voltage and the risk to aviation security by interference with a navigational aid. Security fencing and increased signage to secure the site is recommended to ensure the site is protected.

(Reason: To ensure air safety and to remove any potential obstructions to navigational equipment in accordance with Policy TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031)

9. As part of a reserved matters application for the residential elements of the proposal a detailed Design Code for the whole of the residential element of the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The Design Code shall include details and principles of site layout, highway design (including footways and shared surfaces), soft and hard landscaping, materials to be used on dwellings and for ground surfacing, building heights, spans and proportions, boundary features, window and door details, details of flues, meter boxes, eaves and roof ridges and treatment of verges and open areas to the front, rear and side of all dwellings, car parking courts and areas, and details and design parameters of public open space areas including play equipment where necessary. Each phase of the development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - to ensure that the development is planned as a whole in a cohesive manner, to avoid piecemeal development displaying differing design ethics, and to ensure that the resulting development is of high quality as required by Local Plan policies and in line with government guidance in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

10. As part of any reserved matters application a detailed Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) for a minimum period of 25 years shall be submitted and should include the following details: Extent, ownership and responsibilities for management and maintenance. Details of how the management and maintenance of open space will be funded for the life of the development. Inspection arrangements for existing and proposed trees and hedgerows and monitoring of bio-diversity net-gain. Management and maintenance of trees and hedgerow. Management and maintenance of shrub, herbaceous and grass areas. Management of ecological habitat, maintenance of any ecological mitigation measures and further measures for enhancement of biodiversity value. Management and maintenance of any boundary structures, drainage swales and other infrastructure/ facilities within public areas. Maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan. (Reason - In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Strategy 3 (Sustainable Development), Strategy 4 (Balanced Communities), Strategy 5 (Environment), Strategy 43 (Open Space Standards), Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and Policy D2 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan.

20/1504/MOUT page 121 11. The landscaping scheme approved at the reserved matters stage shall be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or other plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and D2 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan)

12. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) and Arboricultural Method Statements (AMS) for the protection of all retained trees, hedges and shrubs on or adjacent to the site , shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The layout and design of the development shall be informed by and take account of the constraints identified in the survey and report. The tree survey and report shall adhere to the principles embodied in BS5837:2012 and the AMS shall indicate exactly how and when the trees will be protected during the development process. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Provision shall be made for the supervision of the tree protection by a suitably qualified and experienced arboriculturalist and details shall be included within the AMS. The AMS shall provide for the keeping of a monitoring log to record site visits and inspections along with: the reasons for such visits; the findings of the inspection and any necessary actions; all variations or departures from the approved details and any resultant remedial action or mitigation measures. On completion of the development, the completed site monitoring log shall be signed off by the supervising arboriculturalist and submitted to the Planning Authority for approval and final discharge of the condition.

(Reason: To ensure the continued well being of retained trees in the interests of the amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy D3 (Trees and Development) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

13. Prior to the commencement of any works on site (including demolition and site clearance or tree works), details of the design of building foundations, access roads and car park surface construction(temporary and permanent) the layout (with positions, dimensions and levels) of service trenches, ditches, drains and other excavations on site (insofar as they may affect trees on or adjacent to the site) , shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. (Reason: To ensure the continued well being of retained trees in the interests of the amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy D3 (Trees and Development Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

14. Each new dwelling or flat with one bedroom shall be provided with at least one parking space (excluding garages), each new dwelling or flat with two or more bedrooms shall be provided with at least two parking spaces (excluding

20/1504/MOUT page 122 garages). (Reason: To ensure there is sufficient parking provision in accordance with Policy TC9 (Parking provision in New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan)

15. The following information shall be submitted at the reserved matters stage: (a) Soakaway test results in accordance with BRE 365 and groundwater monitoring results in line with DCC groundwater monitoring policy. (b) Evidence that there is a low risk of groundwater re-emergence downslope of the site from any proposed soakaways or infiltration basins/tanks. (c) Detailed proposals for the management of surface water and silt runoff from the site during construction of the development hereby permitted. (d) Proposals for the adoption and maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage system. (e) A plan indicating how exceedance flows will be safely managed at the site.

No building shall be occupied until the works have been approved and implemented in accordance with the details under (a) - (e) 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), Policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031)

16. No development, including landscaping works shall take place within 50m of the Thorne Farm Stream unless a more accurately defined flood zone has been demonstrated through adequate flood risk assessment and appropriate flood modelling, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, taking advice from the Environment Agency. A scheme for any development within the 50m buffer area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

(Reason: In order to protect development from flooding in accordance with Policy EN21 (River and Coastal Flooding) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013- 2031)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Informative:

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

20/1504/MOUT page 123 2. This permission shall not constitute an approval of the layout plan submitted with the application, because it has been treated as being for illustrative purposes only

Plans relating to this application:

NPS-DR- Location Plan 16.07.20 A(00)008

68131-GA-007-P01 Additional Plan 14.12.20

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

20/1504/MOUT page 124 Appropriate Assessment

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

Application Reference 20/1504/MOUT

Brief description of Up to 150 new dwellings, a 210 Space primary school, construction of a new proposal roundabout on Exeter Road, a new junction onto Cadhay Lane, and associated infrastructure Location Land Opposite Barrack Farm Exeter Road Ottery St Mary Site is: Within 10km of the East Devon Heaths SPA (UK9010121)

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

(See Appendix 1 for list of interest features of the SPA/SAC) Step 1 Screening for Likely Significant Effect

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

Consider both construction and operational stages. Conclusion of Screening Is the proposal likely to East Devon District Council concludes that there would be Likely Significant have a significant effect, Effects ‘alone’ and/or ‘in-combination’ on features associated with the residential either ‘alone’ or ‘in use, in the absence of mitigation. combination’ on a European site? See evidence documents on impact of development on SPA/SAC at: East Devon District Council - http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/369997/exe- overarching-report-9th-june-2014.pdf

An Appropriate Assessment of the plan or proposal is necessary.

Local Authority Officer Darren Roberts Date: 07.12.20

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

In-combination Effects

Page 1 of 4 Updated October 2018 page 125 Plans or projects with Additional housing within 10km of the SPA/SAC add to the existing issues of potential cumulative in- damage and disturbance arising from recreational use. combination impacts. How impacts of current In –combination plans/projects include around 29,000 new dwellings allocated proposal combine with around the estuary in Teignbridge, Exeter and East Devon Local Plans. other plans or projects This many houses equates to around 65,000 additional people contributing to individually or severally. recreational impacts.

This is a ‘windfall’ site and is therefore not included in the above figures

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

Residential development is also liable for CIL and a proportion of CIL income is spent on Habitats Regulations Infrastructure. A Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) has been delivered at Dawlish and a second is planned at South West Exeter to attract recreational use away from the Exe Estuary and Dawlish Warren. However, to date no ‘SANGS’ have been provided or planned specifically to take pressure away from the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths.

Assessment of Impacts with Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures  A contribution of £190 per dwelling towards mitigation of impacts on the included in the proposal. Pebblebed Heaths will be sought via a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Act.  Dwellings will be liable for CIL which will contribute towards infrastructure projects which may include habitat creation

Are the proposed Yes – mitigation measures 1) The Joint Approach contribution offered is considered to be sufficient to sufficient to overcome mitigate recreational pressures given the approach taken for all new the likely significant dwellings within 10 kilometres of the SPA. This is suitable for the East effects? Devon Heaths SPA/SAC.

Conclusion List of mitigation measures and Total Joint Approach contribution of £190 per dwelling will be provided via a safeguards Section 106 agreement.

The Integrity Test Adverse impacts on features necessary to maintain the integrity of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths can be ruled out.

Conclusion of East Devon District Council concludes that there would be NO adverse effect on Appropriate Assessment integrity of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths provided the mitigation measures are secured as above.

Local Authority Officer Date:

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

Page 2 of 4 Updated October 2018 page 126 Appendix 1. List of interest features:

East Devon Heaths SPA:

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

Objectives:

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

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC:

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

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

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

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

S1044. Coenagrion mercuriale; Southern damselfly

Objectives:

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

Page 3 of 4 Updated October 2018 page 127  The distribution of qualifying species within the site. .

Page 4 of 4 Updated October 2018 page 128 Agenda Item 10 Ward Budleigh And Raleigh

Reference 20/0995/VAR

Applicant Mrs Frances Carter

Location Pooh Cottage Holiday Site Bear Lane Budleigh Salterton

Proposal Variation of Condition 2 of planning application 19/1202/VAR to allow the occupation of 14 no. caravans the whole year round.

RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt the appropriate assessment 2. Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 129

Committee Date: 6th January 2021

Budleigh And Target Date: Raleigh 20/0995/VAR 06.10.2020 (East Budleigh)

Applicant: Mrs Frances Carter

Location: Pooh Cottage Holiday Site Bear Lane

Proposal: Variation of Condition 2 of planning application 19/1202/VAR to allow the occupation of 14 no. caravans the whole year round.

RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt the appropriate assessment 2. Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is before Members having been referred at Chair Delegation for consideration of the concerns raised by the Parish Council.

This is an application to allow year round use of holiday caravans at an existing caravan site near Budleigh Salterton, within East Budleigh Parish.

The site currently has permission for 14 caravans to be used as holiday accommodation in the Summer, and for storage in the Winter. The current application seeks permission for all year round use of the caravans for tourist accommodation, to cater for the increased demand for people to stay in such accommodation in the Winter.

The proposal does not introduce any new uses, but extends the period for current use. The Highway Authority is satisfied that the level of traffic will be minimal and able to use the road network safely.

Concerns have been raised about the potential for permanent residential occupation of the caravans and of visibility from outside of the site. Conditions have therefore been suggested, one which would only allow accommodation for those on holiday, and one which proposes a landscaping scheme to be submitted which would achieve screening to the site.

Due to the site's proximity to the Pebblebed Heaths and Exe Estuary an appropriate assessment has been undertaken. It concludes that there will be an impact on the SPA and SAC in these areas as a result of further occupation of the

20/0995/VAR page 130

units, but that mitigation by way of a financial contribution is sufficient in this instance to adequately mitigate any impacts.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council

East Budleigh Parish Council Recommends that neither application be supported, for the following reasons in both cases:

Condition 2 of 10/2407/FUL states that the site is not suitable for year-round occupation (Developments in the AONB).

The proposals would effectively allow for all year permanent residential settlement to take place. This would be contrary to Neighbourhood Plan 14.12 which states that new residential development outside the Built Up Area Boundary in the countryside, would only be supported in exceptional circumstances.

The concerns put forward by the Otter Valley Association regarding highway access along Bear Lane and adverse effect on the amenity value of the AONB landscape are fully supported by the Parish Council.

Technical Consultations

Devon County Highway Authority

Observations: This applications seeks to occupation for 14 caravans only for the extra months of November, December, January and February in comparison to what is already permitted. I have checked the collision data available and there are no recorded collisions in the immediate area, suggesting their are no problems from the occupation as is, currently. The site sits on the L4026 of which topography and vegetation cause traffic to reduce travelling speed. There are passing places to facilitate two-way traffic. Although the road has a classified speed limit of 60mph, I do not believe that traffic would be able to achieve these speeds. Construction traffic to commence this application should be very minimal indeed as all assets are in place currently. Therefore in summary, the County Highway Authority (CHA) does not have any objections to this application.

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

20/0995/VAR page 131

Other Representations Two representations received. Issues relating to increased traffic on Bear Lane, previous assurances given with applications, and visibility of the site from Dalditch Lane.

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

19/1202/VAR Variation of Condition 2 of Approval 16.08.2019 permission 18/0703/VAR to with allow the occupation of 14no. conditions caravans during the period of 15th March to 31st October in any one year 18/0703/VAR Removal of condition 2 of Approval 05.07.2018 permission 15/2136/FUL to with allow for the use of caravan conditions storage for the period of the use of the caravan park 15/2136/FUL Proposed storage area for Approval 28.01.2016 47no touring caravans. with conditions

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside)

Strategy 33 (Promotion of Tourism in East Devon)

Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D2 (Landscape Requirements)

E19 (Holiday Accommodation Parks)

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

East Budleigh with Bicton Neighbourhood Plan (Made)

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

Site Location

20/0995/VAR page 132

The application site relates to a part of the existing Pooh Cottage Holiday Site off Bear Lane. The site is currently used as a caravan holiday site in the summer and for caravan storage in the winter.

Proposed Development

This application seeks to vary a condition on planning permission granted under reference 19/1202/VAR to allow for the occupation of 14 residential caravans to be used the whole year round. The caravans being currently restricted to occupation between the 15th march and 31st October only. Outside of this period the site is used for caravan storage.

ANALYSIS

The key consideration in this application is whether the application is acceptable in principle, and whether any adverse impacts have arisen in relation to highway movements and site management that would justify refusing permission.

Principle

The issue with regard to the principle of use, is that this will involve the intensification of holiday uses within the countryside. Pooh Cottage is an established caravan site with facilities including a reception, toilets and shower block, and manager’s accommodation. However, the area which is the subject to this application is situated to the north of the established site, and is accessed by driving through the camp site and across a track. It has permission and is currently used for the storage of touring caravans in the winter months, and for occupation as touring caravans in the summer months.

Policy E19 of the Local Plan is the most relevant policy as it relate to, and permits, permits the extension of existing caravan sites within designated landscapes, provided a number of criteria are met. Whilst the application is not seeking to extend the site, it is seeking to extend the holiday use and on this basis Policy E19 is considered to be the most relevant policy against which to consider the proposal.

These criteria are addressed below but the principle of extending existing holiday parks is acceptable in principle.

Whilst the comments from the Parish Council with regard to Conditions on a 2010 application are appreciated and understood, the 2010 application relates to a different part of the site and in any case, when the original planning consents restricted the holiday occupation to between March and October, this was done under a different planning policy regime with it now being accepted that holiday accommodation can be occupied all year round due to the associated tourist benefits. This is of course subject to the use being restricted to holiday use only.

Location, visual impact and highway safety

With regard to the 6 criteria to Policy E19, the application is considered as follows:

20/0995/VAR page 133

1. The proposal relates sensitively in scale and siting to the surroundings as the units will be placed on 14 existing concrete hard standings. No permanent structures will be installed. The site is at a higher level than Dalditch Lane below it, and whilst there is an area of woodland which separates the site from the lane, it is acknowledged that there are gaps within the trees which make some of the caravans visible, particularly in the winter months. A condition can be imposed to ensure that these gaps are planted.

2. The site is within, or in close proximity, to an existing settlement but would not have an adverse impact on the character or setting of that settlement or the amenities of adjoining residents.

3. It does not use the best and most versatile agricultural land;

4. Adequate services and facilities are provided on site;

5. Criterion 5 of E19 states that 'traffic generated by the proposal can be accommodated safely on the local highway network and safe highway access to the site can be achieved.' Permission already exists for the storage of up to 47 caravans in the winter months on the wider site (14 on this site), which involves the bringing in of caravans on low loaders. Under this proposal, the 14 caravans which are present in the summer will remain, and therefore traffic movements will be restricted to visitors using the caravans. Whilst the intention of the proposal is to allow visitors to the site all year round, it is likely that the numbers visiting the site will be less than in the most popular Summer months.

To add to this, the Highway Authority has not objected.

6. This requires sustainable construction where possible but this is not relevant in this instance as no construction works are proposed or required;

In light of the above, and as the land is already used in conjunction with the caravan site, it is considered that the proposal meets the criteria of Policy E19, subject to a landscaping condition which would result in caravans being shielded from view from properties on Dalditch Lane.

As there are therefore no policy objections to the proposal and, subject to the units being restricted to occupation by tourists on a short term basis only so that they cannot become permanent residential dwellings, it is considered that the proposal will benefit the year round economy whilst not impacting on the local area in terms of traffic or amenity.

Appropriate Assessment

The nature of the application and its location close to the Exe Estuary and Pebblebed Heaths and their European Habitat designations is such that the proposal requires a Habitat Regulations Assessment. The Appropriate Assessment is required as a result of the Habitat Regulations Assessment and Likely Significant Effects from the proposal. In partnership with Natural England, the council and its neighbouring authorities of Exeter City Council and Teignbridge District Council have determined

20/0995/VAR page 134

that housing and tourist accommodation developments in their areas will in- combination have a detrimental impact on the Exe Estuary and Pebblebed Heaths through impacts from recreational use. The impacts are highest from developments within 10 kilometres of the designation. It is therefore essential that mitigation is secured to make such developments permissible. This mitigation is secured via a combination of funding secured via the Community Infrastructure Levy and contributions collected from residential and tourist developments within 10km of the designations. In this instance an additional financial contribution for tourist accommodation has been secured. On this basis, and as the joint authorities are working in partnership to deliver the required mitigation in accordance with the South- East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy, this proposal will not give rise to likely significant effects.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

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

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

3. The 14 caravans hereby permitted shall be used as holiday accommodation only and shall not be occupied as a person's sole or main place of residence. The owners/operator shall maintain an up-to-date register of the names of all owners/occupiers of the units on the site, and of their main home address, and shall make this information available at all reasonable time to the Local Planning Authority.

(Reason: To accord with development plan policies under which permanent residential accommodation would not normally be permitted on the site in accordance with Strategy 7 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and the National Planning Policy Framework.)'

4. Prior to the commencement of development, a plan shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority showing additional planting on the Western boundary of the site. The approved scheme shall be carried out within the next available planting season following approval of the details by the Local planning Authority. Any trees, shrubs or hedges removed consent, or which die or become severely damaged or seriously diseased within five years from the first planting shall be replaced with trees, shrubs or hedge plants of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation

20/0995/VAR page 135

(Reason: In order to screen the development from nearby residential properties and to comply with Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs) and Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and Policy N1 (Protecting and enhancing the landscape, biodiversity and local countryside character) of the East Budleigh with Bicton Neighbourhood Plan.)

Plans relating to this application:

8049-LP2 rev A Location Plan 15.05.20

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

20/0995/VAR page 136 Agenda Item 11 Ward Budleigh And Raleigh

Reference 20/0996/VAR

Applicant Pooh Cottage Holiday Park

Location Pooh Cottage Holiday Site Bear Lane Budleigh Salterton

Proposal Variation of Condition 2 of planning application 10/2407/FUL to allow the occupation of 47 no. caravans the whole year round.

RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt the appropriate assessment 2. Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 137

Committee Date: 6th January 2021

Budleigh And Target Date: Raleigh 20/0996/VAR 06.10.2020 (East Budleigh)

Applicant: Pooh Cottage Holiday Park

Location: Pooh Cottage Holiday Site Bear Lane

Proposal: Variation of Condition 2 of planning application 10/2407/FUL to allow the occupation of 47 no. caravans the whole year round.

RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt the Appropriate Assessment 2. Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is before Members having been referred at Chair Delegation for consideration of the concerns raised by the Parish Council.

This is an application to allow year round use of holiday caravans at an existing caravan site near Budleigh Salterton, within East Budleigh Parish.

The site currently has permission for 47 caravans to be used as holiday accommodation in the Summer. The current application seeks permission for all year round use of the caravans for tourist accommodation, to cater for the increased demand for people to stay in such accommodation in the Winter.

The proposal does not introduce any new uses, but extends the period for current use. The Highway Authority is satisfied that the level of traffic will be minimal and able to use the road network safely.

Concerns have been raised about the potential for residential occupation of the caravans and of visibility from outside of the site. Conditions have therefore been suggested, one which would only allow accommodation for those on holiday, and one which proposes a landscaping scheme to be submitted which would achieve screening to the site.

Due to the site's proximity to the Pebblebed Heaths and Exe Estuary an appropriate assessment has been undertaken. It concludes that there will be an impact on the SPA and SAC in these areas as a result of further occupation of the

20/0996/VAR page 138

units, but that mitigation by way of a financial contribution is sufficient in this instance to adequately mitigate any impacts.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council East Budleigh Parish Council Recommends that neither application be supported, for the following reasons in both cases:

Condition 2 of 10/2407/FUL states that the site is not suitable for year-round occupation (Developments in the AONB).

The proposals would effectively allow for all year permanent residential settlement to take place. This would be contrary to Neighbourhood Plan 14.12 which states that new residential development outside the Built Up Area Boundary in the countryside, would only be supported in exceptional circumstances.

The concerns put forward by the Otter Valley Association regarding highway access along Bear Lane and adverse effect on the amenity value of the AONB landscape are fully supported by the Parish Council.

Technical Consultations

Devon County Highway Authority Observations: The application for the touring caravan site to vary and extend the occupation times (amount of time per year that the site can be used for touring caravans) is not a variation application to change the use from touring to static caravans (which would take up more space and lead to greater off-site excursion trips).

Approval would make the site accessible throughout the year and would not lead to more traffic on the highway than that of the consented 15th March to 30th October existing use. The site layout still maintains the ability for vehicles to turn off- carriageway, park off-carriageway and re-enter the carriageway in a forward facing motion.

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

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

Other Representations

20/0996/VAR page 139

One representation has been received which refers to the lack of screening between the site and nearby residential properties.

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

10/2407/FUL Formation of hardstanding for Approval 10.02.2011 existing pitches and extension with of opening period of the park conditions

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside)

Strategy 33 (Promotion of Tourism in East Devon)

Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D2 (Landscape Requirements)

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

East Budleigh with Bicton Neighbourhood Plan (Made)

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

Site Location

The application site relates to a part of the existing Pooh Cottage Holiday Site off Bear Lane. The site is currently used as a caravan holiday site in the summer and for caravan storage in the winter.

Proposed Development

This application seeks to vary the condition in 10/2407/FUL above, to allow for the stationing of 47 residential caravans to be used all year round. At present use is restricted to between the 15th March and 31st October.

ANALYSIS

The key consideration in this application is whether the application is acceptable in principle, and whether any adverse impacts have arisen in relation to highway movements and site management that would justify refusing permission.

20/0996/VAR page 140

Principle

The issue with regard to the principle of use, is that this will involve the intensification of holiday uses within the countryside. Pooh Cottage is an established caravan site with facilities including a reception, toilets and shower block, and manager’s accommodation.

Policy E19 of the Local Plan is the most relevant policy as it relate to, and permits, permits the extension of existing caravan sites within designated landscapes, provided a number of criteria are met. Whilst the application is not seeking to extend the site, it is seeking to extend the holiday use and on this basis Policy E19 is considered to be the most relevant policy against which to consider the proposal.

These criteria are addressed below but the principle of extending existing holiday parks is acceptable in principle.

Whilst the comments from the Parish Council with regard to Conditions on the 2010 application are appreciated and understood, when the original planning consent in 2010 restricted the holiday occupation to between March and October, this was done under a different planning policy regime with it now being accepted that holiday accommodation can be occupied all year round due to the associated tourist benefits. This is of course subject to the use being restricted to holiday use only.

Location, visual impact and highway safety

With regard to the 6 criteria to Policy E19, the application is considered as follows:

1. The proposal relates sensitively in scale and siting to the surroundings as the units will be placed on existing concrete hard standings. No permanent structures will be installed. The site is at a higher level than Dalditch Lane below it, and whilst there is an area of woodland which separates the site from the lane, it is acknowledged that there are gaps within the trees which make some of the caravans visible, particularly in the winter months. A condition can be imposed to ensure that these gaps are planted.

2. The site is within, or in close proximity, to an existing settlement but would not have an adverse impact on the character or setting of that settlement or the amenities of adjoining residents.

3. It does not use the best and most versatile agricultural land;

4. Adequate services and facilities are provided on site;

5. Criterion 5 of E19 states that 'traffic generated by the proposal can be accommodated safely on the local highway network and safe highway access to the site can be achieved.' Whilst the intention of the proposal is to allow visitors to the site all year round, the Highway Authority have rightly identified that traffic levels in the winter are likely to be lower that the numbers visiting the site in the most popular Summer months. On the basis that the greater number

20/0996/VAR page 141

of movements in the summer have been found to be acceptable, it is difficult to justify refusal of this application where traffic movements are likely to be less.

It is for this reason that the Highway Authority has not objected.

6. This requires sustainable construction where possible but this is not relevant in this instance as no construction works are proposed or required;

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal meets the criteria of Policy E19, subject to a landscaping condition which would result in caravans being shielded from view from properties on Dalditch Lane.

As there are therefore no policy objections to the proposal and, subject to the units being restricted to occupation by tourists on a short term basis only so that they cannot become permanent residential dwellings, it is considered that the proposal will benefit the year round economy whilst not impacting on the local area in terms of traffic or amenity.

Appropriate Assessment

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

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

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

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice.

20/0996/VAR page 142

(Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

3. The 47 caravans hereby permitted shall be used as holiday accommodation only and shall not be occupied as a person's sole or main place of residence. The owners/operator shall maintain an up-to-date register of the names of all owners/occupiers of the units on the site, and of their main home address, and shall make this information available at all reasonable time to the Local Planning Authority.

(Reason: To accord with development plan policies under which permanent residential accommodation would not normally be permitted on the site in accordance with Strategy 7 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and the National Planning Policy Framework.)'

4. Prior to the commencement of development, a plan shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority showing additional planting on the Western boundary of the site. The approved scheme shall be carried out within the next available planting season following approval of the details by the Local planning Authority. Any trees, shrubs or hedges removed consent, or which die or become severely damaged or seriously diseased within five years from the first planting shall be replaced with trees, shrubs or hedge plants of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation

(Reason: In order to screen the development from nearby residential properties and to comply with Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs) and Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and Policy N1 (Protecting and enhancing the landscape, biodiversity and local countryside character) of the East Budleigh with Bicton Neighbourhood Plan.)

Plans relating to this application:

8049-LP1 rev A Location Plan 15.05.20

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

20/0996/VAR page 143 Agenda Item 12 Ward Budleigh And Raleigh

Reference 20/0918/FUL

Applicant Mr H Headon

Location 2 The Cedars Exmouth Road Colaton Raleigh Sidmouth EX10 0LB

Proposal Proposed conversion of the roof space of a residential property to a two bedroom flat

RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt the Appropriate Assessment forming part of this report; and 2. Approve with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 144

Committee Date: 6th January 2021

Budleigh And Target Date: Raleigh 20/0918/FUL 15.07.2020 (Colaton Raleigh)

Applicant: Mr H Headon

Location: 2 The Cedars Exmouth Road

Proposal: Proposed conversion of the roof space of a residential property to a two bedroom flat

RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt the Appropriate Assessment forming part of this report; and 2. Approve with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before Member because the recommendation is contrary to the views of one of the Ward Members.

The proposal is to convert the unused attic space of a first floor flat to an additional flat, making three in the building as a whole. The subdivision of dwellings in this way is one of the exceptions provided for in the Local Plan which allows for new dwellings in countryside locations. Although it does not have a Built-up Area Boundary, Colaton Raleigh is well provided for in terms of services and facilities and this site is particularly well located in relation to local amenities. For a countryside location, the village performs strongly in terms of accessibility, as acknowledged in two recent appeal decisions. The proposal is therefore acceptable in principle.

Externally the proposal involves new windows on the front and side and a full width dormer on the rear. Public views of the dormer would be limited to side-on views and therefore it would not be conspicuous in the streetscene in spite of the prominent location of the building. There would be no detrimental overlooking from the dormer window to the rear, and no greater overlooking than already occurs.

The number of parking spaces would not change and therefore Flat 2 and the new flat would have one space each. Although it is likely that the occupants of the flats would own a car, a reduction on the standard in Policy TC9, which is only guidance, is justified in this case because of the availability of local amenities and access to public transport.

20/0918/FUL page 145

Although the site is adjacent to a stream, the risk of flooding has been assessed as being equivalent to Flood Zone 1 and therefore the sequential test does not need to be applied. Subject to conditions to secure a good quality finish in the interests of the character and appearance of the area, the proposal is in full conformity with the Local Plan and is therefore supported.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Budleigh And Raleigh - Cllr Alan Dent Having visited the site I have considerable concerns regarding this proposed development.

1. The proposed development is sited within the centre of the village which is designated 'Open Countryside' and accessed from a busy main road with a bus stop at the front of the property. 2. The development within the roof space creates additional affordable accommodation which whilst welcome intensifies the use of the existing building. 3. The proposed large dormer windows at the rear of the property will overlook the gardens of adjacent neighbours and create a considerable and - in my view - loss of privacy. 4. The proposal creates a building which is out of proportion to existing properties and is out of character with the streetscene. 5. The scale and mass proposed will be a dominating feature which will also adversely affect the neighbouring properties. 6. At the front of the property there is a proposal to park three vehicles in addition to the parking spaces currently available for the neighbouring property 'Skylarks'. The frontage has limited visibility on to the busy road and it will be dangerous for vehicles (up to five as proposed) exiting the site especially if reversing into the flow of traffic. I will reserve my final judgement until all the facts and arguments have been fully explored.

Parish/Town Council Councillors have a number of concerns and Object to the application for the following reasons. 1. The proposed scale of the development is considered overbearing to surrounding properties and out of character with the village. 2. Adjacent properties will be affected by a loss of privacy created by the large dormer windows proposed at the rear. 3. The proposals for car parking at the front of the building are considered to be inadequate. Space is limited and plans allow for one parking space per flat with no provision for visitor parking. 4. The frontage has limited visibility for vehicles when exiting onto the busy Exmouth Road, with a bus stop immediately adjacent to the property. The

20/0918/FUL page 146

potential for accidents is considered to be high, especially if vehicles reverse onto this road. 5. There is a visibility mirror situated at the front of the property to assist vehicles exiting the junction of Exmouth Road/Church Road which is opposite the site. If large vehicles are allowed to park in front of this mirror it will be obscured and create a considerable hazard for road users at this junction

Other Representations One neighbour has supported the proposal.

Two objections and one representation have been received raising the following concerns:  The is insufficient parking on site and little on-street parking available as an alternative  The parking arrangements are unsafe  Vehicles entering or leaving the site would conflict with busses at the bus stop  Parked vehicles could obscure the mirror used by people joining the main road from Church Road  The dormer is out of scale  The proposal would result in a loss of privacy

Technical Consultations

Environment Agency 23/10/2020 - We have no objection to this proposal.

Reason The Environment Agency have been closely involved with the preparation of the flood risk assessment, written by Dennis Gedge (dated October 2020), for this development.

We agree with the conclusions and recommendations of the assessment and as such, have no objections.

Advice In progressing the development, it is important that any planning permission ensures that suitable flood barriers can be provided to the ground floor and non-return valves are fitted to the drainage.

13/11/2020 - We agree. Our maps show that this site falls into Flood Zone 3.

13/11/2020 - I am the flood risk engineer for the Environment Agency who has been providing the historic flood risk commentary for the proposed development at The Cedars in Colaton Raleigh under application 20/0918/FUL.

I have just been made aware of the commentary between yourself and Chris Angell, in our Sustainable Places team, as shown in the attachment.

Whilst my colleague Chris is correct in stating that the development site is shown at Flood Zone 3 on the current published Flood Map for Planning, we have to understand

20/0918/FUL page 147

that these maps are indicative and not suitable for in-depth interrogation for site specific flood risk assessments. The assessment prepared by Dennis Gedge has correctly defined a 'design flood level' for the development using an accurate topographic survey procured specifically for the assessment and the Environment Agency's depth grid mapping, which provides a far higher resolution of mapping that the standard flood map. Coupled with this, the quoted design flood level takes account of climate change over the lifetime of the development through using the flooding depth-grid data for the 1-in-1000 year (i.e. 0.1%) AEP flood event, which corresponds to Flood Zone 2. This is deemed to be a very conservative approach in allowing for climate change, when no specific data is available from a hydraulic mode,l and effectively represents the worst case scenario which would be well in excess of the impacts realised from the flooding attributable to Flood Zone 3 (i.e 1-in-100 year AEP event without climate change). I would therefore see the quoted design flood level as incorporating a more than acceptable allowance for any margin of error.

The wider conclusions of the flood risk assessment demonstrate that flood risks to the development can be safely managed over its lifetime.

I would be grateful if you could review your thoughts in light of my comments. I am more than happy to discuss this matter if that would be helpful.

17/11/2020 - Further to our earlier telephone conversation, I am happy to confirm that the conclusions of the flood risk assessment align the 'design flood level' with Flood Zone 1. A precautionary approach has been adopted in evaluating the 'design flood level', taking climate change into account over the lifetime of the development, so I would be content with the LPA treating the site as Flood Zone 1 for the purposes of the sequential test.

Devon County Highway Authority Observations: The access is existing with sufficient dropped kerbs to allow for the additional parking space, which appears to be in use currently. As the access is existing, off-carriageway space for vehicles to turn would not be required. Therefore the County Highway Authority has no objection to this planning application.

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

PLANNING HISTORY

None.

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside)

Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs)

20/0918/FUL page 148

Strategy 47 (Nature Conservation and Geology)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D2 (Landscape Requirements)

D8 (Re-use of Rural Buildings Outside of Settlements)

H3 (Conversion of Existing Dwellings and Other Buildings to Flats)

EN14 (Control of Pollution)

EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development)

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

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

Site Location and Description

The Cedars is a relatively modern two storey pitched roof building which is divided horizontally into two flats. It is located on Exmouth Road in Colaton Raleigh, directly opposite Church Road and adjacent to the bus stop. There are parking spaces in front of the building and there are gardens to the south and rear. A stream defines the southern boundary and separates the site from the adjacent village shop. The northern wall of the building defines the boundary with the neighbouring residential property. The site is in flood zone 3, according to the Environment Agency map, and is within the East Devon AONB. This application relates to the first floor flat which is known as Flat 2. The ground floor flat is not affected by this proposal.

Proposal

This application seeks planning permission to convert the loft space above flat 2 to an additional flat which would be accessed by making internal alterations to flat 2 to create a first floor lobby and staircase.

In addition to the internal works, it is proposed to add a full width dormer to the rear elevation, three rooflights to the front elevation and a larger window in the southern gable. Outside the building it is proposed to give the new flat part of the garden belonging to flat 2; to formalise the parking area so that there are three allocated spaces; and to provide dedicated bin storage.

ANALYSIS

20/0918/FUL page 149

The main issues in the determination of this application are whether the location is acceptable having regard to the spatial strategy of the Local Plan; the risk of flooding; and the impact on living conditions.

Location and principle of development

Colaton Raleigh is a village which does not have a Built-up Area Boundary and therefore the site is in the countryside for planning policy purposes. In such locations there are limited circumstances in which the Local Plan supports new dwellings and these broadly mirror the circumstances listed in paragraph 79 of the NPPF. Of relevance to this proposal is Local Plan Policy H3 (Conversion of Existing Dwellings and Other Buildings to Flats) which is similar to NPPF paragraph 79 that supports "development [that] would involve the subdivision of an existing residential dwelling".

Being in a village, The Cedars is not in an isolated location, and therefore paragraph 79 is not directly applicable to the proposal. Policy H3, however, is applicable because it deals with buildings in all locations and of all types, including undeveloped attic space and flats. For buildings outside Built-up Area Boundaries, the policy supports subdivision subject to a number of criteria, each of which is addressed in the following paragraphs.

1. The proposed conversion will not materially adversely affect the character and amenities of the surrounding area or the building itself.

The village is characterised by its mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced houses, including some historic brick and cob properties. Although there are some listed buildings in the village, notably Place Court and the parish church, both of which are grade 2 star buildings, there is no conservation area. Like most villages, flats are not commonplace but the outward appearance of this building is compatible with the local architecture. As a result of this development there would be indications of the intensification of the use of the property, such as the dormer and rooflights, the parking and bin storage arrangements and the additional activity, but the change in character associated with one additional flat would be minor.

Because the building is set back from the road, in public views the sides of the dormer would be the only visible parts, with the main view being across the forecourt of the village shop. Subject to an appropriate choice of cladding material, this would not be a prominent feature in the streetscene. Given the limited scale of the proposal and the established character of the property, there would be no material harm to the character and amenities of the area or the building.

2. Development is located close to a range of accessible services and facilities to meet the everyday needs of residents.

Colaton Raleigh does not have a Built-up Area Boundary because it lacks a school and a doctor's surgery. However, it does benefit from a shop, pub, bus service, church, village hall and a small industrial estate, all of which are close to the site. These factors have been acknowledged by different Planning Inspectors in two recent decisions and

20/0918/FUL page 150

although one of the appeals was dismissed for other reasons, both sites were considered to satisfy Policy TC2 - Accessibility of New Development.

At Paradise Barn (18/1456/FUL), the Inspector concluded "I find that the development would be accessible by a range of transport modes that would minimise the need to travel by car. Therefore, I find that the scheme accords with the terms of EDLP Policy TCD2" (meaning Policy TC2).

At Pendor (19/1525/FUL), which is behind The Cedars, the Inspector concluded "for a rural context, the appeal site performs strongly against policy TC2."

A third appeal at Hardys Court (19/0821/FUL) was dismissed on accessibility grounds but only because walking or cycling from that site was not considered to be particularly appealing or safe owing to the need to traverse the main road between Hawkerland Road and Church Road to access local amenities.

The test in this case is not whether the occupants would have access to all the amenities that would justify a Built-up Area Boundary; it is whether for a rural location there are reasonable alternatives to travelling elsewhere by car. Having regard to the Inspectors' comments and paragraph 103 of the NPPF which says "opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas", the proposal is considered to satisfy the second criterion of Policy H3. In fact this site is considered to be in one of the most accessible countryside locations where development could be supported under this policy.

3. Provision is made for adequate bicycle storage and car parking. Hard surfacing of front gardens to facilitate car parking will not be permitted where this would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the appearance of the area or on flooding.

No specific provision for bicycle storage has been made but future occupants would benefit from a private garden within which there is adequate space for dedicated storage.

The space available for car parking would not change although it would be shared by three flats rather than two. The number of spaces proposed - one space per flat plus a garage for the ground floor flat - is a reduction on the two spaces per flat currently available. Whereas the current arrangement complies with the guidance in Policy TC9, the proposed provision falls short.

The amount of parking available has been raised as a concern by local residents, the Parish Council and one of the Ward Members. Their concern is based on the limited availability of on-street parking which is already in high demand from properties that have no private parking.

In spite of the comments above regarding the availability of local amenities and a bus service, the occupants of all of the flats are likely to own a car to access a wider range of amenities elsewhere. However, the availability of local facilities and a good bus service justify a reduction in the parking standard in this case. On that basis the provision of one space per flat (plus a garage for flat 1) is considered acceptable.

20/0918/FUL page 151

In the interests of ensuring that each flat has access to a dedicated space it would be reasonable and necessary to secure a parking scheme for the land in front of the building and this could incorporate hard and soft landscaping which would benefit the character and appearance of this prominent forecourt and ensure that surface water is managed appropriately.

4. Provision is made for storage of refuse.

The site plan indicates a dedicated bin storage facility in an unobtrusive but accessible location at the front of the building. Further details of the design could be secured by condition.

Additional requirements

Although not listed as a numbered criterion, a further requirement of Policy H3 is that the conversion must be "compatible with environment policies of the plan regulating building conversions in the open countryside." This indicates that the scheme must also satisfy the requirements of Policy D8 - Re-use of Rural Buildings Outside of Settlements. There is a large amount of duplication between the policies but the main additional criterion to satisfy is that the building should be "capable of conversion without the need for substantial extension, alteration or reconstruction and any alterations protect or enhance the character of the building and its setting".

For the avoidance of doubt, it is this specific criterion which is considered to potentially provide support for enlarging the building. Without this support, the proposal would not be compatible with the Local Plan because 'subdivision' would be taken to mean subdivision without extension. The provision for extensions in Policy D8 is therefore a significant consideration.

In this case the volume of the dormer adds 36% to the volume of the existing roof space and adds 26% to the usable floor area. Without the dormer the loft would still be capable of conversion but it would only comfortably provide space for a 1-bed flat.

Given that a conversion could take place with or without the extension, the test is whether the extension is proportionate to the existing building. In comparison to the existing roof space, the enlargement is considered to be towards the upper end of what is acceptable. However, compared to the scale of the building as a whole, the dormer only adds a modest volume. Furthermore, although a conversion could be achieved with a smaller dormer or no dormer at all, this would not offer any material advantage in terms of the character of the area because the visual impact is so limited. There is also no guarantee that a smaller flat would generate less demand for parking because a 1-bed flat would still provide space for two people. In light of these considerations, the proposed dormer is considered to satisfy the requirements of Policies H3 and D8

Having regard to these conclusions, the proposal is in conformity with the provisions of Policies H3 and D8 and therefore also with Strategy 7 which permits development in the countryside if there is specific policy support.

Risk of flooding

20/0918/FUL page 152

Owing to its close proximity to a watercourse, the site is in flood zone 3, according to the Environment Agency's flood map. On learning that the proposal would fail the sequential test based on the information available, the applicant engaged a consulting engineer to produce a flood risk assessment (FRA). In collaboration with the Environment Agency and drawing on more detailed sources of information, the consultant was able to conclude that the site could be classed as Flood Zone 1. The reasons for this conclusion are not fully explained in the FRA but it is a conclusion which is endorsed by the Environment Agency and which they have justified in further consultation responses. It is now understood that the main reason for the conclusion is that ground levels within the site are at or above the predicted flood level (known as the 'design flood level'). This was the same conclusion reached on the neighbouring site (then known as 'Greenaways Shed', now 'Skylarks') when an application for a new dwelling was approved in 2012.

In light of the conclusions of the FRA and the endorsement by the Environment Agency, the sequential test does not need to be applied in this case. There are, however, a number of recommendations in the FRA, namely the fitting of removable flood barriers to the ground floor door, and non-return valves to the drains. It is also recommended that the occupants sign up to the Government's flood alert service. The implementation of these measures, including the preparation of a flood plan to be provided to the occupants, can be secured by condition.

Living conditions

The introduction of new windows at roof level has given rise to objections from several neighbours who are concerned about overlooking.

The front of the building faces Church Road and a property called Little Mead, which is on the southern corner of Church Road and Exmouth Road. Three rooflights would be added to the front roof slope of The Cedars, two of which would serve the living room and the third would serve a bedroom. The lower edge of the windows would be 1.3m above floor level and the upper edge would be about 2.2m above floor level, thereby allowing a view out and down from a standing position. The distance between the nearest window and the nearest part of the boundary of Little Mead would be about 25m. This is more than sufficient to avoid an intrusive impact.

The southern gable of The Cedars faces over the garden and the stream towards the side of the village shop where there are external stairs to a first floor door. Between the side of the shop and the stream there is a shed and decked area which are for use by customers of the shop. The distance to the shed is about 13m and to the side of the shop is about 19m. The new window would be the only source of natural light for the landing and it would be above first floor windows currently serving a bedroom, kitchen and stairwell in flat 2. Given the existing degree of overlooking, the absence of any private amenity spaces and the fact that the window would not serve a habitable room, the relationship to the south is acceptable. This neighbour also supports the proposal.

The rear of the building faces the lower end of the garden of Skylarks where there is an outbuilding which is let as holiday accommodation known as 'Jar Lodge'. Beyond

20/0918/FUL page 153

that is the stream and then the access to the rear of Pendor where planning permission was recently granted at appeal for a new dwelling in the garden. Beyond the access is a second area of garden associated with Pendor and then agricultural land screened by trees. The decking outside Jar Lodge is only a few metres from the rear of The Cedars and therefore the second floor windows in the new dormer would mainly look straight over the top. It is unlikely that they would appear any more intrusive than the existing first floor windows. The first strip of land beyond Jar Lodge is used for access and parking and therefore there would be no loss of privacy to any sensitive amenity space. The next area of land is a parcel of garden associated with Pendor which is separate to the garden immediately adjacent to the house. This would be transferred to the new dwelling and would remain separate to the main garden around the new house. From this area of land the dormer would be prominent above the existing first floor windows but the separation distance would be at least 21 metres. The main garden for Pendor (and for the future new dwelling) begins further north and the separation distance is at least 30m at an oblique angle. As a consequence there would be no material loss of privacy to the current or future users of the garden areas.

In the northern gable there is currently a small window providing light to the loft space. A north elevation drawing has not been provided but it appears from the existing and proposed floor plans that this window would not change. The window would serve as a secondary window to the living room and would face the rear of Quashbrook Cottages, with Skylarks in between. Skylarks would provide some screening of the gardens and beyond that the separation distance is of the order of 20m, increasing to 23m at the rear elevation of Quashbrook Cottages. In view of the separation distance and the lack of any change to the window, there would be no intrusive impact as a result of the conversion. However, it would be necessary for the avoidance of doubt to impose a condition clarifying that permission is not granted for any changes to this window.

In addition to concerns about overlooking, some concerns have been raised about the dormer being dominant or overbearing. However, in view of the scale of the existing building and the separation distance to surrounding amenity space, the dormer would not appear dominant or overbearing.

In summary, the conversion would not result in any harm to the living conditions of the occupants of any neighbouring property. Furthermore, because the property is a flat, no changes or additional windows could be installed in future without planning permission.

Other matters

Highway safety has been raised as a concern by local residents, the Parish Council and one of the Ward Members. Although the proposal would intensify the use of the property and potentially the number of vehicle movements, the parking arrangements would remain the same and users would need to continue to take care around buses using the bus stop. Similarly the proposal would not lead to any interference with the traffic mirror. Having reviewed the proposal and the existing arrangements the Highway Authority has raised no objection and therefore it would not be reasonable to refuse the development on highway safety grounds.

20/0918/FUL page 154

The designation of the landscape as an AONB means that householders do not benefit from permitted development rights to add a dormer to their roof. As a consequence there are very few dormers in the village and those that exist are mainly on purpose built chalet bungalows. In spite of that the proposed dormer would neither be conspicuous in the streetscene nor out of character with the architecture of the building. For these reason and those given in relation to Policy H3, the proposal would not harm the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB.

For the avoidance of doubt, the building cannot be enlarged or replaced using the Government's recently granted permitted development rights because they do not apply in an AONB (or conservation area or world heritage site). There is therefore no extant fallback position.

Habitats Regulation Assessment and Appropriate Assessment

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

CONCLUSION

This proposal complies with all the requirements of Policy H3 of the Local Plan and therefore in spite of its ‘countryside’ location, the creation of a new dwelling through the subdivision of the existing flat is acceptable in principle and is in accordance with Strategy 7. The size of the dormer and the number of parking spaces available are both on the limit of acceptability but are nevertheless compatible with the relevant policy requirements and the principle that each case must be assessed on its merits. A reduced scheme providing a 1-bed flat may appear more favourable but is not before the Committee. The 2-bed scheme being considered satisfies all the policy requirements and is therefore supported subject to a number of conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt the Appropriate Assessment forming part of this report; and 2. APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

20/0918/FUL page 155

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

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

3. Notwithstanding the drawings hereby permitted, no development above existing roof level shall take place until details of the materials to be used externally in the construction of the dormer have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be built in the materials approved. (Reason - To ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

4. No development shall take place above existing roof level until details of arrangements for the storage of refuse and recycling have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved storage facilities shall be made available before the flat hereby permitted is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. (Reason - To ensure that early consideration is given to the provision of refuse storage facilities for the residents in the interest of health and hygiene in accordance with Policies D1- Design and Local Distinctiveness, H3 - Conversion of Existing Dwellings and Other Buildings to Flats and EN14 - Control of Pollution of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

5. No development shall take place above existing roof level until details of the construction, drainage and surfacing of the parking area have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The flat hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the parking area has been completed in accordance with the approved details. Thereafter at all times the parking area shall be kept free of obstruction and available for use for these purposes by residents of the building and visitors to the building. (Reason - To ensure adequate and safe provision is made for the occupiers and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with the requirements of Policy TC7 - Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

6. No development above existing roof level shall take place until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme to include the planting of trees, hedges, shrubs, herbaceous plants and areas to be grassed. The scheme shall also give details of any proposed walls, fences and other boundary treatment. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of the development above roof level unless any alternative phasing of the landscaping is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the

20/0918/FUL page 156

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

7. No development shall take place above existing roof level until details of flood avoidance and mitigation measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include a flood barrier for the external door to the upper floor flats, non-return valves for the drains and a flood plan for the occupants of the flat hereby permitted. The measures shall be put in place before the flat is occupied and shall be retained thereafter and the flood plan shall be provided to all future occupants of the flat. (Reason - To limit the effects of flooding in accordance with Policy EN21 - River and Coastal Flooding of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

8. The existing attic window in the north elevation of the building shall not be enlarged. (Reason - To clarify the extent of the development hereby permitted and in the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

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

Plans relating to this application:

20005-14 Proposed Site Plan 04.05.20

20005-13 Proposed Combined 04.05.20 Plans

20005-12 Proposed Elevation 04.05.20

20005-11 Proposed Combined 04.05.20 Plans

20005-10 Proposed Floor Plans 04.05.20

20005-SLP Location Plan 04.05.20

20/0918/FUL page 157

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

20/0918/FUL page 158