Public Document Pack

Agenda for Development Management Committee Tuesday, 1st October, 2019, 10.30 am

Members of Development Management Committee Councillors: M Howe (Chairman), K McLauchlan (Vice- East Devon District Council Chairman), P Arnott, K Bloxham, C Brown, O Davey, S Gazzard, Blackdown House P Hayward, N Hookway, D Key, T McCollum, H Parr, G Pratt, Border Road J Rowland, E Wragg and T Wright Heathpark Industrial Estate Honiton EX14 1EJ Venue: Council Chamber Blackdown House DX 48808 HONITON Tel: 01404 515616 Contact: Wendy Harris; www.eastdevon.gov.uk 01395 517542; email: [email protected] (or group number 01395 517546) Friday, 20 September 2019

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 (approximately 9 working days before the meeting) 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. Please note there is no longer the ability to register to speak on the day of the meeting.

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 posted on the council’s website (item 1 – speakers’ list). Applications with registered speakers will be taken first.

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.

Registration to speak starts at 10am on Monday 23 September up until 12 noon on Thursday 26 September by leaving a message on 01395 517525 or emailing [email protected].

page 1

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 Speakers’ list removed

2 Minutes of the previous meeting (Pages 5 - 9) Minutes of the Development Management Committee meeting held on 3 September 2019 were signed as a true record.

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

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

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

7 Planning appeal statistics (Pages 10 - 22) Update from the Development Manager

Applications for Determination

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

8 19/0816/RES (Minor) (Pages 23 - 37) EXMOUTH HALSDON 9 Seafield Avenue, Exmouth, EX8 3NJ.

9 18/2799/MOUT (Major) (Pages 38 - 101)

page 2 BROADCLYST Exeter Science Park, Clyst Honiton (East of Langaton Lane)

10 19/0978/FUL (Minor) (Pages 102 - 108) AXMINSTER Poplar Mount, Axminster, EX13 5QE.

11 19/1830/FUL (Minor) (Pages 109 - 113) EXMOUTH BRIXINGTON 26 Withycombe Park Drive, Exmouth, EX8 4EL.

LUNCH BREAK

12 18/2504/MFUL (Major) (Pages 114 - 148) CLYST VALLEY Odhams Wharf, Ebford.

13 19/1066/FUL (Minor) (Pages 149 - 161) NEWBRIDGES Nower Dairy, Kilmington, Axminster, EX13 7HD.

14 19/0597/FUL (Minor) (Pages 162 - 177) SIDMOUTH RURAL Partridge Hill, Sidbury.

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

This meeting is being audio recorded by EDDC for subsequent publication on the Council’s website.

Under the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, members of the public are now allowed to take photographs, film and audio record the proceedings and report on all public meetings (including on social media). No prior notification is needed but it would be helpful if you could let the democratic services team know you plan to film or record so that any necessary arrangements can be made to provide reasonable facilities for you to report on meetings. This permission does not extend to private meetings or parts of meetings which are not open to the public. You should take all recording and photography equipment with you if a public meeting moves into a session which is not open to the public.

If you are recording the meeting, you are asked to act in a reasonable manner and not disrupt the conduct of meetings for example by using intrusive lighting, flash photography or asking people to repeat statements for the benefit of the recording. You may not make an oral commentary during the meeting. The Chairman has the power to control public recording and/or reporting so it does not disrupt the meeting.

page 3 Decision making and equalities For a copy of this agenda in large print, please contact the Democratic Services Team on 01395 517546

page 4 Agenda Item 2 EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL

Minutes of the meeting of Development Management Committee held at Council Chamber Blackdown House on 3 September 2019

Attendance list at end of document The meeting started at 10.00 am and ended at 3.15 pm. (The Committee adjourned at 12.35 pm and reconvened at 2.00 pm.

41 Minutes of the previous meeting

The minutes of the Development Management Committee held on 6 August 2019 were confirmed as a true record.

42 Declarations of interest

9. 18/1850/MOUT (Major). Councillor Helen Parr, Pecuniary, Director of Bakers which owns the land adjacent to the application site. Husband is a tenant of the field which is part of the application and is also a Director of Bakers and a shareholder. Cllr Helen Parr withdrew from the debate and the vote in respect to application 18/1850/MOUT.

9. 18/1850/MOUT (Major). Councillor Paul Arnott, Personal, Member of Colyton and Colyford Community Land Trust which may or may not be involved in the affordable housing element if the application were to be approved.

11. 19/0591/MFUL (Major). Councillor Colin Brown, Personal, The agent for planning application 19/0591/MFUL stayed as a paying guest at his hotel prior to the meeting. He had not spoken with the agent.

12. 19/0816/RES (Minor). In accordance with the code of good practice for Councillors and Officers dealing with planning matters as set out in the Constitution Cllr Howe (on behalf of the Committee) advised that correspondence had been received from the objector in respect of this application.

43 Planning appeal statistics

The Committee received and noted the Development Manager’s report setting out the appeals recently lodged and seven appeals decisions notified – four had been allowed and three dismissed.

The Development Manager drew the Committee’s attention to the four appeals allowed. The Committee were advised the council were seeking legal advice on the Inspectors decision to allow the appeal on application 18/2030/PDQ – land north of Canterbury House Farm, Woodbury. The Inspector had allowed the appeal on the basis that a separate application should have been made under Regulation 77 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The Committee were also advised that Natural England too had concerns about the decision made by the Inspector.

page 5 Development Management Committee 3 September 2019

The Committee’s attention was also drawn to the appeal allowed on application 18/0346/FUL – Dunscombe Barn, Salcombe Regis, Sidmouth. The Inspector determining that the proposal would not have a harmful to the setting of the nearby heritage asset.

Finally the Committee were advised that the Inspector had allowed the appeals on applications 18/2280/FUL – 55 Peaslands Road, Sidmouth and 18/2296/FUL – 6 Endsleigh Crescent, Blackhorse, Exeter. The Inspector allowing the appeals on the basis the reduced daylight was considered acceptable.

The Development Manager drew attention to the Planning Inspectorate allowing more appeals on applications for house extensions and advising Members that any harm arising from house extensions would need to be significant in order for the Council to be able to win appeals against the refusal of planning permission.

44 19/1184/FUL (Minor)

BROADCLYST

Applicant: Messrs Glanvill.

Location: Land At Holbrook Farm, Clyst Honiton.

Proposal: Demolition and replacement of agricultural building with erection of storage and distribution building (use class B8) and associated works.

RESOLVED: Approved as per officer recommendation.

45 18/1850/MOUT (Major)

COLY VALLEY

Applicant: Homes England.

Location: Ceramtec UK Ltd., Sidmouth Road, Colyton, EX24 6JP.

Proposal: Application for outline planning permission (all matters reserved for later approval except for access) for demolition of existing buildings and the development for up to 72 new houses and 6 B1 use class light industrial units (up to 1,000 sq.m.)

RESOLVED: Approved as per officer recommendation but subject to the following changes:

The recommendation be amended to read:

page 6 Development Management Committee 3 September 2019

‘That delegated authority is given to the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management in consultation with the Chairman of Development Management and Ward Members to grant consent, subject to:’  Condition 19 of Reptile Mitigation Strategy be strengthened to ensure that the relocation of the slow worms occurs prior to commencement of development;  The removal of condition 17 (as it is a duplicate of condition 21;  Changes to wording of condition 21 to remove ‘and those set out in the [Document Name] (Report Ref, [Document Reference]), Rev. [Document Revision], dated [Document Date].’

46 19/1065/FUL (Minor)

HONITON ST MICHAEL’S

Applicant: Mr Dave Vallender.

Location: Pegasus House, King Street, Honiton.

Proposal: Convert part of building to 2 x 1 bed single storey apartments, demolition of timber/corrugated sheds and construction of 1 x 1 bed house and 2 x 2 bed houses.

RESOLVED: Approved as per officer recommendation.

47 19/0591/MFUL (Major)

WOODBURY AND LYMPSTONE

Applicant: Plutus Energy Ltd., (Mr Paul Lazarevic)

Location: Storage Land Adjacent Electricity Sub Station, Woodbury, EX5 1LD.

Proposal: Installation of 20 self-contained natural gas engine driven electricity generators for the provision of flexible electricity generation, 2 switch rooms, 1 gas governor, 1 transformer, 4 metre high acoustic fence and landscaping, including screening bund.

RESOLVED: Refused contrary to officer recommendation.

Members considered that the proposal was contrary to Local Plan Strategies 1, 3, 5, 7, 39, Local Plan Policies D1 and EN13 and guidance within the NPPF with the benefits from the proposal being outweighed by the harm created through development in the countryside of a power generator reliant upon fossil fuel. In addition, Members considered that the proposal would result in the harmful pollution of the local environment contract to Local Plan Policy EN14.

page 7 Development Management Committee 3 September 2019

48 19/0816/RES (Minor)

EXMOUTH HALSDON

Applicant: Mr & Mrs M Murray

Location: 9 Seafield Avenue, Exmouth, EX8 3NJ.

Proposal: Construction of detached dwelling, pursuant to outline application 17/1020/OUT (seeking permission for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale).

RESOLVED: Deferred for a Site Inspection to assess the impact upon the adjoining property at 7A Seafield Avenue.

49 19/1267/FUL (Minor)

EXMOUTH TOWN

Applicant: Mr C Olisa.

Location: Flat 1, 6 Alston Terrace, Exmouth, EX8 1BH.

Proposal: Subdivision of flat 1 into 2 flats (retrospective application).

RESOLVED: Refused as per officer recommendation.

50 19/0203/FUL (Minor)

EXMOUTH TOWN

Applicant: Mr J Garrett.

Location: St Saviours, 12 Morton Road, Exmouth, EX8 1AZ.

Proposal: Change of use of building from nursing home to 19 bed house of multiple occupation (large HMO).

RESOLVED: Refused contrary to officer recommendation.

Members considered that the intensive nature of the proposal and associated activity, coupled with its location, would adversely affect the character and amenities of the area page 8 Development Management Committee 3 September 2019

to the detriment of residential amenity and local tourism contrary to policies D1 and H3 of the Local Plan.

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

Councillors also present (for some or all the meeting) M Armstrong J Bailey S Bond B Ingham G Jung

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

Councillor apologies: K Bloxham (PM only) O Davey S Gazzard G Pratt (PM only) T Wright

Chairman Date:

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

Ref: 19/0898/LBC Date Received 18.08.2019 Appellant: Mr Steve Thompson Appeal Site: The Captains Cottage Fore Street Beer Seaton EX12 3EE Proposal: Alterations to, and replacement of windows.

Planning APP/U1105/Y/19/3235532 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 18/2339/MOUT Date Received 19.08.2019 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Feast Appeal Site: Hill Pond Caravan Park Clyst St Mary Exeter EX5 1DP Proposal: Major outline application, with all matters reserved, for a hotel development with up to 130 bedrooms, including associated car parking, outbuilding, attenuation pond and access Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3235610 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 18/2849/OUT Date Received 21.08.2019 Appellant: Mr Paul Whiston Appeal Site: Land Adjacent 114 Sidford Road Sidmouth Proposal: Proposed new dwelling (Outline application with all matters reserved) and construction of new access Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3233902 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/0430/FUL Date Received 23.08.2019 Appellant: Punch Partnerships (PML) Ltd Appeal Site: The Blue Ball Car Park Sidford Proposal: Proposed construction of three detached dwellings and private car parking with associated new private vehicular access, landscaping, boundary treatments, drainage and ground works, and reconfiguration of the existing car park. Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3235921 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/F0046 Date Received 03.09.2019

Appellant: Mr Simon Connell Appeal Site: The Undercliff Rousdon Proposal: Appeal against the serving of an enforcement notice in respect of the unauthorised construction of a building. Planning APP/U1105/C/19/3236321 Inspectorate Ref:

page 10

Ref: 19/0298/MFUL Date Received 05.09.2019 Appellant: DJ & JG Hooper Appeal Site: Higher Wick Wick Honiton EX14 4TY Proposal: Construction of manure slurry store lagoon and associated earthworks and landscaping for existing dairy unit complex. Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3236683 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/0452/FUL Date Received 06.09.2019 Appellant: Mr Jason Everett-Brown Appeal Site: Land Lying To The South Of 8 Grange Cottage Rockbeare Proposal: Erection of a two bedroom chalet for use as a residential dwelling (retrospective application) Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3236759 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 18/F0527 Date Received 07.09.2019

Appellant: Mr J Everett Brown, Mr B Brown & Mrs S Brown Appeal Site: 8 Grange Cottages Rockbeare Exeter EX5 2EP Proposal: Appeal against the serving of an Enforcement Notice in respect of the unauthorised construction of a building on the land. Planning Inspectorate APP/U1105/C/19/3236773 Ref:

Ref: 18/2512/FUL Date Received 12.09.2019 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Stephen Roberts Appeal Site: Grindlebrook Farm Sidmouth Road Aylesbeare Exeter EX5 2JJ Proposal: Proposed agricultural workers dwelling Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3237065 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/0439/FUL Date Received 14.09.2019 Appellant: Mrs Hatice Oflaz Appeal Site: 20 New Street Honiton EX14 1EY Proposal: Change of use from A2 (professional Services) to (A3)restaurant use, including new rear access to serve residential unit and fenestration changes Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3237187 Inspectorate Ref:

page 11

East Devon District Council List of Planning Appeals Decided

Ref: 18/1094/MOUT Appeal 19/00011/REF Ref: Appellant: OG Holdings Retirement Benefit Scheme Appeal Site: Land East Of Two Bridges Two Bridges Road Sidford Proposal: Outline application accompanied by an Environmental Statement (with scale and appearance reserved) for the change of use of agricultural land to employment land (B1, B8 and D1 uses) to provide 8,445 sqm of new floorspace, new highway access, cycle and footway, improvements to flood attenuation, building layout and road layout, new hedgerow planting and associated infrastructure. Decision: Appeal Allowed (with Date: 20.08.2019 conditions) Procedure: Public Inquiry Remarks: Delegated refusal, highway safety reasons overruled (EDLP Strategies 26 & 32 and Policy TC7). Application for a partial award of costs against the Council refused.

The Inspector acknowledged that there are various pinch points on the A375 in the vicinity of the site. However, he considered that whilst on-coming traffic and other road users would have to wait for a HGV to pass through these pinch points, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that an HGV is not able to carefully and safely pass through any of these locations at low speed. Furthermore, the traffic survey undertaken as part of the appellant’s traffic assessment clearly shows a significant number of large vehicles including HGV’s already using the routes to the north and to the south.

He concluded that the proposed development would help meet the significant employment needs of the area and the proposed drainage and flood attenuation measures would reduce the risk of surface water flooding elsewhere. The proposal would also contribute towards a section of the Sidmouth to Sidford Cycle route. He considered that these were significant benefits that outweighed the effects and inconvenience of the increase in HGV traffic in the area. BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3221978 Inspectorate Ref:

page 12 Page 1 of 3 Ref: 18/2086/FUL Appeal 18/00068/REF Ref: Appellant: Mr & Mrs Wood Appeal Site: 88 Hulham Road Exmouth EX8 3LB Proposal: Construction of detached dwelling and creation of new vehicular access Decision: Appeal Allowed (with Date: 21.08.2019 conditions) Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, amenity reasons overruled (EDLP Policy D1 & Strategy 6).

The Inspector considered that the proposed dwelling would not have a cramped or intrusive appearance nor appear unduly prominent within the street scene. He acknowledged that there would be a degree of loss of outlook to the occupiers of the neighbouring property although he considered the effect would be modest.

He concluded that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and would not significantly adversely affect the living conditions of the occupants of 5 Bapton Lane, with reference to outlook. The proposal would accord with Policies D1 and Strategy 6 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 (adopted 2016), which, amongst other things, require proposals to be compatible with the character of the site and its surroundings. BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/18/3219001 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 17/1717/FUL Appeal 19/00026/REF Ref: Appellant: Mrs Weare Appeal Site: Hooked Rise Farmhouse Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4QY Proposal: Erection of an agricultural storage building Decision: Appeal Allowed (with Date: 28.08.2019 conditions) Procedure: Written representations

Remarks: Delegated refusal, justification and landscape reasons overruled (EDLP Strategies 7 & 46 and Policy D7 and Dunkeswell NP Policies NE1, NE2 & BE2).

The Inspector was satisfied that there was a genuine agricultural need for a building of the scale proposed.

page 13 Page 2 of 3 He considered that the proposed building would not be located in an open area of the landscape or on the skyline and it would be largely screened by an existing copse of trees. Consequently, the proposed building would not erode the open landscape or interrupt the extensive views to and from the airfield.

He concluded that the proposed building would not harm the character and appearance of the countryside, the special landscape character of the Blackdown Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or the setting of Dunkeswell Airfield. As such, he found no conflict with Policy D7 or Strategies 7 and 46 of the LP, or with Policies BE2, NE1, NE2 of the DNP. BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3228049 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 18/F0348 Appeal 19/00003/ENFAPP Ref: Appellant: Mr N Lewis Appeal Site: 182 Exeter Road, Exmouth Proposal: Retention of a wooden fence Decision: Appeal Allowed Date: 10.09..2019 Enforcement Notice quashed Procedure: Written representations Remarks: The Council considered that fence had a significant detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policy D1 of the East Devon Local Plan.

The Inspector noted that there were other fences in the vicinity of the site which were lower in height than the fence subject of the enforcement notice, however, he considered that the fence was compatible with the general style of boundary enclosure in the area and its height was the same as the level of nearby front hedges. He concluded that the fence did not have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area and therefore, it accorded with the design aims of policy D1 of the adopted East Devon Local Plan. BVPI 204: No Planning APP/U1105/C/19/3220098 Inspectorate Ref:

page 14 Page 3 of 3 East Devon District Council List of Appeals In Progress

App.No: 18/1962/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3225210 Appellant: Mr & Mrs J. Hillier Address: Farrantshayes Farm Clyst Hydon Cullompton EX15 2NQ Proposal; Retention of alterations to access and formation of access track Start Date: 2 May 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 9 May 2019 Statement Due Date: 6 June 2019

App.No: 18/2733/OUT Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3226312 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Jordan Address: Exton Lodge Mill Lane Exton Exeter EX3 0PJ Proposal; Construction of detached dwelling and garage (outline application seeking approval for access only) Start Date: 22 May 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 29 May 2019 Statement Due Date: 26 June 2019

App.No: 19/0097/OUT Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3227752 Appellant: Mrs Lizzie Britnell Address: Bystock Hayes Old Bystock Drive Exmouth EX8 5EQ Proposal; Construction of two detached dwellings with garages (outline application seeking approval for access and layout, with matters of appearance, landscaping and scale reserved) Start Date: 3 June 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 10 June 2019 Statement Due Date: 8 July 2019

Page 1 of 8 page 15 App.No: 18/1372/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/18/3218734 Appellant: Ms K Powell Address: Waxway Camp Fire Beacon Lane Tipton St John Ottery St Mary EX11 1QD Proposal; Change of use from agricultural land to camping site. Retention of water tank, wooden housing for filtration system, water tap and associated pipe work. To also retain the compost toilet facilities, hardstanding and replace wooden shed. Start Date: 4 June 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 11 June 2019 Statement Due Date: 9 July 2019 Site visit date: 9 September 2019

App.No: 17/F0246 Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/C/19/3218735 Appellant: Ms K Powell Address: Waxway Camp Fire Beacon Lane Tipton St John Ottery St Mary EX11 1QD Proposal; Appeal against the serving of an enforcement notice in respect of the unauthorised change of use of the land Start Date: 4 June 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 11 June 2019 Statement Due Date: 9 July 2019 Site visit date: 9 September 2019

App.No: 18/2852/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3230043 Appellant: Heather and Gordon Short Address: High Bank Whitford Axminster EX13 7PJ Proposal; Proposed conversion of outbuilding into a dwelling and associated car parking Start Date: 12 June 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 19 June 2019 Statement Due Date: 17 July 2019

Page 2 of 8 page 16

App.No: 18/0789/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3230467 Appellant: Mrs Lefebvre Address: Land Adjoining Bluehayes Lane (plot 1) Land Adjoining Bluehayes House (plot 2) Bluehayes Broadclyst Proposal; Construction of two single storey detached dwellings and provision of a footpath link Start Date: 17 June 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 24 June 2019 Statement Due Date: 22 July 2019

App.No: 17/F0588 Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/C/19/3225493 Appellant: Mrs Patricia Anne Shuker Address: Churston, Harcombe Road, Axminster Proposal; Appeal against the serving of an enforcement notice in respect of the unauthorised construction of a garage Start Date: 17 June 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 1 July 2019 Statement Due Date: 29 July 2019

App.No: 18/2921/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3229728 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Newell Address: Valley Mead Convent Road Sidmouth EX10 8RE Proposal; Construction of single storey extension. Start Date: 25 June 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 2 July 2019 Statement Due Date: 30 July 2019

App.No: 19/0754/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3230253 Appellant: Mr Matthew Knight Address: 6 The Chase Honiton EX14 1QB Proposal; Construction of 1 no. dwelling Start Date: 5 July 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 12 July 2019 Statement Due Date: 9 August 2019

Page 3 of 8 page 17 App.No: 18/2608/OUT Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3231349 Appellant: Mr Rix Address: Land South Of King Alfred Way Newton Poppleford EX10 0DG Proposal; Construction of up to two dwellings (with all matters other than access reserved) Start Date: 5 July 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 12 July 2019 Statement Due Date: 9 August 2019

App.No: 18/2151/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3233336 Appellant: Mr Roger Rudkin Address: South Lodge St Johns Road Exmouth EX8 5EG Proposal; Erection of two bedroom bungalow Start Date: 29 July 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 5 August 2019 Statement Due Date: 2 September 2019

App.No: 19/0009/PDO Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3233545 Appellant: Mr T Veysey Address: Lodge Farm Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4QN Proposal; Prior Approval for Change of Use from B1 (a) office to 2no. C3 dwelling Start Date: 29 July 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 5 August 2019 Statement Due Date: 2 September 2019

App.No: 19/0865/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3232018 Appellant: Heather And Gordon Short Address: High Bank Whitford Axminster EX13 7PJ Proposal; Proposed conversion of outbuilding into holiday accommodation and associated car parking. Start Date: 31 July 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 7 August 2019 Statement Due Date: 4 September 2019

Page 4 of 8 page 18 App.No: 18/2753/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3229191 Appellant: Mr Philip Creese Address: Land West Of Lower Deems Branscombe EX12 3BB Proposal; Construction of single dwelling with garden and existing on-site garage Start Date: 5 August 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 12 August 2019 Statement Due Date: 9 September 2019

App.No: 18/2611/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3233707 Appellant: Mr Brian Langdon Address: Alaska Lodge Stafford Barton Swan Hill Road Colyford Colyton Proposal; Proposed conversion and alteration of barns to form 2 (no). residential dwellings and formation of associated parking areas Start Date: 19 August 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 26 August 2019 Statement Due Date: 23 September 2019

App.No: 18/2410/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3234774 Appellant: Mr Ryan Eaton Address: Otter Valley Golf Centre Rawridge Honiton EX14 9QP Proposal; Proposed barn conversion to single dwelling with integral annex Start Date: 19 August 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 26 August 2019 Statement Due Date: 23 September 2019

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

Page 5 of 8 page 19 App.No: 19/0244/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3234491 Appellant: Lynda Cole Address: Broadview Court Place Farm Wilmington Honiton EX14 9LA Proposal; Demolition of existing and construction of replacement dwelling Start Date: 20 August 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 27 August 2019 Statement Due Date: 24 September 2019

App.No: 18/2016/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3233791 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Mark and Amanda Maynard Address: Garden Of Highlands Capper Close Newton Poppleford Sidmouth EX10 0HD Proposal; Construction of dwelling and formation of new access, driveway and parking area Start Date: 20 August 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 27 August 2019 Statement Due Date: 24 September 2019

App.No: 18/2849/OUT Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3233902 Appellant: Mr Paul Whiston Address: Land Adjacent 114 Sidford Road Sidmouth Proposal; Proposed new dwelling (Outline application with all matters reserved) and construction of new access Start Date: 21 August 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 28 August 2019 Statement Due Date: 25 September 2019

App.No: 19/0646/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/D/19/3230848 Appellant: Mr Mark Philp Address: 59 Mount Pleasant Avenue Exmouth EX8 4QR Proposal; Front and rear hip to gable roof extension with side dormer to form new first floor accommodation and associated works. Start Date: 28 August 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 2 September 2019

Page 6 of 8 page 20 App.No: 18/2376/MFUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3233226 Appellant: Colyford Eden Ltd Address: Land North Of Kingsholme And West Of Coly Road Colyford Colyton Proposal; Proposed residential development of 15no. dwellings (10no. affordable) with site access and associated works. Start Date: 28 August 2019 Procedure: Hearing Questionnaire Due Date: 4 September 2019 Statement Due Date: 2 October 2019 Hearing Date: 29 October 2019

Ref.No: 18/F0077 Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/C/19/3225216 Appellant: Luke John Kent Address: Flat 1, 31 Cranford Avenue, Exmouth Proposal; Appeal against the serving of an enforcement notice in respect of the unauthorised construction of a building. Start Date: 30 August 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 13 September 2019 Statement Due Date: 11 October 2019

App.No: 19/0419/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/D/19/3229268 Appellant: Mr Graham Bassett Address: 6 Briar Close Exmouth EX8 2NL Proposal; Construction of dormer windows to front and rear to enable loft conversion; construction of car port enclosure. Start Date: 9 September 2019 Procedure: Householder Questionnaire Due Date: 16 September 2019

App.No: 18/2933/FUL Appeal Ref: Appellant: Mr D Rawlins Address: Land West Of Perriton Cross (Land At 2 Sunnymead) Talaton Road Whimple Proposal; Construction of detached dwelling and garage Start Date: 10 September 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 17 September 2019 Statement Due Date: 15 October 2019

Page 7 of 8 page 21 App.No: 18/1798/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3235304 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Lambert Address: Elmcote Boughmore Road Sidmouth EX10 8SH Proposal; Construction of dwelling and detached carport Start Date: 9 September 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 16 September 2019 Statement Due Date: 14 October 2019

App.No: 18/2339/MOUT Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3235610 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Feast Address: Hill Pond Caravan Park Clyst St Mary Exeter EX5 1DP Proposal; Major outline application, with all matters reserved, for a hotel development with up to 130 bedrooms, including associated car parking, outbuilding, attenuation pond and access Start Date: 9 September 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 16 September 2019 Statement Due Date: 14 October 2019

App.No: 19/0430/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3235921 Appellant: Punch Partnerships (PML) Ltd Address: The Blue Ball Car Park Sidford Proposal; Proposed construction of three detached dwellings and private car parking with associated new private vehicular access, landscaping, boundary treatments, drainage and ground works, and reconfiguration of the existing car park. Start Date: 9 September 2019 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 16 September 2019 Statement Due Date: 14 October 2019

Page 8 of 8 page 22 Agenda Item 8

Ward Exmouth Halsdon

Reference 19/0816/RES

Applicant Mr & Mrs M Murray

Location 9 Seafield Avenue Exmouth EX8 3NJ

Proposal Construction of detached dwelling, pursuant to outline application 17/1020/OUT (seeking permission for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale)

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 23

Committee Date: 1st October 2019

Exmouth Halsdon Target Date: (Exmouth) 19/0816/RES 12.06.2019

Applicant: Mr & Mrs M Murray

Location: 9 Seafield Avenue Exmouth

Proposal: Construction of detached dwelling, pursuant to outline application 17/1020/OUT (seeking permission for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale)

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application was deferred from the meeting on the 3rd September 2019 for a Site Inspection to assess the impact upon the adjoining property at 7A Seafield Avenue.

The application was originally before members as the officer recommendation differs to the view of a Ward Member.

This reserved matters application seeks permission for the construction of a detached four bedroom, two storey dwelling within the rear garden of no 9 Seafield Avenue. The application seeks approval for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, pursuant to the grant of outline planning permission (17/1020/OUT) in which the principle of a single dwelling on the site was accepted.

The proposed dwelling would be sited within a plot which is smaller than that granted at outline stage. Concern has been raised that the application site proposed for the reserved matters application is smaller than that approved at outline and that this should invalidate the application. Whilst the concern is noted and it is acknowledged that the application site for the development has been reduced, there is nothing within planning legislation that suggests that the application site area cannot be reduced through the submission of a reserved matters application.

Furthermore, whilst the footprint of the proposed dwelling is sizeable in relation to the size of the plot, the submitted site plan demonstrates that there is sufficient space within the site to provide an adequate private amenity area for the dwelling, parking and turning for vehicles and the access and driveway such that it would not give rise to significant harm to the character and appearance of the area

19/0816/RES page 24

despite the fact that Seafield Avenue is characterised largely by large dwellings in generous sized plots.

It is accepted that reducing the size of the application site would result in a less neighbourly form of development with no 7A Seafield Avenue, however the amendments to the scheme which includes moving the dwelling further away from the boundary and the incorporation of privacy screens would be sufficient to ensure that the impact of the dwelling on the amenities of the occupiers of surrounding properties would not be significantly harmful in terms of being unduly overbearing or over dominant, through loss of light or significant loss of privacy to sustain an objection.

On balance, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and compliant with Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries) and policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the Local Plan and the policies contained within the Exmouth Neighbourhood Plan. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Exmouth Halsdon - Cllr Megan Armstrong As ward councillor I am writing to object to application no. 19/0816/RES for the following reasons.

1. This is a reserved matters application which should comply with the outline approval as granted in 2017. However the location plans on the outline approval and this current application differ substantially, in that the area allocated for development has been significantly reduced. Consequently the available land has been limited to the lower south eastern section. I would therefore suggest that this is no longer a reserved matters application, and that a completely new application be submitted.

2. I have read the objection letter from the closest affected neighbours, no. 7A and entirely agree with all the points raised, following my site visit, especially the overall size and height of the proposed dwelling, the raising of the ground level against the boundary of 7A and the very close proximity of the dwelling to these neighbours. I consider that all these issues, if pursued would result in an overbearing and out of keeping appearance in this open residential area.

3. I am very surprised that the Arboricultural Report in the documents section was written for the original outline application and is dated 30th March 2017, when two dwellings were proposed on the much larger site. This has not been updated in line with the reserved matters application, especially considering the much smaller plot size.

I am particularly concerned about the neighbouring silver birch (T9) which could be particularly vulnerable due to its close proximity to the proposed dwelling.

19/0816/RES page 25

I would like to see a current arboricultural report from the council's own tree officer with special reference to this silver birch, its root protection area and any work that would need to be done to it if this proposal is approved.

4. In conclusion, I have very serious concerns about this application in its current form and all the above issues must be addressed to the satisfaction of neighbouring residents. ie. - the dwelling to be scaled down in size, - to be further back from the boundary, - the height reduced, - not to raise the floor level near the boundary, - to ensure a current council tree officer report is done and actioned appropriately, - and to consider whether a completely new application should be submitted.

I also suggest that a site visit by other members/officers would be very useful in this case.

Further comments: 09/08/19

As ward councillor I am writing to object to the latest amended plans for application 19/0816/RES.

Although there is now an updated Arboricultural Report, with some safeguards for the neighbouring silver birch (T9) (referred to as a 'poor quality neighbouring specimen', which I would challenge), none of my previous objections have been addressed. These are: the overall size and height of the dwelling, the raising of the ground level against the boundary of no. 7A and its overbearing effect and the dwelling being totally out of keeping with the surrounding area.

For all these reasons I once again recommend refusal of this application.

Further comments: 19/07/19

As ward councillor I am writing to object to this amended application 19/0816/RES, 9 Seafield Avenue, Exmouth, which has again been recommended for refusal by the Town Council on the grounds of the dwelling being overbearing and out of keeping with the surrounding area. Despite some minimal tweaks, no serious material changes have been made to mitigate the objections raised.

- The overall size is the same; - The height is the same; - The raising of the ground level against the boundary of 7A is the same; - The overbearing effect on no. 7A is the same; - The dwelling would remain out of keeping with the surrounding area; - In addition, the applicant has not provided an up to date Arboricultural report, as requested by the council's tree officer, who still has serious concerns over the impact of the scheme on no. 7A's silver birch tree.

19/0816/RES page 26

In conclusion, my previous objections remain and I recommend refusal of this application.

Parish/Town Council Meeting 14.05.19

Objection in terms of size, mass and scale and was therefore contrary to the East Devon LP policy D1. Members also felt the proposal was out of keeping with the area therefore contrary to Exmouth Neighbourhood Plan policy requirement EB2. It was recognised that outline permission had been granted but it was felt this proposal was too much of a departure from the original scheme. Preference was for a single storey or smaller dwelling. Members also supported Cllr M Armstrong's request for an updated Arboricultural report from EDDC.

Further comments 08.07.19:

Objection sustained, none of the concerns previously raised had been mitigated plus additional objection that the proposed dwelling overlooked the neighbouring property and created lack of privacy. An updated Arboricultural report had also not been received.

Technical Consultations

EDDC Trees The submitted arboricultural report needs to be updated to reflect the actual development proposed.

The location of tree on and adjacent to the site should be shown on all submitted plans.

Until we have this information I am unable to comment on the proposed scheme.

Further comments 13.08.19:

No objection to the amended scheme. Any planning approval should be subject to a compliance condition. I have provided a draft condition below:

Tree Protection - Approved Tree Protection Plan(TPP) and Arboricultural Method Statement(AMS) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including all preparatory work), the following tree protection measures as identified in the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP) dated 24th day of July 2019 will have been completed: a) A detail manufacture or engineers specification for the depth of the cellular confinement system, for the construction of the no dig road shall be submitted to and approved by East Devon District Council. b) The location of all underground services shall be submitted to the East Devon District Council. c) The tree protection fencing and ground protection shall be in place and in accordance with the agreed specification.

19/0816/RES page 27

d) The installed tree protection measures will have been inspected by an appropriately experience and qualified Arboricultural Consultant commissioned to act as the project Arboricultural Supervisor. e) The findings of the Arboricultural Supervisors initial site inspection shall be forwarded to Local planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on site.

During the development herby approved, the following tree protections measures identified in the above AMS and TPP will be undertaken:

f) The AMS and TPP dated 24th day July 2019 shall be strictly followed. g) Ad-hoc monthly site inspections shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified tree specialist and the finding recorded in the site monitoring log. h) Any departures from the approved TPP and AMS shall be reported to the Local Planning Authority in writing within five working days of the site inspection.

On completion of the development hereby approved: i) A completed site monitoring log shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval and final discharge of the tree protection condition.

Reason: To satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the trees to be retained will not be damaged during demolition or construction and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality, in accordance with Policy D3 - Trees and Development Sites of the East Devon Local Plan 2016 and pursuant to section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Informative: The following British Standards should be referred to: a) BS: 3998:2010 Tree work - Recommendations b) BS: 5837 (2012) Trees in relation to demolition, design and construction - Recommendations

Other Representations

4 letters of objection have been received at the time of writing this report raising concerns which can be summarised as:

• The dwelling would be bigger that that approved at outline in a smaller site • The dwelling would dominate the area • Out of character with more spacious plots • Overlooking and loss of privacy • Lack of clarity on materials • Permitted development rights should be removed • No room for landscaping • Raising ground levels would have an overbearing impact • Would set a precedent for high density development in the area • Contrary to Strategy 6 of the Local Plan • Impact on mature silver birch tree

In addition, 1 letter of representation has been received stating that it would have been helpful for the applicant to identify changes from the original proposal.

19/0816/RES page 28

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

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)

Exmouth Neighbourhood Plan (Made)

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019) National Planning Practice Guidance

Site Location and Description

The site refers to part of the rear garden of no 9 Seafield Avenue which is located within the built-up area boundary of Exmouth. Seafield Avenue is an area of Exmouth with lower density housing typified by large dwellings in generous sized plots although a number of plots on the southern side of the road have been sub-divided. The site itself is irregular in shape with a gentle slope and is bound on three sides by existing houses and their gardens which are accessed off Seafield Avenue. No townscape or landscape designations apply.

Planning History

Outline planning permission for the construction of a detached dwelling (with all matters reserved) was granted in 2017 (ref 17/1020/OUT). The planning permission was granted subject to conditions requiring the submission of finished floor levels and ground levels, a landscaping scheme, an Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan and the submission of a surface water and drainage strategy for the site.

Proposed Development

This reserved matters application seeks planning permission for the construction of a detached four bedroom, two storey dwelling within the rear garden of no 9 Seafield Avenue. The application seeks approval for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, pursuant to the grant of outline planning permission in which the principle of a single dwelling on the site was accepted.

19/0816/RES page 29

It should be noted that the application site indicated on the submitted site location plan accompanying the application is smaller than that granted at outline. In effect, retaining a larger garden area for 9 Seafield Avenue.

The proposed dwelling would be two stories and would have a contemporary design with a mono-pitched roof form. It would be of rendered construction under a standing seam dark grey roof. The dwelling would be orientated north east-south west within the plot and would have on its rear a full length balcony which would be accessed from the first floor of the dwelling which would provide a living room, dining room and kitchen. The four bedrooms and bathrooms would be provided at ground floor level.

The proposal includes some cut and fill to provide a level site owing to the sloping nature of the lower section of the site.

Vehicular access into the site would be taken from Seafield Avenue where a new access drive would be constructed on the eastern side of the site leading down to the proposed dwelling, parking and turning area.

ANALYSIS

The principle of a dwelling on this site has previously been accepted through the grant of the outline planning permission. Therefore the main issues to consider in determining this application are in terms of an assessment of the matters submitted for approval in terms of the layout, scale and appearance of the proposed dwelling and the impact it would have on the character and appearance of the area and the residential amenities of the occupiers of surrounding properties, the proposed access and the impact it would have on highway safety, as well as an assessment of the information that has been submitted in respect of landscaping and the impact on arboriculture.

The relevant policies against which to consider these matters are:

Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries) of the Local Plan which states that within the boundaries development will be permitted if:

1. It would be compatible with the character of the site and its surroundings and in villages with the rural character of the settlement. 2. It would not lead to unacceptable pressure on services and would not adversely affect risk of flooding or coastal erosion. 3. It would not damage, and where practical, it will support promotion of wildlife, landscape, townscape or historic interests.

Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the Local Plan that requires proposals to:

1. Respect the key characteristics and special qualities of the area in which the development is proposed. 2. Ensure that the scale, massing, density, height, fenestration and materials of buildings relate well to their context. 3. Do not adversely affect:

19/0816/RES page 30

a) The distinctive historic or architectural character of the area. b) The urban form, in terms of significant street patterns, groups of buildings and open spaces. c) Important landscape characteristics, prominent topographical features and important ecological features. d) Trees worthy of retention. e) The amenity of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.

Policy EB2 of the Exmouth Neighbourhood Plan states that new development should be mindful of surrounding building styles and ensure a high level of design as exemplified in the Avenues Design Statement.

Layout

The proposed dwelling would be sited within a plot which is smaller than that granted at outline stage. Concern has been raised that the application site proposed for the reserved matters application is smaller than that approved at outline and that this should invalidate the application. Whilst the concern is noted and it is acknowledged that the application site for the development has been reduced, there is nothing within planning legislation that suggests that the application site area cannot be reduced through the submission of a reserved matters application.

It is acknowledged that the footprint of the proposed dwelling is sizeable in relation to the size of the plot although the submitted site plan demonstrates that there is sufficient space within the site to provide an adequate private amenity area for the dwelling, parking and turning for vehicles and the access and driveway. Whilst the proposal would result in a plot size that would be noticeably smaller than the majority of the plots within Seafield Avenue, being a plot set well back from the highway and as a back land form of development, it isn't considered that this would give rise to any significant harm to the character and appearance of the area or the wider streetscene that would justify refusal of planning permission. The layout of the proposed development within the reduced application site is considered to be acceptable.

Scale

Concern has been raised that a two storey dwelling would not be appropriate for the size of the plot given its limited size and its relationship with neighbouring properties. Whilst these concerns are noted, it is considered that the proposed dwelling has been designed to fit within the site without causing significant harm to the character and appearance of the area or the residential amenities of the occupiers of surrounding properties.

Seafield Avenue is characterised mainly by large two storey dwellings such that it isn't considered that a two storey dwelling in this location would be out of character with the area. The maximum height of the dwelling would be 6.5 metres which would be limited by reason the mono-pitched roof form of the building which would further help to reduce the overall visual impact of the dwelling on the wider character and appearance of the area.

19/0816/RES page 31

Appearance

The contemporary approach to the proposed dwelling is considered to be acceptable in this location. There are a variety of architectural styles of property in Seafield Avenue which include more contemporary designs, such that it isn't considered that the proposed design would give rise to any significant harm to the character and appearance of the area or the streetscene.

The chosen pallete of materials for the exterior of the dwelling which include white rendered walls, stone cladding, grey windows and doors are considered to be appropriate for the character and appearance of the area such that it is considered that the proposal complies with the provisions of policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the Local Plan and Policy EB2 of the Neighbourhood Plan.

Access and Highway Safety

The proposed site plan adequately demonstrates that a driveway and parking and turning area are capable of being provided within the site not dissimilar to other backland access arrangements in Seafield Avenue. Visibility at the junction of the access would be adequate with Seafield Avenue not being heavily trafficked or with vehicles driving at high speeds. The proposal makes provision for vehicles to park and turn within the site so that they can exit the site in a forward gear. It is considered that the proposal complies with the provisions of policy TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) and TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development) of the Local Plan.

Landscaping

In accordance with condition 4 of the outline planning permission, the application is accompanied by a landscaping plan. Whilst this does not propose any significant new planting, it does retain existing trees and vegetation and includes the installation of additional 1.8 metre high fences to demark the boundaries of the site. The driveway and parking area would be constructed from compacted stone and grasscrete.

The proposed landscaping scheme is considered to be appropriate for a single dwelling of this size.

Residential Amenity

Policy D1 of the Local Plan requires that proposals do not adversely affect the residential amenities of the occupiers of existing properties.

The site is bound by a number of residential properties and their gardens and therefore it is accepted that a dwelling would have a degree of impact over its current use as a residential garden. In addition, it is accepted that the decision to reduce the application site area from that granted at outline, coupled with the size and footprint of the proposed dwelling would result in a less neighbourly development than could have been achieved on a larger site. However whilst this is the case, it is necessary to assess the degree of harm that would arise to the residential amenities of the occupiers of surrounding properties from the proposed development.

19/0816/RES page 32

The greatest impact of the proposal would be on the amenities of the occupiers of no 7A Seafield Avenue which is positioned to the south east of the site at a lower level. No 7A would be set back behind the proposed dwelling orientated such that its side elevation with a single high level first floor window faces towards the site. A driveway and turning area separates no 7A from the site. The main outlook from no 7A is to the north and south.

The impact of the dwelling would be increased as a result of the amount of cut and fill required to provide a level site where the ground levels of the site would be increased by 1.5 metres where closest to the south eastern boundary.

Following concerns that were raised by officers in relation to the impact of the dwelling on the amenities of the occupiers of no 7A Seafield Avenue, amended plans have been produced which have moved the dwelling away from the boundary allowing for a separation distance of 3.8 metres from the existing retaining boundary wall. The dwelling has also been designed such that a single storey element would be closest to the boundary which would then step up to its full two storey height. This design coupled with moving the dwelling further away from the boundary is considered to be sufficient to ensure that the physical impact of the dwelling would not be significantly harmful in terms of being unduly over dominant or over bearing notwithstanding the increase in the ground levels close to the boundary of the site.

On balance, whilst a two storey dwelling would have a degree of impact on the occupiers of 7A Seafield Avenue, this would be to a driveway and turning area and a high level living room window at first floor on the side elevation. Owing to the orientation of the property in relation to the site, outlook from the living accommodation on the north and south elevations would be unaffected with no significant loss of light. On balance, it isn't considered that the impact of the development would be significantly harmful to residential amenity to sustain an objection.

Concerns regarding the potential for overlooking from the balcony proposed to run along the entire rear elevation of the dwelling have been addressed through the addition of a two storey privacy screen on the south eastern and a privacy screen on the north western side of the balcony and through the removal of an external staircase which could have resulted in an unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of privacy to no 7A. The submitted cross section drawing adequately demonstrates that there would be no overlooking from ground floor windows of the proposed dwelling where the accommodation has been designed to have an en-suite window closest to the boundary of no 7A. Even with the raised ground levels, ground floor windows would face directly towards the rear boundary fence.

The proposed dwelling would be visible from an area of land within the ownership of no 7A Seafield Avenue to the south where it is acknowledged that first floor windows and the balcony would face towards it, albeit at an oblique angle. This land is not recognised as lawful domestic curtilage which is located immediately to the rear of no 7A in the form of a first floor balcony, patio area and rear garden. There would be no impact from the dwelling on the private amenity space of no 7A because of the orientation of the proposed dwelling in relation to this property. The privacy screen to the south eastern side of the dwelling would help to prevent any significant overlooking or loss of privacy. No windows are proposed on the side elevation of the dwelling.

19/0816/RES page 33

Whilst concerns have been raised regarding overlooking and loss of privacy to no 7 Seafield Avenue and its rear garden to the north east, the dwelling has been designed to have high level (1.7 metres from the finished floor level) kitchen and living room windows at first floor on the north east elevation such that there would be no significant levels of overlooking or loss of privacy. An area of glazing would serve a staircase however on the basis that this wouldn’t serve a habitable room coupled with the distance from the boundary it isn’t considered that an objection could be sustained on these grounds.

It is considered that there are sufficient distances to the rears of numbers 7 and 9 such that they would not experience and detrimental loss of amenity.

A condition is recommended that the privacy screens are installed prior to first occupation of the dwelling and that the privacy screens remain in place in perpetuity.

Having regard for the above points it is considered that the proposal complies with the provisions of policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan.

Arboricultural Impact

Concern has been expressed about the impact of the dwelling on the health and well- being of a mature silver birch tree which falls outside of the application site but is in close proximity to the southern boundary. The Council’s tree officer has advised that following the submission of amended plans which moved the dwelling outside of the root protection area of the tree, there were still concerns that the provided level details showed the ground level increasing between 1.0 and 1.4 metres, within and close to the root protection area of the birch tree in the neighbouring property. This was not considered to be sustainable in arboricultural terms and would be damaging to the tree.

To address these concerns, the applicant has provided an updated Arboricultural report and Impact assessment along with amended plans which propose maintaining the existing levels of the southern-most section of the garden within the root protection area of the silver birch tree with a timber sleeper retaining wall to be constructed immediately to the north. This has been considered by the Council’s tree officer who has advised that this aspect of the proposal would be acceptable with no impact on the neighbouring tree.

Whilst the Arboricultural report is considered to be acceptable in principle, the tree officer has advised that it lacks detail with regards to the location of underground services and the engineer’s specification for the construction of a no dig access road. On this basis, it is considered that condition 5 on the outline planning permission which required the submission of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Arboricultural Method Statement and tree protection plan to be submitted prior to commencement of development has not yet been discharged and therefore this condition remains to be complied with and discharged under the outline planning permission.

19/0816/RES page 34

In principle however the proposal is considered to be sustainable from an arboricultural perspective in compliance with the provisions of policy D3 (Trees and Development Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan.

Drainage and Surface Water Run-off In accordance with condition 7 of the outline planning permission, the application is accompanied by a surface water and drainage strategy for the development. Foul water drainage would be connected to the combined public sewer in Seafield Avenue.

In respect of the surface water strategy, it is stated that there is insufficient space within the site to provide ground soakaways and therefore attenuated storage tanks are proposed for surface water collected from the roof of the building which would be discharged into the combined public sewer at a discharge rate of 1 l/s. The proposed drainage and surface water strategy is considered to be appropriate for a development of this size and nature and complies with the provisions of policy EN22 (Surface Run- Off Implications of New Development) of the Local Plan.

Permitted Development Rights

Permitted development rights were removed from the property for classes B and C (additions and alterations to the roof) at outline stage. Having regard for the fact that the application site area has been reduced in size, the proposed change in ground levels of the site and relationship with neighbouring properties, it is considered necessary and reasonable to remove permitted development rights for classes A and E (extensions and outbuildings) given the limited amount of space available within the proposed plot.

CONCLUSION

It is accepted that a more neighbourly form of development and a development more in-keeping with the surrounding pattern of development in terms of the ratio of footprint to plot size could have been achieved on a larger application site more akin to the size granted at outline stage.

However following receipt of amended plans it is not considered that the proposal in terms of its scale, layout, appearance, landscaping and access would give rise to significant harm to the character and appearance of the area or to the residential amenities of the occupiers of surrounding properties to sustain an objection.

Notwithstanding the concerns that have been raised, it is considered that the proposal would comply with the provisions of Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries) and policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the Local Plan and the policies contained within the Exmouth Neighbourhood Plan. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

19/0816/RES page 35

1. East Devon District Council as Local Planning Authority HEREBY APPROVE THE FOLLOWING RESERVED MATTERS of the above described development proposed in the application numbered as shown above and in the plans and drawings attached thereto, copies of which are attached to this notice relating to:-

(a) Appearance (b) Landscaping (c) Layout (d) Scale (e) Access

This Reserved Matters application numbered as shown above is made pursuant to the Outline Planning Permission (ref. No. 17/1020/OUT) granted on 13th December 2017.

The following reserved matters have yet to be approved:

None.

The following conditions of the outline permission is hereby discharged:

3, 4, 7

The following conditions of the outline permission remain to be discharged:

5

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

4. Prior to first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the privacy screens on the south east and north western elevations of the dwelling shall be installed in accordance with the details shown on drawing no's 7867-12 REV D and 7867-11 REV D. The privacy screens shall thereafter be retained in perpetuity. (Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-

19/0816/RES page 36

enacting that Order with or without modification) no works shall be undertaken within the Schedule 2 Part 1 Classes A or E for the enlargement, improvement or other alterations to the dwelling hereby permitted, other than works that do not materially affect the external appearance of the buildings, or for the provision within the curtilage of any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool, [other than any enclosure approved as part of the landscape management scheme] (Reason - The space available as a result of the reduction in the size of the application site would not permit such additions without detriment to the character and appearance of the area or to the amenities of adjoining occupiers in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

Plans relating to this application:

7867-10 Rev E Proposed Site Plan 24.07.19

7867-13 Rev B Landscaping 24.07.19

7867-LP Location Plan 15.04.19

7867-12 Rev E Sections 24.07.19

7867-11 Rev D Proposed Combined 15.07.19 Plans

7867-14 Rev A : Other Plans 15.07.19 DRAINAGE STRATEGY

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

19/0816/RES page 37 Agenda Item 9

Ward Broadclyst

Reference 18/2799/MOUT

Applicant Eagle One MMlll Ltd

Location Exeter Science Park Clyst Honiton

Proposal Erection of up to 150 dwellings with associated infrastructure and public open spaces including allotments/community gardens (all matters reserved except access)

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the attached Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 be adopted. 2. That the application be APPROVED with conditions and subject to completion of a legal agreement.

Crown Copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 38 Broadclyst Target Date: 11.04.2019 (BROADCLYST) 18/2799/MOUT

Applicant: Eagle One MMlll Ltd

Location: Exeter Science Park Clyst Honiton (East Of Langaton Lane)

Proposal: Erection of up to 150 dwellings with associated infrastructure and public open spaces including allotments/community gardens (all matters reserved except access)

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the attached Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 be adopted. 2. That the application be APPROVED with conditions and subject to completion of a legal agreement.

FURTHER UPDATE REPORT

Background

The above outline planning application was considered by the DM Committee on the 30th April 2019 (original report attached) and Members made the following decision: “Approved as per officer recommendation subject to a change to condition 16 to secure a minimum 3m width pedestrian/cycle link and securing of a financial contribution towards the NHS at a maximum of £216,247 subject to the Council’s Viability Consultant confirming that the overall land use swap deal is viable with the contribution. If the Council’s Viability Consultant confirms that the proposal is only viable with a contribution to the NHS of less than £216,247, that the decision be delegated to the Chairman for determination”.

page 39 However, the matter was referred back to the DM Committee on the 6th August 2019 (copy of update report also attached) as the applicant was not prepared to make any NHS contribution for a number of reasons specified in the report. Just prior to the DM Committee meeting, the applicant submitted a solicitor’s letter and a Counsel Opinion to justify their position. As a result of this late information, the DM Committee decided to defer a decision to allow consideration of the additional information by the applicant. The additional information submitted by the applicant was sent to the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) for their comments on the arguments made to allow a balanced viewpoint. Both the applicants’ additional information and the Trust’s response were then considered by Counsel appointed by the Council, to give a legal opinion on the conflicting arguments. This has now been received and consequently the matter is now ready to be referred back to the DM Committee for a final decision. Applicant’s Counsel Opinion and Solicitor’s letters The thrust of the applicant’s case is that the funding requests by the Trust fail to meet the tests of regulation 122 (2) of the CIL Regulations i.e.- (a) a planning obligation must be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) it must be directly relevant to the development; and (c) it must be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. As the proposal fails to meet the tests, the applicant argues that the request is unlawful. Part of the detailed case put forward is that as the Trust is contractually obliged to deliver the services and residents can access those services whether or not the contribution is paid, the tests of Regulation 122 (2) are not met. In addition, the applicant’s believe that the request from the Trust constitutes ‘infrastructure’ and should be secured through CIL rather than a S106. However, this is a secondary point as the applicant believes the Regulation 122 (2) tests fail. Finally, it is concluded that there is no policy “hook” in the local plan, Planning Obligations SPD or the IDP to require that a contribution should be made towards the routine running costs of the Trust. The response from the Trust The trust were sent a copy of the applicant’s case with a request for comments on them, particularly in relation to the NHS funding arrangements. The Trusts consultation response relates to the increased impact of the development on the Trusts services that are now at full capacity. They detail how funding is provided to them based on previous year’s performance, and how they cannot plan for, and as such do not receive funding, for unplanned developments and equally cannot refuse to treat a patient. The trust states that the only way they can maintain “on time” service delivery without compromising quality of care and comply with NHS quality requirements is that the developer mitigates impact by contributing towards the cost of

page 40 providing the necessary capacity for the Trust to maintain service delivery during the one to three years of occupation of each dwelling until funding is received to cover the additional impacts. However, the Trust considers that the request only for the first year keeps the levels of contribution reasonable. They also state that a S106 can be used to fund ‘running costs’ as opposed to ‘infrastructure’. The contribution does meet the Regulation 122 (2) tests because it is needed to make the development acceptable in planning terms as without it the population increase will be accessing the Trust without any corresponding funding which would adversely affect the standard of service. The contribution is directly related to the development as it is based only on the new population of the development who will be using the Trust’s services. The contribution is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development as it is linked to the size of the new population and the particular characteristics of that population. Counsel Opinion on behalf of the Council Following receipt of the additional information from the applicant and the Trust’s response, the Council commissioned its own Counsel Opinion to consider the information submitted and advise on whether the Local Planning Authority can legally secure the contribution towards the Trust’s services. This advice received can be summarised as follows: • The provision of the Trust’s services is capable of falling outside the term ‘infrastructure’ for the purposes of the planning Act 2008 and can therefore be requested via a S.106 Agreement;

• The tests under Regulation 122 (2) (b) and (c) do not give rise to any forceful argument to suggest that the contribution does not meet the tests under Regulation 122 (2). The main issue is under Regulation 122 (2) (a) and it is noted that the Trust has a mandatory duty to provide the services irrespective of the contribution. However, the Trust make the point that the relevant service provided over the relevant period, would be inferior in the absence of the contribution. In this respect, necessity could be demonstrated.

• The above point raises the issue of whether sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate the Regulation 122 (2) tests are met. The Trust has not yet produced a fully comprehensive justification and the Council has asked for further information regarding particular expenditure and anticipated delivery over the relevant period which has not yet been forthcoming.

• It is open to the Council to find that the contribution does meet all the relevant tests under CIL Regulation 122 (2), provided it is satisfied that sufficient justification is demonstrated.

page 41 • The several references made to ‘infrastructure’ across the local plan that are concerned with the provision of healthcare facilities are sufficiently supportive of justifying the contribution. There is also adequate national policy support by itself under the NPPF and/or the NPPG.

• That it would be lawful for the Local Planning Authority to grant approval of permission without securing the Contribution given the wider benefits of the proposals enabling the proposed land use swap, and conversely, noting that such benefits would be unachievable were the developments not to come forward. Assessment In summary, the Council’s Counsel Opinion states that the request from the Trust for a contribution towards services is capable of meeting the relevant tests subject to the further information (which has been previously requested) required from the Trust detailing exactly what the contribution would be spent on (to ensure that it is all non-infrastructure) along with a timescale for spend. At the time of preparing this report, the further information from the Trust has been requested again but has not been received. Whilst this does not mean that the contribution is ultimately unlawful, without this information and being allowed to consider it, we cannot categorically state at the present time that it is lawful. As such and until this information has been received and assessed as being acceptable, it would not be reasonable to require the contribution. Irrespective of the submission of the further information, the applicant remains of the view that the contribution to the Trust is not acceptable and unlawful. They have consistently stated therefore that they will not pay the contribution and that approval of permission with the contribution will result in the land use swap no longer happening. As stated in the previous reports, consideration of this development must weigh up the planning balance of material considerations and in this respect the recommendation has not changed. The benefits of securing the land use swap to the Science Park are considerable and weigh in favour of securing a planning permission. The main benefits being as follows: • The Science Park is a major strategic employment site in the district for the important objective of providing high quality jobs in a sustainable manner close to a large population centre, nearby housing/community facilities and good transport links. Whilst delivery has been reasonably constant over the last nearly ten years, the physical and planning context has changed significantly with major new developments under construction next to the Science Park changing the rural context which underpinned the original concept. As such, an Interim Masterplan has recently been endorsed by the Strategic Planning Committee to consider and provide high level principles for the changing context of innovation led employment requirements and physical relationships to allow the Science Park to adapt to the changing

page 42 context and unlock delivery. This interim masterplan can only be realised with the land swap and is therefore an essential component for the future direction of the Science Park and its relationship to new development in the vicinity coming forward. • Increased deliverability of the Science Park through less reliance on public sector borrowing and more independence as the Science Park Company will have control of all of its land providing less ambiguity for potential investors and developers; • The relocated Science Park would be immediately adjacent to the main science park centre and seen as part of the main complex as opposed to being an outlying cluster with less presence. This will help integrate and reinforce this flagship development; • Increased likelihood of earlier delivery of the remainder of the Science Park and its high quality jobs for which the district has a shortage; • Overcome a small delivery issue related to the Kennels property being located adjacent to the existing Science Park land in conflict with campus uses. It is much better suited next to residential development; • The new Science Park land will be adjacent to its southern entrance with visual prominence from the A30 improving its visibility and deliverability. At the present time and without further acceptable information/evidence from the Trust it would be unsafe to require the NHS contribution and therefore it is recommended that this issue should not be given much weight in the planning balance and planning permission should be granted without the contribution. However, if the information/evidence is forthcoming from the Trust and there is sufficient time to assess it and confirm it is acceptable before the meeting, then the NHS contribution gathers weight in the overall planning balance. It is for the Committee (as the decision maker) to reasonably decide what weight should be attached to this. Officers are of the view that in the balance of material considerations, the benefits of securing the land use swap, and conversely the risk of the land use swap not proceeding with the contribution, outweigh the benefits of the contribution in this instance, It should also be stated that further delays in reaching a decision will seriously risk the land use swap transaction. On balance therefore, and in the interests of ensuing that the land swap deal is secured and its wider planning benefits achieved, it is recommended that the Committee do not secure a financial contribution to the Trust through this planning application and approve the application subject to the planning obligations, the adoption of the Appropriate Assessment specified in the original report and change to condition 16 previously agreed.

page 43 PREVIOUS UPDATE REPORT

Broadclyst Target Date: 11.04.2019 (BROADCLYST) 18/2799/MOUT

Applicant: Eagle One MMlll Ltd

Location: Exeter Science Park Clyst Honiton (East Of Langaton Lane)

Proposal: Erection of up to 150 dwellings with associated infrastructure and public open spaces including allotments/community gardens (all matters reserved except access)

RECOMMENDATION:

3. That the attached Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 be adopted. 4. That the application be APPROVED with conditions and subject to completion of planning obligations.

UPDATE REPORT

The above outline planning application was considered by Committee on the 30th April 2019 and Members made the following decision: “Approved as per officer recommendation subject to a change to condition 16 to secure a minimum 3m width pedestrian/cycle link and securing of a financial contribution towards the NHS at a maximum of £216,247 subject to the Council’s Viability Consultant confirming that the overall land use swap deal is viable with the contribution. If the Council’s Viability Consultant confirms that the proposal

page 44 is only viable with a contribution to the NHS of less than £216,247, that the decision be delegated to the Chairman for determination”. The Council’s Viability Consultant has advised that the NHS contribution would not have a sufficiently detrimental impact on scheme viability to cause the proposed land transfer to fail. However, the advice is that as the applicant considers the overall transaction would not be in their interests, the only way for the Council to proceed with confidence that the land swap transaction will go ahead would be without the NHS contribution. The applicant has confirmed that they do not believe the contribution is valid and therefore they haven’t taken it into account in their appraisal and it was not part of the land transfer negotiations. They have further confirmed that they will not be making a financial contribution to the NHS of any amount. In terms of the Committee resolution, the Council’s Viability Consultant considers the NHS contribution could be paid as part of a pure viability exercise but considers there are other reasons that would indicate that the NHS contribution should not be sought to secure the land transfer. Overall, our consultant confirms the total S106 contribution has increased from the Heads of Terms submitted with the planning application by £134,825 (including taking into account the full NHS contribution). As the applicant has advised that they will not agree to provide any NHS contribution, the matter therefore needs to be referred back to the Committee for determination. For information since the previous decision on the 30th April, one letter of support has been received from the Exeter Science Park Limited. In addition, although it has been drawn to officer’s attention that the site falls within an area at high risk of Radon, this is a matter that is covered under Building Regulations through the provision of a barrier between the construction and the ground. Background Whilst the planning application was under consideration, the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) wrote to the council to explain that the population increase from this development would significantly impact on the service delivery and performance of the Trust until contracted activity volumes include the development population increase: this is indicated as the first year of occupation. The contribution requested is indicated by the Trust to provide services needed by the occupants of the development and it cannot predict when planning applications will be made so considers that it cannot plan for this additional development (the site is not allocated for housing in the local plan). Based on its formula using the East Devon average persons per dwelling of 2.21, The Trust has requested a contribution of £216,246 for this development to provide additional health care services arising from the development and have indicated that without it, they would object to the application as the development

page 45 would have a direct and adverse impact on the delivery of health care in the trust’s area. In turn, the applicant has advised the council that the requested contribution from the trust is unacceptable for the following reasons: 1) It does not meet the relevant tests for planning obligations; and 2) It is infrastructure that should be secured through CIL if necessary; and 3) It has not been allowed for in the viability assessment and hasn’t been included in the land deal. Relevant planning obligation tests A planning obligation must be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; it must be directly relevant to the development; and it must be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Strategies 3 (Sustainable Development) and 4 (Balanced Communities) in the Local Plan aim to promote social wellbeing by providing facilities to meet people’s needs such as health care and securing these facilities by making financial contributions towards their provision. In Strategy 50 (Infrastructure Delivery) the Council will ensure that infrastructure requirements that arise as a direct consequence of developments are met in full to serve the needs of the proposal and occupants and users. Supporting text in the Local Plan (para 16.41) states that financial contributions can be sought from developers where new development will place additional demand on health care services. More specifically, most of the policies for individual settlements refer to delivering healthcare infrastructure, such as at Cranbrook (Strategy 12), Axminster (Strategy 20), Honiton (Strategy 23) and, of most relevance for this planning application, at the ‘West End’ (Strategy 11). Similarly, government guidance requires that the views of the NHS should be sought regarding the impact of new development which may have a significant impact on the demand for healthcare services and this should inform councils when considering whether any identified impact should be addressed through a planning obligation. This is a part of delivering ‘sustainable’ development. Relevant policies that are applicable to the NHS contribution are a significant part of making a development acceptable in planning terms. There is policy support for securing health service provision where the demand and evidence is secured. In terms of the relevant tests, the Trust has advised that government planning policy supports as part of a component of sustainable development, the creation and maintenance of healthy communities which is a material consideration. The Trust advises that they are operating at full capacity for urgent and elective healthcare and whilst the Trust has plans to cater for the known population growth, it cannot plan for unanticipated additional growth in the short to medium term. The contribution is being sought to enable the Trust to provide services needed by the occupants of the new development and the funding cannot be sourced from elsewhere. Their overall conclusion is that this

page 46 development directly affects the ability to provide the health service required to those who live in the development and the community at large. In turn, the applicant considers the requested contribution fails the tests of Regulation 122 and it would be unlawful to grant planning permission having regard to such an obligation. However, no convincing evidence of this has been submitted to date. The arguments put forward by the NHS to support the contribution appear in principle to be reasonable in terms of the tests although some further clarification has been requested but so far not received. There is policy justification to secure healthcare alongside new development and information has been submitted by the NHS on how this development would affect the short term delivery of services together with a mechanism to determine the level of contribution. However, whilst the view at the current time is that, on the basis of the information before us, there are reasonable grounds to conclude that the NHS contribution would meet the relevant tests, nevertheless the applicant takes a different view. CIL A council can decide that an identified need be funded through CIL. CIL is to fund infrastructure provision and this is defined in S216 of the Planning Act 2008. The Councils Regulation 123 list is the infrastructure to be funded through CIL and includes Health Centres. The Trust specifically identifies health services to be funded out of the contribution and not physical and organisational structures. The Trust submitted a counsel opinion on this matter which concluded that the NHS services did not fall within the definition of “infrastructure” for the purposes of CIL and consequently could lawfully be the subject of a planning obligation. This counsel opinion has been assessed by our Planning Barrister who agrees that certain types of activities provided by the NHS do not fall to be interpreted as “infrastructure”. As such, the services specified to be funded out of any contribution could reasonably be the subject of a planning obligation rather than delivered through CIL. Viability Viability assessments were undertaken during the initial pre-application stage in 2018 relating to primarily the assessment of the level of affordable housing in order to incentivise the land deal/transfer. On this basis, it was considered that an affordable housing level of 25% would be sufficient to incentivise. When the application was submitted, it included a viability report from the applicant which was referred to our independent viability consultant at Plymouth City Council (PCC).This in part had to consider the changed situation since the previous report and take into account that the number of houses had increased from 120 to 150. This advised that the requested contribution from the Trust did not have a sufficiently detrimental impact on scheme viability to cause the proposed land deal to fail.

page 47 It was on this basis that the application went to the Committee. In terms of the DMC resolution, PCC and planning officers have been in discussions with the applicant to try and reach agreement on this issue. Several items have been clarified/amended but essentially the view on viability alone, is that the scheme with the contribution to the Trust will just about be viable. The view of PCC is that the total S106 contribution (including CIL) had increased from the Heads of Terms submitted with the planning application (and therefore an amount that the applicant was willing to provide) by £134,825. Whilst this is an increase of about £700,000 over the original 2018 proposal on which the land swap deal was based on, the house numbers have increased since then from 120 to 150 dwellings. However, the PCC viability report from April 2019 concluded that the development with 25% affordable housing and the S106 contribution (including the contribution to the Trust), is viable but only just. The applicant does not agree and is not prepared to fund the contribution to the Trust which risks the land deal going ahead. The applicants view is that their viability consultant in January 2019 calculated the total CIL/S106 allowance at just over £2 million which provided for in the s106 for habitat mitigation, travel planning and the provision of the allotments. This was basis for the agreement with the Exeter Science Park/DCC for the land transfer. In order to move this forward officers have tried to negotiate with the applicant by advising that we would accept a financial contribution of £81,422. This figure has been arrived at by working out what proportion of the NHS contribution could be provided without exceeding the total obligations figure that the applicant proposed as part of their Heads of Terms. In effect, this amount would mean that the applicant would not pay any greater overall level of contribution than they proposed when the application was originally submitted. However, the applicant has remained firm in their position that they will not agree to any NHS contribution. Considerations It is considered that the request for a contribution to services by the Trust is not “infrastructure” within the meaning of the CIL regime and could reasonably meet the Regulation 122 tests subject to the comments made above. Furthermore, in pure viability grounds, our viability consultant considers that with the contribution to the Trust, the development is still just viable but could certainly support a reduced sum of £81,422 as officers have tried to negotiate. However, the applicant is not prepared to enter into a S106 agreement which includes any contribution to the Trust as they consider it doesn’t meet the tests for acceptability and that the land deal is on the basis of what was previously agreed without the contribution to the Trust. The options open to the council are therefore to either refuse planning permission on the basis that the development does not adequately mitigate its impact on health services, or accept that no contribution to the Trust will be forthcoming and

page 48 proceed to a positive determination on the basis of the recommendation to DM Committee (without the contribution to the Trust). The main risk with a refusal is that the proposed land deal would be lost which would negatively impact on the delivery of the Science Park. There is also the risk of an appeal. It would also mean that the related application (18/2797/MOUT) for the Science Park would not proceed as it is reliant upon the land swap proceeding. To issue an approval of planning permission without the contribution to the Trust would secure the land deal and have huge benefits to the progress of the Science Park. Members would need to be clear that to do this would accept no mitigation for the impact of the development on health services. Planning law requires that planning applications be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It is for the decision takers to weigh up all the planning issues and come to a reasoned and rational decision taking into account the weight to be attached to the various issues to achieve a balanced outcome. It is considered that both the principle of securing mitigation for health services and supporting the future growth of a strategic employment site are material to the determination of the planning application and the assessment of weight to be attached to each consideration is a matter for planning judgement by the planning authority. The council must consider all relevant matters in determining a planning application and this means that some decisions will not follow published policy or guidance. Therefore, the planning authority can occasionally depart from policy when it considers this is outweighed by other factors and can be justified in the circumstances of the particular case or where there are competing priorities, the planning authority must exercise its reasonable judgement in determining the balance of considerations. The Science Park is a major strategic employment site in the district for the important objective of providing high quality jobs in a sustainable manner close to a large population centre, nearby housing/community facilities and good transport links. Whilst delivery has been reasonably constant over the last nearly ten years, the physical and planning context has changed significantly with major new developments under construction next to the Science Park changing the rural context which underpinned the original concept. As such, an Interim Masterplan has recently been endorsed by the Strategic Planning Committee to consider and provide high level principles for the changing context of innovation led employment requirements and physical relationships to allow the Science Park to adapt to the changing context and unlock delivery. This interim masterplan can only be realised with the land swap and is therefore an essential component for the future direction of the Science Park and its relationship to new development in the vicinity coming forward. The benefits from the land use swap to be factored into the decision are outlined in the original report and comprise the following:

page 49 • Increased deliverability of the Science Park through less reliance on public sector borrowing and more independence as the Science Park Company will have control of all of its land providing less ambiguity for potential investors and developers; • The relocated Science Park would be immediately adjacent to the main science park centre and seen as part of the main complex as opposed to being an outlying cluster with less presence. This will help integrate and reinforce this flagship development; • Increased likelihood of earlier delivery of the remainder of the Science Park and its high quality jobs for which the district has a shortage; • Overcome a small delivery issue related to the Kennels property being located adjacent to the existing Science Park land in conflict with campus uses. It is much better suited next to residential development; • The new Science Park land will be adjacent to its southern entrance with visual prominence from the A30 improving its visibility and deliverability.

Whilst at the current time, significant weight should be attached to the request for a contribution to the NHS Trust, it is considered that greater weight should be attached to the proposed land transfer which will facilitate significant long terms gains for the delivery of a major science park integrated with the other development happening in the area. It is a matter for the decision takers to apportion weight to the relevant planning considerations to come to a balanced decision. Whilst there are grounds (as outlined in this report) to secure a contribution to the Trust, nevertheless the applicant will not agree to a contribution and have advised that they will not enter into the land transfer on this basis. This land transfer is very important to the future of the Science Park, and therefore carries considerable weight in the balance of considerations. On balance therefore, and in the interests of ensuing that the land swap deal is secured and its wider planning benefits achieved, it is recommended that the Committee do not secure a financial contribution to the NHS trust through this planning application and approve the application subject to the planning obligations, the adoption of the Appropriate Assessment specified in the original report and change to condition 16 previously agreed.

page 50 Original Committee Report Committee Date: 30th April 2019

Broadclyst Target Date: (BROADCLYST) 18/2799/MOUT 11.05.2019

Applicant: Eagle One MMlll Ltd

Location: Exeter Science Park Clyst Honiton (East Of Langaton Lane)

Proposal: Erection of up to 150 dwellings with associated infrastructure and public open spaces including allotments/community gardens (all matters reserved except access)

RECOMMENDATION: 5. That the attached Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 be adopted. 6. That the application be APPROVED with conditions and subject to completion of planning obligations.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The two outline planning applications 18/2797/MOUT and 18/2799/MOUT on this agenda are linked as part of the proposed land use swap on part of the Science Park and on land immediately adjacent to the Science Park, forming part of the mixed use development known as Redhayes.

The site for the proposed residential development (18/2799/MOUT) currently forms part of the allocated Science Park, a major strategic employment site, and has an extant outline planning permission for this science park use. The land proposed for the relocation of part of the Science Park is undeveloped but has an extant outline planning permission for offices as part of the wider Redhayes development.

Both planning applications are departures from the development plan as the site for the residential development is outside of any Built-up Area Boundary and is allocated for Science Park use in the Local Plan. The site for the partial relocation of the Science Park is not allocated for Science Park uses but is allocated for the mixed use Redhayes Development. Both planning applications are considered to be Environmental Impact Assessment developments and are accompanied by an Environmental Statement. Both sites are owned by the applicant.

page 51 It is a requirement of planning law that planning decisions are determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. Theses planning applications are contrary to the Development Plan and therefore support should only be forthcoming if there are material planning considerations that would weigh in favour of approvals being given by the decision takers.

In this case, there are clear material considerations that within the balance of relevant issues, have led to a recommendation of approval for both applications:

1) There is no overall loss of science park floorspace as the area consented on the proposed residential site is to be relocated to a site next to the science park centre. This is a good location being well related to the core of the science park and is a visible location.

2) The residential development is located between the science park and the Redhayes development which together with the Mosshayne development, forms a large mixed use scheme comprising about 1500 houses, a local centre, primary school, playing fields and other related infrastructure and facilities. Although defined as countryside, the locality is undergoing rapid and far reaching urbanisation as part of the growth area of East Devon and with GESP, is possibly going to continue. The proposed residential site could therefore form an extension of the Redhayes/Mosshayne development and be largely surrounded by consented development in the future. The impact of an additional 150 houses would not be significant as it would be about a tenth of the already consent development at Redhayes/Mosshayne.

3) The site is located close to the border with Exeter and has good cycle/pedestrian and bus routes. Mixed uses are proposed for the locality including employment, leisure, shopping, school and community facilities which would reduce the demand to travel to other areas. This overall development will in time be sustainable and reduce the need for residents to travel by private car.

4) The proposed land use swap will help with the deliverability of the science park giving more control to the science park.

Overall, there are clear benefits with these planning applications which facilitate the land use swap. It is considered that within the balance of planning considerations, the weight falls in favour of permitting the development proposals rather than the ridged application of policy. However, it is for the decision takers to decide the balance of planning considerations but it is the view that there are justifiable and material planning considerations that would weigh in favour of the proposals.

Both applications are linked and neither application is acceptable by itself. In particular, the residential proposal should not be allowed to proceed or commence without the science park relocation also proceeding, as this would result in the loss of science park land and unjustified housing on the allocated science park. The draft legal agreements aim to ensure this is the case.

page 52 The proposed developments are the subject of Environmental Impact Assessment. An Environmental Statement covering both developments has been submitted which deals with the environmental issues arising from the proposals. These issues have been considered in the report and appropriate mitigation where necessary is to be secured through conditions/S106. The housing element will have some impact on the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC/SPA and the Exe Estuary SPA/Ramsar sites and accordingly an Appropriate Assessment has been completed. Natural England have confirmed that the mitigation contained in the Appropriate Assessment is acceptable to mitigate the likely significant effects of the housing development on the interest features of these European sites. This is through CIL with additional contributions for non-infrastructure mitigation through the S106. The report therefore also includes a recommendation on application 18/2799/MOUT to adopt the Appropriate Assessment.

Before the applications were submitted, the council undertook an interim Masterplan which was endorsed by the Strategic Planning Committee, to guide the preparation of these applications to ensure key design elements are incorporated to help integrate the developments into the wider development. The applications are considered to be consistent with this interim Masterplan. It is expected that should the proposed land use swap proceed, a wider Masterplan covering the whole Science Park will be needed.

The other planning issues are addressed in the reports for both planning applications, including the level of affordable housing and viability, together with S106 issues. It is material to not that no overage is proposed but there are considered to be special circumstances in this instance to support this.

On balance, the proposed developments taken together have a number of material benefits for the improved delivery prospects for the science park. Whilst both applications are contrary to policy, they would not cause a material harm being part of the much wider development and growth area in this part of the district and being sustainable. It is therefore the view that there are material planning considerations that would weigh in favour of approving these two planning applications.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council – Broadclyst. The Council would like to make the following requests: i. A contribution for off-site provision of No.2 Bus shelters on the Tithebarn Link Road be secured through the S.106 agreement ii. Litter bins be provided in the community garden and at reasonable intervals throughout the development, their servicing being added to the management company's contract iii. That a dog waste bin be provided (bought and installed) for the community garden; the PC offers to add its servicing to the Parish Council existing SLA. iv. That the allotments be transferred to the Parish Council for management.

page 53

Clerk to the adjoining Clyst Honiton Parish Council Concurs with that of Broadclyst PC as follows: A contribution for off-site provision of No.2 Bus shelters on the Tithebarn Link Road be secured through the S.106 agreement Litter bins be provided in the community garden and at reasonable intervals throughout the development, their servicing being added to the management company's contract That a dog waste bin be provided (bought and installed) for the community garden; the PC offers to add its servicing to the Parish Council existing SLA. That the allotments be transferred to the Parish Council for management.

Adjoining Parish- Bishops Clyst. The council would support any decision made by our neighbouring council in respect of this application.

Technical Consultations

Environmental Health

I have considered both noise reports and the air quality report in detail and have the following comments to make.

1. Noise report regarding potential dog kennels noise. The kennels are long established and compliant with licence requirements. To some extent the occasional short lived noise of dogs barking will therefore have characterised the area and it is inevitable that at times residents living close to the kennels will hear the dogs barking. The report prepared by Clark Saunders during the summer of 2018 was done in consultation with Environmental Health and concludes that neither the maximum noise level nor hourly average will unreasonably impact on residents in their homes. This is on the proviso that the intervening buffer of the open space is maintained and that the houses are orientated as per the submitted masterplan, with amenity spaces and most bedroom and living areas facing away from the kennels. The report predicts that in this way the internal noise climate will meet current relevant standards. We would like to see a condition incorporated which will ensure that this mitigation will be incorporated and maintained for as long as the kennels are in operation. 2. A second noise report addresses the more general noise impacts on the development, notably the nearby motorway and over flying aircraft. The noise data indicates that aircraft can be quite noisy at times but produces short lived spikes which would be expected and recognised by residents. The conclusion is that within internal living spaces and fenced private amenity areas residual noise from either source will not exceed current standards, particularly during the critical night time period, and we agree with this conclusion. A condition should be included on any approval requiring that the noise mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement should be implemented and maintained in perpetuity to ensure that future generations of residents are similarly protected. 3. There is a comprehensive Air Quality report and this concludes that there will be no concerning levels of either nitrogen oxides or particulates from motor vehicles with potential to impact on residents. Neither will additional road traffic contributed by this site lead to any deterioration in ambient air quality. Construction site issues will be

page 54 controlled within a Construction and Environment Management Plan which will apply during site works.

In conclusion we agree with the findings of all 3 reports and would recommend that conditions are included which require the implementation of the suggested noise mitigation measures.

South West Water

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

For information the surface water sewer system in the Tithebarn Link Road as referred to in the Flood Risk Assessment has yet to be adopted as a public system.

DCC Flood Risk SuDS Consultation

Observations: It is understood that this application forms part of a wider land swap in the area. However the East Devon case officer has confirmed that this is a new planning application with different proposals to what was originally consented therefore we would require climate change guidance for today's standards to be incorporated within the design of the surface water drainage system. Also, the previously agreed Qbar rate of 5.5 l/s per ha no longer stands, so the applicant should provide a revised value for Qbar.

The attenuation calculation should be updated in light of current climate change allowances and revised discharge rate.

The applicant will also be required to submit MicroDrainage model outputs, or similar, in order to demonstrate that all components of the proposed surface water drainage system have been designed to the 1 in 100 year (+40% allowance for climate change) rainfall event.

Exeter Airport have advised that the proposed SuDS should be designed in such a way that they are unattractive to birds, offering no food source or nesting habitats. However, this does not prevent above-ground SuDS components being incorporated into the proposed surface water drainage management system; well-designed and easily maintainable components such as permeable paving (which could be under drained), as well as swales and filter strips with short vegetation, must still be explored.

The applicant should submit agreement in principle from South West Water to confirm that discharge of surface water from this development into the sewer at Tithebarne Link Road is acceptable.

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

page 55 be required to submit additional information in order to demonstrate that all aspects of the proposed surface water drainage management system have been considered. Further observations received 9th April 2019:

Following my previous consultation response FRM/ED/2799/2018, dated 23/01/2019, the applicant has submitted additional information in relation to the surface water drainage aspects of the above planning application, for which I am grateful.

The applicant has answered the queries raised in my previous response. The applicant has proposed a feasible surface water drainage strategy which proposes an above ground basin to attenuate the runoff to restricted Greenfield rates. It is noted no on site infiltration testing has been undertaken to date, although we recommend that this is carried out as part of any future application, as per the first recommended condition below.

The application includes an allowance of 40% for climate change as well as incorporating long term storage into the design of the attenuation.

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

No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a programme of percolation tests has been carried out in accordance with BRE Digest 365 Soakaway Design (2016), and the results approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. A representative number of tests should be conducted to provide adequate coverage of the site, with particular focus placed on the locations of the proposed infiltration devices/permeable surfaces. Reason: To ensure that surface water from the development is discharged as high up the drainage hierarchy as is feasible. Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: This data is required prior to the commencement of any works as it will affect the permanent surface water drainage management plan, which needs to be confirmed before development takes place.

No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. The design of this permanent surface water drainage management system will be in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in the Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment for the Proposed Residential Development At Tithebarn/Science Park, Land East of Langaton Lane, Exeter dated November 2019 Rev 03". Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems. Reason for being a pre-commencement condition: A detailed permanent surface water drainage management plan is required prior to commencement of any works to

page 56 demonstrate that the plan fits within the site layout, manages surface water safely and does not increase flood risk downstream. Advice: Refer to Devon County Council's Sustainable Drainage Guidance.

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

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

WW Utilities

Summary: Wales & West Utilities have no objections to these proposals, however our apparatus may be at risk during construction works and should the planning application be approved then we require the promoter of these works to contact us directly to discuss our requirements in detail. Should diversion works be required these will be fully chargeable.

Contaminated Land Officer

I have considered the application and the former use of the site as agricultural land. I do not anticipate that any contaminants of concern are likely to be present, but the applicant should consult the Contaminated Land Officer for advice should any unforeseen materials of concern be encountered during oversite works.

Exeter & Devon Airport - Airfield Operations and Safeguarding

page 57

Summary. This proposal has been examined from an Aerodrome Safeguarding aspect and has the potential to conflict with safeguarding criteria from the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme (SUDS) becoming a bird attractant increasing the risk of bird strike to aircraft.

In terms of the Air Navigation Order, it is an offence to endanger an aircraft or its occupants by any means. In view of this I have included, as attachments, some safeguarding notes which all developers and contractors must abide by during construction and commissioning. These include: Airport Operators Advice notes: Wildlife Hazards around Aerodromes Cranes and other Construction Issues.

If the proposals for the SUDS are delivered with a 1/100 year storm, 14 days to drain, annual storm 1-4 days to drain, then mitigation (bird exclusion) measures will not be required. However, the SUDS will require monitoring to ensure that water does not persist beyond these projections and if it does, engineered drainage solutions or bird exclusion systems should be implemented.

Accordingly, Exeter Airport will have no safeguarding objections to this development provided that all safeguarding criteria are met, as stipulated in the AoA Advice Notes, the SUDS scheme is delivered to ensure no additional bird strike risk to aircraft and there are no changes made to the current application.

EDDC Landscape Architect

Comments on LVIA Change to visual receptors The LVIA does not provide a theoretical Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) study. Given the significant increase in building height proposed on the Science Park land, an updated ZVI should be included with the assessment.

The visual boundary and viewpoints plan, Appendix 7.1 is misleading in that visual boundaries extend some distance beyond the area shown on the map base, as acknowledged elsewhere in the LVIA, for example in relation to Ashclyst Forest and Woodbury Fort. Additionally the plotting of the ridgeline along Blackhorse Lane is inaccurate as the actual ridgeline as indicated on OS mapping lies some 40-100m to the south, well within the site boundaries. An updated plan should be provided if necessary at different scales in order to capture the full visual envelop and provide greater detail nearer to the site.

The assessment fails to consider views to the sites from south of the A30 despite there being clear views of the existing Science Park buildings from a number of locations in this vicinity including Bishop's Court Lane south of Drymond's Farm and Sowton footpath 1. The assessment should be extended accordingly.

Construction phase impact It is agreed the amended proposals will have a neutral effect on construction phase in respect of residential land compared to previously approved scheme.

page 58

Operational phase impact For residential land it is agreed that the landscape and visual significance of the amendment will be no change/ minor adverse compared to the previously approved scheme.

Comments on Residential Area Design and Access Statement.

Ecology: Advanced planting of a small woodland plantation was undertaken at the northern end of the proposed site to provide dormouse habitat. The original intention was that this would form part of the wider Science Park landscape setting and is understood to be presently unfenced. As part of the change to residential use this area will come under pressure both during the construction phase and especially post occupancy. To help prevent access to this area it should be fenced with appropriate 1.2 m high post and wire mesh fencing, incorporating suitable maintenance access and wildlife gates prior to the commencement of construction works.

Opportunities and Constraints Plan: The Opportunities and constraints diagram key incorrectly describes the existing dormouse habitat as New Orchard. The description should be changed to existing wildlife habitat.

Concept design - Legibility: The building in the north east corner of the site is shown as Redhayes frontage rather than a pivotal building, despite being identified on the Opportunities and Constraints plan as a key building. Please clarify design intention for this building. Land use Parameters - The recent dormouse woodland planting to the northern site boundary should be included in the Land Use Parameter plan key as existing wildlife habitat.

Scale - Key active residential edge shown on the Scale Parameter Plan should extend to the northern frontage of block A1 to ensure adequate overlooking of the proposed play space.

Green and Community Infrastructure - Much is made of the value of the proposed open space to the northern end of the site to provide formal play and community events space as well as SuDS drainage basin. The reality is that this is a relatively small space, particularly when the existing wildlife and SuDS area is excluded. Clarification should be provided of whether the proposed SuDS basin is intended to permanently hold water or as a minimum provide wet meadow habitat.

Further comments: The LVIA has been amended in line with my previous comments and is broadly acceptable.

The DAS for the residential area has been updated in line with previously submitted comments and is generally acceptable.

Natural England

DESIGNATED SITES [EUROPEAN] - FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED

page 59 Habitats Regulations Assessment - Recreational Impacts on European Sites This development falls within the 'zone of influence' for the Exe Estuary SPA, East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC and East Devon Heaths SPA, as set out in the Local Plan and the South East Devon European Sites Mitigation Strategy (SEDEMS). It is anticipated that new housing development in this area is 'likely to have a significant effect', when considered either alone or in combination, upon the interest features of the SAC/SPA due to the risk of increased recreational pressure caused by that development.

In line with the SEDEMS and the Joint Approach of Exeter City Council, Teignbridge District Council and East Devon District Council, we advise that mitigation will be required to prevent such harmful effects from occurring as a result of this development. Permission should not be granted until such time as the implementation of these measures has been secured.

Natural England's advice is that this proposed development, and the application of these measures to avoid or reduce the likely harmful effects from it, may need to be formally checked and confirmed by your Authority, as the competent authority, via an appropriate assessment in view of the European Site's conservation objectives and in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2017. 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, Natural England must be consulted on any appropriate assessment your Authority may decide to make.

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.

Further general advice on the consideration of protected species and other natural environment issues is provided at Annex A.

Further comments received following preparation of an Appropriate Assessment:

page 60

Thank you for your email consulting Natural England on the Appropriate Assessment for the above development in accordance with Paragraph 63 (3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Please be advised that, on the basis of the appropriate financial contributions being secured to the South-east Devon European Sites Mitigation Strategy (SEDESMS), Natural England concurs with your authority's conclusion that the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Exe Estuary SPA, Exe Estuary Ramsar Site, East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC and East Devon Heaths SPA.

Devon County Council, Minerals & Waste

Devon County Council strategic planning does not have any comments to make regarding either of the applications referenced above.

Devon County Archaeologist

This area has been the subject of previous archaeological evaluation and targeted archaeological excavation of identified features. Therefore I do not think that any further archaeological mitigation will be required.

Housing Strategy Officer – EDDC.

This application follows the agreed land-use swap endorsed by Committee in the Masterplan report. This area was originally identified for employment but is now to provide housing. As such under the local plan designation this area is for employment and not recognised as a West End site under strategy 34. However we understand that discussion have been held and it has been agreed that as per other West End sites we will be seeking 25% affordable housing (37.5 units, rounded to 38 or a commuted sum for part dwelling). A tenure mix of 70% rented accommodation and 30% shared ownership or other form of discounted housing to buy will be sought. However if viability evidence shows that this is a problem we will look at a tenure mix that helps support viability. Consideration should be given to providing social rented units. A viability assessment is being prepared but I am unclear as to whether this is to support the 25% requirement rather than 50% due to allocation in the plan or whether there are viability concerns with this site.

The indicative plans do not go into detail on the mix and type of houses to be provided and will be covered at reserved matter stage. Housing need for rented accommodation is for smaller units and a mix of 1 and 2 bedroom flats and houses for rent together with 3 bedroom family homes will meet this need. For shared ownership 2 and 3 bedroom houses are preferable. Although we do not have any adopted space standards, the size of the affordable units should be well considered and registered providers approached at an early stage. Two bedroom properties should be capable of housing 4 persons and for this there is a size requirement. HQI are still useful in informing dwelling sizes.

The affordable units should be tenure blind and dispersed throughout the site in small clusters. They should be constructed to meet Building regulations M4 part (2),

page 61 accessible and adaptable dwellings. A Section 106 agreement has been submitted and this is will be considered to ensure that these points are secured.

EDDC Trees

The proposed access routes do not affect any of the limited number of trees or hedgerows that are on the sites. With all other matters reserved I have no other comments to make at this stage.

Exeter City Council, Planning Department

I refer to your consultation dated 20 December 2018 in respect of the above. I consider there are no additional strategic cross boundary issues arising from this proposal (over and above that already proposed as part of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031).

Highways England

Summary: Referring to the notification of a planning application dated 20 December 2018 referenced above, in connection with the A30 and Erection of up to 150 dwellings with associated infrastructure and public open spaces including allotments/community gardens (all matters reserved except access) at Exeter Science Park Clyst Honiton (East Of Langaton Lane), notice is hereby given that Highways England's formal recommendation is that we offer no objection.

Police Designing Out Crime Officer, Devon and Cornwall Police.

I appreciate the application is only outline and that the 'Indicative Masterplan' is not a fixed part of the outline planning application. However, based on the plan and other information supplied I would make the following comments for consideration. I note and welcome that the principles of 'Secured by Design' have been referenced in the Design and Access Statement and incorporated into the design to some extent.

On the whole the layout will provide overlooking and active frontages to the new internal streets, with clearly defined public and private spaces. Good surveillance opportunities of public space such as the allotments/community gardens, the play space and pedestrian/cycle routes have been created.

The majority of gardens are aligned back to back and in the main, access to the rear of plots is restricted as long as appropriate, robust boundary treatments are installed. Parking has been allocated effectively with the majority being allocated on or close to plot with good surveillance provided. The exception to this are a number of rear parking courts (5) which are afforded little surveillance and provide access to the rear of a number of plots. This increases the potential risk to vehicles and dwellings as well as ASB. These areas are also often left unlit which can increase the opportunity and fear of crime.

Ideally the rear parking courts should be redesigned and the number of them reduced. Any that cannot be avoided, should serve no more than 6 homes. Where they abut

page 62 gardens, appropriate boundary treatments should be utilised i.e. 1.5m fencing supplemented by trellis to 1.8m to aid surveillance. I note that in some areas existing and new hedges and trees will form part of the rear garden boundaries to plots. This is acceptable providing the hedge is high enough, a minimum of 1.8m, and robust enough to act as an effective deterrent to prevent unauthorised access. Importantly any hedge must not be susceptible to wide seasonal variation which may affect this function and clearly must also be fairly uniform in depth and height to be effective.

The level of permeability of the site is not excessive and pedestrian/cycle routes appear to be straight, clearly defined, well overlooked and don't provide access to the rear of properties. Planting immediately abutting such paths should generally be avoided as shrubs and trees have a tendency to grow over the path creating pinch points, places of concealment and unnecessary maintenance.

If apartment blocks are to be incorporated into the design as suggested by plots 118- 125, 59-71 etc. assess to the rear of such blocks should be restricted and appropriate boundary treatments used in order to reduce the risk of casual intrusion and to clearly define semi private space for the residents of the apartments and public space.

Apartment blocks should not have trades button access for mail delivery or utility readings. A 'through-the-wall' mail delivery into a secure internal letterboxes, or boxes located within an 'airlock' access controlled entrance hall, whereby access can be gained by a postal worker through the outer door only would negate casual intrusion. If utility readings cannot be carried out remotely it would be preferable that they were located externally near the main entrance, thus again negating the need of a trades button and potential for casual intrusion.

The boundary treatment of the allotments/community gardens needs to be carefully considered. Allotments are regularly targeted for acquisitive crime and ASB and thus the boundary treatment needs to prevent unauthorised access. Presumably the community gardens section of the area will be a public space for the community to use and therefore any boundary treatment would not need to be as robust. A demarcation boundary treatment may be suitable.

Presumably the site be adopted and lit as per normal guidelines (BS 5489). As mentioned above, appropriate lighting for any potential parking courts and for pathways needs to be considered.

County Highway Authority

Trip Generation

The applicant has submitted a Transport Statement which includes a trip analysis to forecast the net change in trips based on the land swap. The analysis takes into account the increase of residential units and the decrease in commercial land. To undertake a robust approach, the same trip rates have been applied for the existing residential and commercial Redhayes scheme; which is acceptable in principle. The analysis suggests that the proposed development will generate 94 two-way trips in the AM peak hour and 84 two-way trips in the PM peak hour.

page 63

These additional trips have been compared to the net reduction in the commercial land. The analysis suggests that there will be a reduction of 41 two-way trips in the AM peak hour and 36 two-way trips in the PM peak hour. Hence, the additional trips as a result of the land swap is 53 two-way trips in the AM peak hour and 48 two-way trips in the PM peak hour.

Tithebarn Link Road/London Road junction

Whilst the applicant has provided link flow assessments, the submitted Transport Statement has not assessed the Tithebarn Link Road/London Road junction. The Tithebarn Link Road was mostly funded by Local Pinch Point Fund, Regional Growth Fund (both grant funding) with only a proportion of S106 secured from Tithebarn Green, which enabled a great deal of the growth in the area.

DCC have concerns with this junction as it is at present; a series of give way priorities. The right turning movements are difficult with no clear directions as to who has priority; this directly has an impact on both capacity and highway safety. These observations can be made in the current scenario, where the developments (Tithebarn Green, Mosshayne, Science Park etc) have yet to be fully built out and occupied. Henceforth, with the increase of traffic on this junction as a result of both applications (or the land swap), this raises concerns over the performance of the junction.

The junction was designed for signals, however DCC exhausted all funds to deliver the link road facilitating the housing and hence the upgrade of the junction did not come forward. EDDC has advised DCC that this is “strategic infrastructure” and therefore DCC cannot ask the applicant for a S106 contribution and instead falls under CIL (hence the reason for a revised response to the one dated: 13/02/2019).

Vehicular Access

Two vehicular access points are proposed; both on the eastern boundary to the adjacent site, creating an internal loop, with the ultimate vehicular access off the Tithebarn Link Road. These primary access routes connecting into the adjacent site are acceptable in principle. No vehicular access will be formed off Langaton Lane.

Pedestrian and Cycling Access

The site is located within an urban area where foot and cycle are a realistic choice for a wide range of journeys. The site has/will have access to public transport services on Tithebarn Link Road and is nearby employment sites (at Sky Park / Science Park) etc.

Blackhorse Lane forms part of Exeter’s/East of Exeter’s traffic free Cycle Network and maintaining the safety and attractiveness of this route is essential. Langaton Lane (immediately to the west of the site) also presents North-South pedestrian cycling connections, with the only vehicular impact being from an existing dwelling and kennels (with very low traffic flow). Therefore, from a transport perspective, the applicant should be maximising the pedestrian and cycling connections/permeability through the entire site and into the green infrastructure routes and employment areas surrounding the site.

page 64

The current plans (Access and Movement Parameter plan and Masterplan) indicate that there will be two east-west pedestrian/cycling links from the adjacent site to Langaton Lane. These routes should be 3m in effective width as per DfT guidance (which has been sent to EDDC). In addition to this, a 3m effective width walking/cycling route from Parcel C2 to Blackhorse Lane should be made, integrating into Parcel D of the Science Park. It is noted there is no footway being proposed on the southern vehicular link either.

In addition to this, the plans show potential footpath links from Parcel A1 to the adjoining site, which is welcomed, but there should be more pedestrian/cycle links to the western boundary through to Exeter Science park – for instance there is an opportunity to provide a direct link to the Langaton Lane cluster (B), which again should be 3m in effective width.

The plans provided do not provide enough detail as to the widths and required links and therefore an appropriate condition is recommended. It is reminded that the original Design and Access statement for Tithebarn green (12/0802/01), section 5.12.1 states that: “Walking and Cycling are to be given high priority on the movement network……Provision of direct connections to the Science Park from the local centre (should be) easily accessible to residents and people who will work in the Science Park”

Notwithstanding the above, any work that adjoining Langaton Lane and Blackhorse Lane (which are both adopted) will need a S278 agreement. The access points onto should have sufficient visibility splays and the applicant should be showing these on any submission - upon site visit, the banks that surrounding the site does hinder visibility.

Internal Roads and layout

Well-designed residential streets are central to sustainable development and therefore the design of the internal road layout must accord with the principles of Manual for Streets and appropriate sustainable design guidance i.e. pedestrians/cyclists should have priority over motor vehicles.

The applicant is advised that car parking standards are set out in accordance with EDDC standards and that secure sheltered cycle parking facilities are provided. As an outline application these details are reserved for approval at a later stage. However, to ensure a suitable layout it is recommended that the applicant liaises with the highway authority prior to any application for reserved matters approval.

Travel Planning

In accordance with paragraph 111 of the NPPF the development will be required to have a Travel Plan. DCC is currently adopting an approach for residential Travel Planning in the Exeter area with contributions paid directly to the Council for them to implement the Travel Plan and its measures. Consequently, a contribution of £500 per dwelling should be secured as part of any S106 agreement.

page 65 Construction

A condition is also recommended to ensure that appropriate facilities for all construction traffic are provided on site before the commencement of any part of the development hereby approved.

Summary

The site is located within an existing urban area and the applicant should improve pedestrian/cycling linkages promoting modal change. If achieved correctly, sustainable development with safe and suitable access for all users can be achieved. Concerns have been raised with regards to the increase in traffic associated with the development (or land swap) and the impact this will have on the Tithebarn Link Road/London Road junction.

Therefore, subject to appropriate contributions (Travel Plan contributions) and conditions being attached in the granting of any consent, no objection.

Recommendation:

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

1. Financial contributions and as set out in the informative to be secured by an appropriate agreement (Travel Planning Contributions).

2. Prior to commencement of the development, details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority of secure cycle parking provision for the development. Development shall not be commenced until such details have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and prior to occupation the cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the submitted details.

REASON: To provide adequate facilities for sustainable transport.

3. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use details of pedestrian and cycle linkages from the site/through the site have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the links have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved plans retained for those purposes at all times.

REASON: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the NPPF

4. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use until the vehicular access points as indicated on the Illustrative Masterplan (drawing number 1120 Rev C) have been provided in accordance

page 66 with details and specifications that shall previously have been submitted to, agreed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the NPPF

5. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The statement should include details of access arrangements and timings and management of arrivals and departures of vehicles. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety and public amenity.

Additional comments received 12th April 2019:

The revised parameter plan does not show much change to the previous submission. The previous highway consultation response made it clear that there should be multiple links from the residential development of at least 3m effective width to Langaton Lane and in particular into the Langaton Lane Cluster. In addition to this, a shared footway/cycleway should be provided (of at least 3m effective width) to Blackhorse Lane should be made. This is in aid to enhance pedestrian and cycling permeability through the site, promoting modal change. As Langaton Lane and Blackhorse Lane are adopted, a S278 agreement is required. The above comments are consistent with the previous highway consultation.

Suggested conditions • No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use details of pedestrian and cycle linkages from the site to Langaton Lane (of at least 3m effective width) have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the links have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved plans retained for those purposes at all times. REASON: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the NPPF

• No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use details of pedestrian and cycle linkages from the site to Blackhorse Lane (of at least 3m effective width) have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the links have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved plans retained for those purposes at all times. REASON: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the NPPF

Financial contributions, Cycle Parking, Vehicular Access and Construction Management Statement were conditioned on the highway response dated 13th February

page 67

National Planning Casework Unit I confirm that we have no comments to make on either of the environmental statements referred to. (18/2799/MOUT & 18/2797/MOUT)

NHS Local

Summary: Therefore the contribution required for this proposed development of 150 dwellings is £250,973.00. This contribution will be used directly to provide additional health care services to meet patient demand as detailed in Appendix 5.

Other Representations Two letters have been received relating to green infrastructure and biodiversity: 1) Ideally such development should have at least 40% green space. 2) The provision of bird/bat boxes needs to be considered in detail to be most effective. 3) Tree cover can be enhanced. 4) SUDS is vital for habitat creation. 5) Hedgehog passes need through garden fences

In addition, a letter has been received from the Exeter Cycling Campaign, objecting on the following grounds: 1) There is a lack of detail to ensure proper provision; shared cycle/footpaths need to be 3m wide. 2) No detail regarding connections to the road network, the design of roads and where roads intersect with cycle paths, together with improvements to Langaton Lane and Blackhorse Lane. 3) The development does not meet the requirements of the local plan to cut down commuting by car, facilitating the move to a low carbon economy, respond to the need for more balanced communities without damaging environmental qualities, that no resident is disadvantaged relative to another and to help reduce carbon emissions.

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 1 (Spatial Strategy for Development in East Devon)

Strategy 2 (Scale and Distribution of Residential Development)

Strategy 3 (Sustainable Development)

Strategy 4 (Balanced Communities)

Strategy 5 (Environment)

Strategy 5B (Sustainable Transport)

Strategy 9 (Major Development at East Devon's West End)

Strategy 10 (Green Infrastructure in East Devon's West End)

page 68

Strategy 11 (Integrated Transport and Infrastructure Provision at East Devon's West End)

Strategy 13 (Development North of Blackhorse/Redhayes)

Strategy 31 (Future Job and Employment Land Provision)

Strategy 34 (District Wide Affordable Housing Provision Targets)

Strategy 37 (Community Safety)

Strategy 38 (Sustainable Design and Construction)

Strategy 40 (Decentralised Energy Networks)

Strategy 43 (Open Space Standards)

Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs)

Strategy 47 (Nature Conservation and Geology)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D2 (Landscape Requirements)

D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features)

EN7 (Proposals Affecting Sites which may potentially be of Archaeological Importance)

EN13 (Development on High Quality Agricultural Land)

EN14 (Control of Pollution)

EN18 (Maintenance of Water Quality and Quantity)

EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development)

H2 (Range and Mix of New Housing Development)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development)

TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways)

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

page 69

TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones)

Government Planning Documents National Planning Practice Guidance National Planning Policy Framework 2019

Relevant Planning History

Approved:

09/1107/MOUT - Outline approval for the Science Park for 76,450 sqm of B1, including a 150 bed hotel, ancillary uses with associated infrastructure and access - approved on 11th March 2010 with a S106. 12/1420/MRES - Management Suite (Eagle House) 12/1427/MRES - Science Centre 14/2063/MRES - Met Office 16/0991/FUL - Visitor Carpark 16/0746/MRES - Grow on building 1 16/0747/MRES - Grow on building 2.

Approved Tithebarn Green:

12/1291/MOUT - Up to 930 dwellings, employment area, park and ride, local centre, etc - 29th November 2013. 18/0382/MRES - reserved matters approval for the site immediately to the east for 79 dwellings, landscaping and associated infrastructure - phase 6.

Several other reserved matters have been approved, phases 2 and 17 for housing, including phase 3 current application, the Tithbarn link Road, phases 1 and 14, the southern Mosshayne Link road, phase 15, the park and ride, phase 18, the country park, phase 4 and the green corridor, phase 5.

Site location

The application site forms part of the phase 2B within the Science Park, a site of approximately 25.8 hectares immediately to the north east of Junction 29 of the M5 motorway and the A30 Trunk Road, to the west of Blackhorse village, and 7 km to the east of Exeter City Centre.

Since the outline approval, part of Phase 1 has been developed with a central access road, a single office building (Eagle House), phase 1 of the Science Centre, associated car parking to the rear, the construction of two grow on buildings, strategic and on plot landscaping, and a small public square.

Other development further into the Science Park site on phase 2A comprises access roads, the Met Office super computer site, and additional car parking.

The site itself is agricultural land, with a relatively shallow fall down to the north. To the south is Blackhorse Lane, a cycle/pedestrian route, with the boundary marked by a

page 70 hedgebank with some smaller trees. To the west of the site is Langaton Lane, a traditional Devon sunken lane marked by a hedgebank interspersed with small trees, predominantly at the junction with Blackhorse Lane and less so as you move north. Directly to the south west of the site is a bungalow with an associated Kennels. To the north is the new Tithebarn Link Road. Along much of the east boundary is phase 6 of the Redhayes residential development which is near to commencement.

Proposal Description

Outline planning permission is sought to erect up to 150 dwellings on the site with associated infrastructure and open space including allotments/community garden. All matters are reserved except access. Several parameter plans have been submitted; density, land use, access and movement, scale and green infrastructure together with an illustrative masterplan showing how 150 units could be accommodated on the site.

There are proposed to be two vehicular access points into the site from the Tithebarn Link Road: the northern one is through the phase 6 utilising the approved access and the second is just to the south of phase 6 using an existing junction on the Tithebarn Link Road. These two access points would serve the primary route into the site, linking together close to the west boundary. From the primary route would be several secondary routes to serve the rest of the site.

The application is also accompanied by an Environmental Statement considering the significant environmental effects of the development together with the related planning application for science park floor space as part of the proposed land use swap. the main subjects are transport, landscape and visual impact, ecology, water resources, air quality, waste, soil and agriculture, noise and vibration, cultural heritage and socio- economic.

Background

This application is closely related to a second application for Science Park development on land a short distance to the south (18/2797/MOUT) and also on this agenda. These two applications are part of a proposed land use swap as follows:

1) The site for the proposed residential development is approved and allocated in the Local Plan as part of the Science Park - phase 2B.This part of the consented Science Park comprises two clusters of development: Langaton Lane and the Anning Road clusters, split into two halves by Langaton Lane. The area of these clusters east of Langaton Lane forms the proposed land use swap with the calculated area of floor space at 15,329 sqm moving to the site the subject of planning application 18/2797/MOUT.

2) The site for the proposed relocation of part of the science park has an outline planning permission for 8,850 sqm of offices as part of the larger mixed use development at Redhayes. The office development is approved on phases 13, 16 and 19. The current application 18/2797/MOUT affects phases 16 and 19 with phase 13 (located to the east side of the Tithebarn Link Road) remaining and suitable for office use, although the 8,850 sqm is very unlikely to be fully realised on this remaining phase.

page 71 To help coordinate and integrate these two proposals within the wider Science Park and Redhayes developments, an interim Masterplan was prepared. This was endorsed by the Strategic Planning Committee at their meeting on 4th September 2018. The purpose of the Masterplan is to set out the main contextual changes and key design principles that these two applications should consider and respond to. This is to ensure that the two applications are not considered in isolation as it is essential that they integrate well into the wider development in the locality.

ANALYSIS

Main policy implications

It is a requirement in planning law that all planning applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the Development Plan is the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 (EDLP). The forthcoming Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP) is in an early stage of preparation and therefore carries very little weight in decision taking.

The site is located in the West End of East Devon where most of the large, strategic developments in the district are planned. Strategy 9 of the EDLP identifies the main strategic development sites in the West End which includes the Science Park and land to the north of Blackhorse/Redhayes sites. The proposed site for the residential is contained on the site allocated under Strategy 9 for a research and technology employment site. Immediately to the east of the site is the Redhayes site, a mixed use development allocated under Strategy 13 and centred on housing but including a neighbourhood centre, social and community facilities, infrastructure and employment provision.

The site is also located outside of the defined Built Up Area Boundaries (BUAB) within the Local Plan where Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) will only permit new development within the BUAB and on site specific allocations unless the proposed development is in accordance with a specific local plan policy that explicitly allows such development and it does not harm the distinctive landscape, amenity and environmental qualities within which it is located. Whilst the site is allocated, it is not allocated for residential and the proposed use is not therefore specific to the allocation.

As the current site is on the allocated Science Park it is a departure from the development plan and has been advertised as such. The issue is therefore whether there are other material considerations which would weigh more heavily in favour of the planning application. The following considerations are relevant:

1) The proposed site is immediately adjacent to approved housing to the east which forms part of a wider mixed use community which will eventually reach about 1500 houses. The proposed housing will not therefore be seen in isolation and would be part of a sustainably community with nearby facilities and transport links.

2) The science park floor area being relocated is approximately the same as would be lost if the residential scheme goes ahead. Therefore, there would be no detriment to the amount of Science Park, it would just be relocated.

page 72 3) The proposed site for the relocation of the science park is immediately adjacent to the main science park centre and will be seen in context with this main centre rather than on the outlying clusters. This should give the Science Park more of a presence and help integrate and reinforce this flagship development. There are therefore positive advantages for the science park and its future development.

4) The proposed additional housing is in a sustainable location close to Exeter and with good bus, pedestrian and cycle links. It would help in the delivery of much needed new housing.

Therefore whilst a technical departure, there is no detriment to the Science Park as a strategic allocation, indeed there would be advantages for the Science Park moving forward to deliver a high value employment site. Furthermore, the development would be well related to existing and planned development with good connections and would help in the delivery of new houses for the community. These are considered to be persuasive material considerations that would weigh in favour of the principle of the development proposal provided the S106 clearly ensures that the residential development only takes place once there is confirmation that the Science Park relocation has been secured.

Compliance with the Interim Masterplan, August 2018.

During 2018, an interim Masterplan (IM) was prepared and endorsed by the Strategic Planning Committee to set a high level conceptual framework for how the land use swap proposals should be considered in planning. This was to set a commonly understood basis for the preparation and determination of these two planning applications. It was not to specify the scope or content of technical matters or detail. It concentrated on the important placemaking elements to ensure that the land use swap developments were well integrated and to support the delivery of the Science Park and the surrounding development. It is envisaged that should the land use swap take place, a further Masterplan would be prepared to consider the wider Science park development. The IM considered the changing context in relation to government policy and the local changes since the original masterplan and the shift in work place environments and expectations. It also considered the opportunities that the changes to the context can bring by up-dating the strategic vision for the emerging overall development.

The IM consists of a series of diagrams and high level design principles under the following headings: 1) Strategic connectivity and Green Infrastructure 2) Primary Land uses 3) Local connectivity 4) Development Character and edges.

It is not the purpose of this report to identify all the key components of the IM but below is the key issues with the planning application in relation to compliance.

1) Strategic connectivity and Green Infrastructure - the IM shows strategic linkages along Langaton Lane (adj. west boundary) and through the site to the link road in the north east corner to help linkages to the main areas of GI to the north. The Access

page 73 and Movement Parameter Plan shows Langaton Lane as a cycle route with two links from this into the site and out the east side through the adjacent housing development. Potential footpaths to the north east are shown.

2) Primary Land Use - shown as residential led uses which is consistent with the planning application with two key linkages west-east through the site. This is also consistent with the Access and Movement Parameter Plan.

3) Local Connectivity - The IM shows two key pedestrian/cycle links from Langaton Lane through the development in a west-east direction to the housing development further to the east. The northern link at Langaton Lane also leads across to the Science Park and the southern link just to Langaton Lane. This is consistent with the Access and Movement parameter Plan.

4) Development Character and Edges - the IM shows a key active residential edge to the western and northern edges of the proposed development, an edge to the eastern hedgerow and identifies the important green lane edges to Langaton Lane and Blackhorse Lane. The parameter plans indicate the key active edge onto Langaton Lane to be formed by retaining the hedgerow on this lane, provide a landscaping buffer, the access roads/footpaths with houses fronting onto this. The northern boundary is marked by a wildlife habitat area and open space/drainage basins. Few houses are indicated to have their gardens onto the eastern hedgerow. Blackhorse Lane would be fronted by a community garden, a pedestrian/cycle link and a small amount of housing indicated to be fronted onto this lane.

Consideration of other planning issues

The planning application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement, various other documents and a series of parameter plans: Access and Movement, Density, Green Infrastructure, Scale and Land Use. These are intended to address the various planning issues the development raises and will be assessed as follows.

Highways and Movement

The application has been supported by a Transport Statement and Design and Access Statement (DAS). Consultation has taken place with Highways England (Strategic Road Network) and DCC Highway Authority (local road network).

Highways England have assessed both applications in terms of the possible impact on the strategic road network and whilst there would be some impact on junction 29 of the M5 and the A30/Moor Lane junction, nevertheless this would not be severe, and in particular the Moor Lane improvements are due to commence in spring 2019. As such, Highways England are satisfied that the number of vehicles generated by the development are not likely to have a material impact on the safe and efficient operation of the strategic road network and have no objection.

The DCC Highway Authority identify that the development will use the approved accesses through and next to the adjacent residential development which link to the Tithebarn Link Road. Access is not a reserved matter. The Transport Statement includes a trip analysis to forecast the net change in trips overall based on the land

page 74 use swap. This indicates overall (including the reduction in the office land) an additional trip generation of 53 two-way trips in the AM peak hour and 48 two-way trips in the PM peak hour. Access is not a reserved matter but the parameter plan for movement and access shows these vehicular access points and any reserved matters application will need to adhere to this plan. A condition is recommended to secure details and construction of the vehicular access point(s).

Travel by foot and cycle are a realistic choice and there is a bus service nearby. The Access and Movement Parameter Plan show the intended routes with two links to Langaton Lane, one to Blackhorse Lane, and three to the east and one to the link road to the north. The highways authority request that pedestrian/cycle links should have an effective 3m width and this will be controlled at the detailed stage.

DCC Highways have suggested that there should be multiple links to Langaton Lane of at least 3m width. The parameter plan has been amended to show the links agreed in the interim Masterplan which is considered sufficient. The recommended condition for the footpath/cycleway links also provides that these should be at least 3m wide. The previous footpath link to Blackhorse Lane has also been amended to a pedestrian and cycle link.

The highways authority are requesting that £500 per dwelling is sought for Travel Planning. This is included in the draft S106.

Ecology

The site is located within 10km of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC and SPA together with the Exe Estuary SPA and Ramsar sites. The Environmental Statement anticipates that the development is unlikely to impact on these sites during construction. However, during the operational phase, the development is likely to increase recreational pressures on these European sites which will likely have both direct and indirect significant effects when considered alone or in combination. This therefore requires the authority to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. This has been undertaken which also concludes that the proposed development, as it is within 10km, is likely to have significant effects on the interest features of these European sites. The joint approach for mitigation by the relevant local authorities relies on a mechanism by which developers can make contributions to mitigation measures delivered by the South East Devon Habitat Regulations Partnership. This is a CIL liable development so part of the CIL will be spent on mitigation with an additional mitigation contribution for non-infrastructure mitigation to be secured through a S106. The draft S106 provides for this contribution, currently at £201.61 per dwelling.

Natural England was consulted on the AA (attached) and have advised that on the basis of the appropriate financial contributions being secured to the South-east Devon European Sites Mitigation Strategy, they would concur with this authorities conclusion in the AA that the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European Sites. It is for the Development Management Committee to adopt the AA and accordingly there is a further recommendation on this at the end of the report.

page 75 There have been several ecology appraisals done over the recent years with the latest for this site done in October 2018 and is therefore up-to-date. This generally advises the site is dominated by managed arable land with ruderal banks and species-poor hedgebanks. However, these hedgebanks have dormouse records which would classify them as important. In terms of species, the following was identified:

1) Badgers - the recorded outlier sett is no longer active. There are signs of commuting activity in the central hedge and it is likely that badgers still commute/forage within the survey area. However, wider connectivity may have been affected by the link road to the east.

2) Bats - one ash tree on the eastern extent of the central hedge boundary has a high roosting potential but this falls in the adjacent land. The remaining trees have negligible roosting potential.

3) Birds - common bird species were noted and the hedgebanks, trees and ruderal banks are likely to support nesting and foraging birds.

4) Dormice - they have been recorded in the wider Tithebarn Green area and the hedgebanks have a potential to support dormice although this is likely to be limited and could be used for commuting. The mitigation planting at the northern end of the site is expected to mature into suitable dense species rich habitat.

5) Great Crested Newts - there are no ponds on site and surveys of ponds to the north surveyed in 2012 revealed no newts.

6) Reptiles - the ruderal banks have the potential for foraging and commuting habitat. Previous surveys in the wider area indicated a low number of slow worms and common lizard in banks being used for commuting.

Due to the low habitat quality of the site, no further surveys are recommended. In terms of mitigation and enhancement, there a number of recommendations:

1) The retention of ruderal banks and hedgebanks and enhancement with native planting.

2) Grassland areas to be seeded with a native seed mix or turf with a margin of longer native grass next to the planting on the northern and western boundaries. Native wet grassland seed mixes can be used to enhance the biodiversity of the SUDS pond.

3) Installation of bird and bat boxes across the site.

4) Grass cuttings and brash from the habitat management to be left in piles beneath the mitigation planting on the northern boundary for small mammals and invertebrates. These requirements could be secured through a Landscape and Environmental Management Plan (LEMP) via a condition on any planning permission granted. Artificial exterior lighting also needs to be controlled and it is recommended that a condition requiring the approval of exterior lighting be included which should include an ecology reason alongside amenity and airport safeguarding.

page 76 Landscape and visual impact

The application has included a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) within the Environmental Statement. The proposed development does not have any adverse impact on valued landscapes such as an AONB.

There are some shortcomings with the LVIA as submitted; lack of a theoretical Zone of Visual Influence and some inadequate visual boundary and viewpoints, especially views from south of the A30. These concerns were passed to the applicant to address and an amended LVIA has been submitted. This relates primarily to the Science Park relocation application

The main changes relate primarily to the accompanying science park relocation application and there are no material changes to the assessment of the residential application. The appearance of the site during construction can be gauged from development happening on the Redhayes site. Compared to the development of the approved science park on this site, the change will at worse be moderate and short term. For the operational stage, the residential use will be different to the science park being denser over the site as compared to cluster development, but it will be seen in context with neighbouring residential development and therefore the impact will not be significant. Additional mitigation, compensation and enhancement relies on landscaping to form a reserved matter for subsequent approval.

On the basis of amended details, the Landscape Architect has no overall objections to this application.

Parameter Plans

Green Infrastructure Parameter Plans - this indicates the key GI to be retained or incorporated into the development including areas of public open space, allotments/community gardens, and buffer areas, together with existing trees/hedges to be removed or retained. This maintains the existing banks/hedges on the site except for small areas to be removed to allow for access, be it road or footpaths/cycleways.

The habitat area to the north of the site would be retained and next to it would be an area of public open space which also incorporates the attenuation basin and play space. There would be a landscaped buffer area to the hedge on the west boundary and the north boundary of the neighbouring house at Sunnymead.There would be other landscape strips to the eastern and southern hedge.

The GI Parameter Plan indicates that nearly all the banks/hedges are to be retained. However, a condition is recommended to ensure that the landscaping reserved matters includes relevant details for the banks/hedges and how they will be protected.

It is important to protect and enhance the western hedgebank and provide a sufficient landscape buffer area to the lane and the science park to provide a suitable transition between different developments and protect the character of the lane. The eastern hedge/bank would be a separation between similar developments but nevertheless, landscaping is important to protect and give a setting to this hedge. Private rear

page 77 gardens onto hedgerows should be avoided to give future protection and this is largely maintained with the illustrative masterplan.

Access and Movement Parameter Plan - this shows two primary routes into the site from the neighbouring development to the east, linked together near to the western boundary. A number of secondary routes would then link to the rest of the development. There are a number of pedestrian/cycle routes proposed through to Langaton Lane, Blackhorse Lane and through to the development to the east. A footpath link is proposed to the Tithebarn Link road to the north. There is one pedestrian/cycle link straight through to the science park and indirect links from Langaton Lane and Blackhorse Lane.

The primary and secondary roads are appropriate. It is important, in terms of reducing car usage, to have sufficient, well planned cycle and pedestrian routes and, in principle, the routes shown achieve this and the detail of the provision would be considered at the reserved matters stage.

Scale Parameter Plan - this shows a range of building heights with up to 12.5m (2-3 storey) at the northern end, along the western side and in the southern corner. The central part of the development would be limited to no more than 9.5m (2-2.5 storey). The lower heights are generally closer to the approved development to the east and reflect the scale of this development closer to the boundary. The potential for taller development is generally towards the lower parts of the site or adjacent to the science park where taller development is normal. Subject to the details (as part of the reserved matters application), the scale of development is acceptable in terms of the topography of the site and/or the approved adjacent development.

Land Use Parameter Plan - this shows the areas for housing, public open space/landscaping, roads and allotments/ community garden. It maintains the open area to the north of the site and shows the location for the allotments/community garden. The allotments were originally approved on the Redhayes site, a short distance to the east, but have been relocated to this site, partly as this part of the site is too close to the kennels for housing and for commercial reasons as the approved site occupied prime frontage to the Tithebarn Link road. In terms of serving the Redhayes community, it is located towards the western extremity but is still in walking distance to Redhayes.

The land use plan is consistent with the other parameter plans and represents the appropriate land uses for a residential development of this size and located close to a larger housing development.

Heritage Assets

Archaeology - the site has been the subject of previous evaluation and targeted excavation of identified features. Therefore, no further archaeological mitigation is need as confirmed by DCC Archaeologist. Built heritage - There are no nearby listed buildings close to the site on the east side of the motorway. There are some listed buildings on the west side of the motorway, notably Monkerton House, Monkerton Farmhouse and associated buildings but due to the separation and the intervening motorway, the proposed development would not

page 78 have an adverse impact on their significance or setting. As such, there would be no direct or indirect effects on the significance of any built heritage assets in the locality.

Surface Water Drainage

Submitted with the application is a Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment. The site itself is not at risk of fluvial flooding being outside of any functional flood plain and is located in Flood Zone 1. As such, there are no flood hazards that need to be considered.

Policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the Local Plan looks to ensure that major developments are managed by sustainable drainage systems and the surface water implications of a proposal have been fully considered and found to be acceptable. To achieve SUDS, a hierarchy of solutions should be followed from the preferred option to infiltrate to the ground to the least preferred option of connection to a sewer. The applicant has advised that infiltration rates on the site is likely to be low and therefore a positive drainage network and attenuation is proposed with the offsite discharge restricted.

A detention basin towards the north end of the site would discharge to the storm water sewer network. Surface water from the development would be conveyed to the detention basin by below ground drainage network.

The DCC Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) initially required further information to be submitted. Following receipt of this, the further comments from the LLFA will be up- dated in this report.

Air Quality

An Air Quality report has been submitted which concludes that there will be no concerning levels of either nitrogen oxides or particulates from motor vehicles and the additional traffic associated with the development will not lead to any deterioration in ambient air quality. Construction site issues will be controlled through the CEMP.

Waste

Waste will be generated during the construction phase which needs to be controlled through the CEMP. Clearly waste will be generated during the operational phase and a condition should be imposed to require a Site Waste Management Plan during the operational stage.

Soil and Agriculture

Policy EN13 (Development on High Quality Agricultural Land) of the Local Plan aims to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a) from development and this is supported in the NPPF. The land is grade 2/3a although it should be noted that the site is allocated for development in the Local Plan and has an extant outline planning permission. On this basis, an alternative development proposal on the site would not prevent the loss of this agricultural land which was

page 79 assessed previously and considered to be acceptable when balanced against all the other planning considerations.

However, the soils on the site could be recovered and handled correctly to minimise the loss of soil resource as identified in the Environmental Statement. The NPPF also requires that decisions should protect and enhance soils. It is therefore recommended that any permission forthcoming should require a scheme of soil recovery and handling.

Noise and Vibration

Noise reports have been submitted to assess the impact of the adjacent kennels, together with road, rail and airport noise on the amenity and health of potential occupiers.

There is clearly the potential for noise during construction but this would be controlled through the requirement for a CEMP, secured by a condition.

In terms of the kennels, the noise report identifies that particularly dogs barking could be a source of noise that could impact on health and quality of life. The recommendation are that there be a minimum 40m spatial separation between the kennels and the proposed houses, that the layout of the houses aims to situate the houses between the kennels and the private amenity spaces and where possible noise sensitive rooms should be located on facades facing away from the kennels. The various parameter plans indicate this 40m separation distance and the indicative masterplan also shows the front of the houses orientated towards the kennels. It is recommended that a condition is included to ensure that the reserved matters incorporate these requirements.

In terms of other noise sources considered (such as traffic, aircraft), it is recommended in the noise report that suitable mitigation would be in the form of the orientation of houses and their sensitive rooms/private amenity areas, together with enhancements to certain bedroom windows to provide noise reduction. These details can be secured through a condition requiring the mitigation details to be approved and implemented.

The Environmental Health officer has been consulted on the application and agrees the noise reports and the imposition of appropriate conditions to secure the mitigation.

Socio-Economic

The construction phase will require construction workers which will give a boost to the local economy and indirectly to local building supplies, plant hire and the use of local retails facilities.

The increased supply of houses would help the housing needs of the area but place some demand on local services/infrastructure. The Mosshayne development does provide for a primary school and there is a proposed health care facility in the nearby local centre with CIL contributions helping to mitigate the impact of the development.

Airport safeguarding.

page 80

The airport have been consulted on the application and have no safeguarding objections provided that all safeguarding criteria are met and the SUDS scheme is delivered to ensure that there is no additional bird strike risk to aircraft. In terms of the SUDS, this is to ensure that there is no large areas of long term standing water in the detention basin. This will need to be considered as part of the detailed consideration of the surface water drainage details

Affordable Housing and viability

Strategy 34 of the Local Plan applies a 25% affordable housing target for the major strategic West End development sites which includes the adjacent Redhayes and Mosshayne sites which are allocated as shown on the relevant inset map in the proposals plan. However, this site is allocated for the science park and is not therefore a housing site and accordingly, the higher target of 50% affordable housing applies subject to viability considerations. The adjacent Redhayes and Mosshayne sites have an affordable housing level at 25% as required through the s106.

Therefore, in strict compliance with Strategy 34, this development should be providing 50% affordable housing unless there are viability reasons for a lower percentage figure. The applicant has submitted a Viability Assessment (VA) with the application that has been independently reviewed for the council.

The viability report submitted by the applicant considers the proposed transaction at 25% affordable with the relevant CIL payment and whether the residential development generates sufficient uplift to allow the transfer of the land either side of Anning Road for science park uses as any landowner is very unlikely to undertake a transaction that reduced the value of their landholdings below the existing position. The applicants own all the land covered by the two applications and both sites have extant planning permissions (Class D1a offices and B1b R&D) and are partly served by road access.

There is therefore an existing land value and part of the assessment is to consider this realistic value. Our independent review suggests that the applicant's valuation does overstate the value of the land with the current planning permissions resulting in a different overall assessment of the existing value.

The proposed transaction with DCC for the transfer of the land would result in a reduction in the value of the land either side of Anning Road for the applicant. The balance is to determine whether with the reduction in value for the applicants on the land either side of Anning Road set against the increase value of land with residential planning permission would, with policy compliant levels of affordable housing and other contributions, be sufficient to allow the land use swap to proceed.

The applicant's viability assessment concludes that at 25% affordable housing there would be a benefit to the applicant compared to the existing land value but that at a policy compliant 50% affordable housing, there would be a negative uplift from the existing land value and consequently, the land swap would not be in the interest of the applicant.

page 81 It further concludes that at 25% affordable housing, the benefit for the Science Park is greater than that for the applicant.

The applicant's viability report has been independently reviewed for the council and concludes that at 25% affordable housing plus S106 contributions, the development is viable but only just indicating that an affordable housing level above 25% would not be viable.

The independent review takes into account the proposed transaction for the science park land together with the costs of the CIL liability and S106 contributions towards the non-infrastructure habitat mitigation, travel planning and the requested NHS contribution. The requested NHS contribution is discussed below and it is not certain at this stage whether this request will be supported as reasonable or proportionate. Further discussions are to be held with the NHS to clarify the request which probably won’t be completed before the committee meeting but any up-date will be reported to the committee.

The normal requirement of policy is to require an overage clause where a development is not viable at the policy compliant level of affordable housing. In this case, the applicant is not prepared to accept overage. There are special circumstances with these applications that are considered to outweigh the need for overage. These are the fact that the land swap proposals enable land to be transferred to the Science Park at a reduced rate to the benefit of the delivery of a strategic employment site, and fact that the majority of housing development in the area is only required by policy to provide 25% affordable housing, the level being secured in this instance.

Whilst the review concludes that the residential element could support 25% affordable and still cover the lost value of the proposed transfer, it is for the council as the decision taker, to weigh the positives and negatives of the proposed land use swap. It could not be guaranteed that the residential development could deliver more than 25% affordable housing and the conclusion is that the proposed transaction is within reasonable market allowances and would provide significant benefits to the deliverability of a major strategic employment site. If the site came forward without the proposed transaction for the land transfer, the development could support a higher level of affordable housing. The offer of 25% affordable, whilst a departure from policy, is consistent with the level approved for the other 1500 houses on Redhayes/Mosshayne which this site would form a part of. On balance, the advantages to secure the land use swap are considered to outweigh the disadvantages.

Proposed S106

The council is now in a CIL regime which requires that the infrastructure identified in the Regulation 123 list cannot be secured through a S106 agreement.

Submitted with the application is a draft Deed of Variation and a Deed of Release with planning obligations. The draft DoV effectively releases the land from the Science Park S106. The DoR has provisions to prevent the commencement of the residential development unless and until one of the following events occurs (whichever is the earlier):

page 82

1) The owner enters into an unconditional contract/agreement to secure the acquisition of the land the subject of planning application 18/2797/MOUT by Exeter Science Park.

2) The owner and ESP have entered into a conditional contract, option or agreement for sale for the land the subject of planning application 18/2797/MOUT and that contract, option or agreement for sale has become unconditional.

3) The development permitted by 18/2797/MOUT has begun. 4) EDDC confirms in writing that the residential development may commence, notwithstanding that the above events may not have occurred.

There would be a fundamental policy objection if the residential development took place without the accompanying relocated science park development (18/2797/MOUT) taking place as this would result in the overall loss of site area and floorspace of a strategic employment site and would mean there would be very little justification for permitting the residential development which relies principally on the relocation of part of the science park land.

The draft Planning obligations relate to on-site measures to reasonably mitigate the impact of the development. This relates to: 1) Affordable Housing. • 25% • Tenure mix - 70% rented, 30% shared ownership or other form of discounted housing to buy. • Rented - mix of 1 and 2 bed flats/houses with some 3 bed family houses. Shared ownership - 2 and 3 bed houses. • Tenure blind in small clusters. • Constructed to meet Building regulations M4 part (2), accessible and adaptable dwellings. • Details of affordable houses to be submitted as part of the relevant RM application - location, type. 2) Open Space. • To include allotments/community gardens, informal open space, play areas, wildlife habitat area and SUDS. • Need for a management company to manage open space in accordance with a management company plan. • Open space specification needs to be submitted for approval. Timing for provision, maintenance period, process for transfer to man co • Process for agreeing the play space - consultation, etc. • Allotments specification and management plan. • Access to open space. 3) Sustainability. • Connection to DHN unless not viable • If no connection, details of additional details to show at least 10% of the energy supply of the development to come from decentralised and/or renewable/low- carbon energy sources. 4) Monitoring 5) Ecology.

page 83 • Habitats Mitigation Contribution towards non-infrastructure measures based on a contribution per dwelling - £201.61. 6) Travel Plan • Contribution per dwelling - £500. 7) Suitable contribution to the NHS (if appropriate).

Requested NHS contribution – the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust is requesting that the council secure a sum of £250,973 developer contribution towards the cost of providing capacity for the Trust to maintain service delivery during the first year of occupation of the residential units. The Trust would require all the contribution before the development is commenced and without it they would object to the application as being contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 8) and the local plan. It would appear that the services identified are related to appointments and admissions rather than infrastructure provision through the legal definition and therefore would not necessarily be funded through CIL.

However, there are a number of issues to be considered before a decision can be made as to whether this requested contribution is reasonable and acceptable. It would appear that this approach is based on some successful appeal decisions in Warwickshire. The outcome of this consideration will be reported to the committee.

Environmental Statement

The Council undertook a screening opinion for both developments and concluded that they were, in conjunction with the other developments in the locality, likely to have a significant environmental effect and therefore required an Environmental Statement (ES) to be submitted. An ES has been submitted for both applications covering the environmental issues for both developments under a single ES.

Under Regulation 3 of the EIA Regulations 2017, the planning authority shall not grant planning permission for EIA development unless an EIA has been carried out. Under Regulation 26, the planning authority must:

1) Examine the environmental information; 2) Reach a reasoned conclusion on the significant environmental effects of the proposed development; 3) Integrate that conclusion into the decision as to whether planning permission should be granted; and 4) Consider whether to impose monitoring measures.

The submitted ES has been taken into consideration and has been consulted on during the application process. The environmental issues have been addressed in this report where relevant and where required, mitigation will be secured through the approval of parameter plans, the imposition of conditions and S106 clauses. It is therefore considered that this report contains reasoned conclusions on the significant environmental effects and these have been integrated into the recommended decision. Subject to securing the relevant mitigation as specified above, it is considered that, under the EIA Regulations, that permission can be granted.

page 84 CONCLUSION

The two outline planning applications 18/2797/MOUT and 18/2799/MOUT on this agenda are linked as part of the proposed land use swap on part of the Science Park and on land immediately adjacent to the Science Park, forming part of the mixed use development known as Redhayes.

The site for the proposed residential development (18/2799/MOUT) currently forms part of the allocated Science Park, a major strategic employment site, and has an extant outline planning permission for this science park use. The land proposed for the relocation of part of the Science Park is undeveloped but has an extant outline planning permission for offices as part of the wider Redhayes development.

Both planning applications are departures from the development plan as the site for the residential development is outside of any Built-up Area Boundary and is allocated for Science Park use in the Local Plan. The site for the partial relocation of the Science Park is not allocated for Science Park uses but is allocated for the mixed use Redhayes Development. Both planning applications are considered to be Environmental Impact Assessment developments and are accompanied by an Environmental Statement. Both sites are owned by the applicant.

It is a requirement of planning law that planning decisions are determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise.

Overall, there are clear material considerations/benefits with these planning applications which facilitate the land use swap.

Both applications are linked and neither application is acceptable by itself. The draft legal agreements aim to ensure this is the case.

The proposed developments are the subject of Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment. The report therefore also includes a recommendation on application 18/2799/MOUT to adopt the Appropriate Assessment.

Before the applications were submitted, the council undertook an interim Masterplan which was endorsed by the Strategic Planning Committee, to guide the preparation of these applications to ensure key design elements are incorporated to help integrate the developments into the wider development. The applications are considered to be consistent with this interim Masterplan. It is expected that should the proposed land use swap proceed, a wider Masterplan covering the whole Science Park will be needed.

The other planning issues are addressed in the reports for both planning applications, including the level of affordable housing and viability, together with S106 issues. It should be noted that an overage provision is not being offered or secured but there are considered to be special circumstances in this instance to support this.

On balance, the proposed developments taken together have a number of material benefits for the improved delivery prospects for the science park. Whilst both

page 85 applications are contrary to policy, they would not cause a material harm being part of the much wider development and growth area in this part of the district and being sustainable. It is therefore the view that there are material planning considerations that would weigh in favour of approving these two planning applications.

RECOMMENDATION

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

2. That the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of the legal agreements and the following conditions:

1. The first application for the approval of reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. All subsequent applications for reserved matters shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval no later than five 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 (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. A longer than standard time limit has been imposed as the development is likely to come forward in stages and therefore this is justified.)

2. Approval of the details of the layout, scale and appearance of the building(s), and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") for each approved phase or phases shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced within that phase. (Reason - The application is in outline with one or more matters reserved.)

3. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan 1128 Rev B Parameter Plan Access and Movement 1125 Rev I Parameter Plan Land Use 1127 Rev H Parameter Plan Scale 1124 Rev D Parameter Plan Green Infrastructure 1126 Rev G Parameter Plan Density 1123 Rev D. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning)

4. A phasing plan for the development hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the submission of the first reserved matters application. The phasing plan shall specify the proposed timing for the delivery of the access and pedestrian/cycle links, open space/green infrastructure, SUDS as well as the construction programme for the buildings and other elements of the development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved phasing plan and delivery programme or any such

page 86 amendments to the phasing plan as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - to ensure that the development proceeds in accordance with an agreed phasing and programme of delivery in the interests of securing suitable access, drainage and landscaping on the site in a timely manner as part of the co- ordinated development of the site in the interests of the environment and ecology of the area).

5. The outline planning permission hereby approves the following parameter plans together with the design principles and parameters established in the approved Design and Access Statement: Land use - drwg no. 1127 Rev H Density - drwg no. 1123 Rev D Scale - drwg no. 1124 Rev D Access and movement- drwg no. 1125 Rev I Green Infrastructure - drwg no. 1126 Rev G Prior to the submission of any reserved matters application(s) for an agreed phase or phases of the development, a framework plan and statement on the appearance palette for the agreed relevant phase or phases of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The framework plan(s) (1:1000) shall follow the principles established in the indicative masterplan and shall be in accordance with the approved parameter plans. The framework plan(s) shall show the indicative location of buildings and their type, public and private open spaces and parking (including cycle parking) typologies, together with how the design principles in the approved Design and Access Statement will be applied at the more detailed level. The appearance palette shall be provided in the form of a statement providing information and guidance on building design and character, constructional materials and detailing, surface materials and their finishes, street furniture and street tree species. The reserved matters application or applications shall adhere to the approved framework plan(s) and accompanying appearance palette relevant to that part of the site. (Reason - to ensure the design of the development is appropriate for the area, minimises the visual impact on the landscape and integrates with nearby development in the interests of the environment of the area and in the interests of airport safeguarding to accord with Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONB's) and policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), D2 (Landscape Requirements) and TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031. The Design Code is required prior to commencement to enable the code to guide the production of the reserved matters application(s)).

6. The details to be submitted as part of the reserved matters application(s) shall include finished floor levels for the buildings and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum. The building heights shall not exceed those shown on the approved parameter plan - scale, unless any variation is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - to ensure that adequate details are available during the determination of the reserved matters to assess the impact of the development on the area and

page 87 landscape and in the interests of airport safeguarding to accord with Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONB's) and policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarding Areas and Public Safety Zones) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

7. The buildings comprised in the development hereby approved shall be constructed so that their internal systems for space and water heating are capable of being connected to the proposed decentralised energy network. Prior to the occupation of an approved phase the necessary on site infrastructure for that phase shall be put in place for connection of those systems to the network at points on the site boundary. (Reason - In the interests of sustainable development and to support the opportunities for decentralised energy supply systems to accord with Strategy 40 (Decentralised Energy Networks) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and policy contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.)

8. Prior to the commencement of development on an approved phase or phases, a Soil Resources Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Soil Resources Plan shall set out the procedures that will be put in place to ensure that all high quality soil resources on the site that will be displaced by the development are conserved and reused elsewhere in the locality. The Plan shall detail how high quality soil resources will be identified, how they will be stored and relocated and where they will be reused. The development shall thereafter only be carried out in accordance with the approved plan. (Reason - To ensure that the high quality soil resources at the site are conserved and re-used having regard to the site being identified as 'best and most versatile' land to accord with policy EN13 (Development on High Quality Agricultural Land) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and government policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. These details are required prior to the commencement of development as the soil resource will be affected from the start of operations on the site).

9. Prior to the commencement of development of an approved phase or phases, a detailed site waste management plan for the operational stage of that approved phase or phases shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The requirements of the approved site waste management plan shall be implemented in full during the operational stages of the development. (Reason- to ensure that the waste arising from the development is managed sustainably and responsibly in accordance with policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031, policy W4 of the Devon Waste Plan 2014 and policy within the National Planning Policy for Waste).

10. Prior to the commencement of development of an approved phase or phases, a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for that approved phase or phases shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include the following matters: 1) Air Quality.

page 88 2) Dust control. 3) Lighting. 4) Noise and vibration. 5) Pollution Prevention and Control, including an emergency plan. 6) Protection and maintenance of retained landscape and habitat areas. 7) Airport safeguarding 8) Construction Traffic Management, including communications. 9) Monitoring Arrangements. 10) Waste management. Notwithstanding the above, construction working shall not take place outside the hours of 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. There shall be no burning on site. There shall at no time be high frequency audible reversing alarms used on the site. The measures in the approved CEMP shall be implemented and remain in place throughout the construction period of the approved phase or phases. (Reason - To protect the amenities of nearby occupiers, airport safeguarding and to protect the ecology/protected species in the locality to accord with policies EN14 (Control of Pollution), TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones) and EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031. The CEMP needs to be approved and implemented at the start of development operations as risks to the environment, airport safeguarding and ecology will be present from this point).

11. The landscaping proposals to be submitted as part of the reserved matters for an approved phase or phases, shall clearly show the planting for that phase or phases, the type and colour of all hard surfacing materials for that phase or phases, all the hedgerows to be retained, removed and created within that phase or phases and how these hedgerows link to the hedgerow network together with future management arrangements of the hedgerows and how they will be protected during construction. The landscaping details to be submitted shall be in accordance with the approved parameter plans and include an implementation programme and maintenance schedule. The landscaping for that relevant phase shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, including the timetable for implementation and be maintained in accordance with the approved maintenance schedule. (Reason- In the interests of the long term visual amenity of the site and the landscape setting, airport safeguarding together with the need to conserve and enhance biodiversity on and around the site in accordance with Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside), policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), D2 (Landscape Requirements), TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones) and EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 and policy contained within the NPPF).

12. Prior to the commencement of development of an approved phase or phases, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall be based on the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures outlined in chapter 7 - Landscape and Visual Impact and chapter 8 - Ecology, and the associated Ecological Appraisal report 15/2856.03a (appendix 8.4) of the Environmental Statement together with future monitoring arrangements. The development shall

page 89 be carried out in accordance with the approved details or such other details as may be subsequently approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - to ensure that the impacts of the development on ecology/protected species and the landscape is suitably mitigated for and enhanced to comply with policies EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) and D2 (Landscape Requirements) and Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement of AONB's) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031. The LEMP is required prior to commencement as some mitigation/enhancement will be needed at the start of development.)

13. All applications for the approval of reserved matters which include the requirement to provide exterior lighting shall be accompanied by details of exterior lighting and its management for the operational stage of the development and shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before that relevant development is brought into use. The details to be provided shall accord with the details approved within the Design Code. The exterior lighting shall be provided and managed in accordance with the approved details and maintained thereafter unless any changes are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - to safeguard the amenities of the area, to protect nearby occupiers and protected species from excessive light levels, and in the interests of airport safeguarding in accordance with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features), EN14 (Control of Pollution) and TC12 (Aerodrome Safeguarded

14. Should any contamination of soil and/or ground or surface water be discovered during excavation of the site or development, the Local Planning Authority shall be contacted immediately. Site activities in the area affected shall be temporarily suspended until such time as a method and procedure for addressing the contamination is agreed upon in writing with the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: To ensure that any contamination existing and exposed during the development is identified and remediated in accordance with policy EN16 (Contaminated Land) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

15. The details to be submitted as part of any reserved matters application which includes a dwelling shall include details of secure cycle parking provision for that part of the development. Development shall not be commenced on that part of the development until such details have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and prior to the occupation of any dwellings on that part of the development, the cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the submitted details and thereafter maintained. (Reason: To provide adequate facilities for sustainable transport to accord with policies TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways) and TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031).

16. The details to be submitted as part of any reserved matters application which includes a pedestrian and cycle link as shown on the approved Access and Movement Parameter Plan shall include details of pedestrian and cycle linkages from the site/through the site and how it links into the wider network. No part of the relevant development the subject of the reserved matters approval shall be

page 90 occupied until the links have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained for those purposes at all times. (Reason - To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with policy TC4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031 and paragraphs 108 and 110 of the NPPF).

17. No part of the development of an approved phase or phases shall be brought into its intended use until the relevant vehicular access point(s) has/have been provided in accordance with details and specifications that shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - to ensure suitable and safe vehicular access is provided to accord with policy TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031).

18. Any reserved matters application that includes a dwelling or dwellings shall be accompanied by details for the written approval by the Local Planning Authority to show the location and appearance of walls and/or fences to be erected within the curtilage of the dwellings. Any walls and/or fences shall be erected in accordance with the approved details within the curtilage of each dwelling before it is first occupied. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), these walls and/or fences shall not thereafter be altered, removed or replaced without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - in the interests of preserving and enhancing the appearance of the area and/or protecting the privacy of residents, in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031.

19. Any reserved matters application that includes a dwelling or dwellings within area D or the south side of area C, as shown on the approved Land Use Parameter Plan no: 1127 Rev H, shall include layout and appearance details for the written approval by the Local Planning Authority to show the front of the dwellings orientated towards the nearby kennels with the private amenity space to the rear and to minimise noise sensitive rooms facing the kennels. (Reason - to ensure that noise from the kennels is minimised to prevent an unreasonable adverse effect on the health and quality of life for potential residents and to accord with policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031).

20. Any reserved matters application that includes a dwelling or dwellings shall be accompanied by details for the written approval by the Local Planning Authority to show the how the noise mitigation strategies outlined in the Noise and Vibration chapter of the Environmental Statement shall be implemented in the development. The noise mitigation details shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. (Reason - To protect the amenities of future residents from noise, in accordance with policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031).

page 91 21. The layout and appearance proposals to be submitted as part of the reserved matters for an approved phase or phases, shall show the location and appearance of any electricity sub-station(s) required for the development hereby approved. The details submitted shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any commencement is made on the development hereby permitted and the electricity sub-station(s) shall be sited and constructed in accordance with the approved details. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 15, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no further electricity sub-station shall be provided or the approved electricity sub-station(s) shall not be re-located or modified without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interests of the appearance of the development to secure a sensitive design and location for any electricity sub-station and protect areas of open space from an inappropriate location and/or design to accord with strategy 9 (Major Development at East Devon's West End) and policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031).

22. Prior to the commencement of a particular approved phase, details of materials to be used externally in that phase shall be 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).

23. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a programme of percolation tests has been carried out in accordance with BRE Digest 365 Soakaway Design (2016), and the results approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. A representative number of tests shall be conducted to provide adequate coverage of the site, with particular focus placed on the locations of the proposed infiltration devices/permeable surfaces. Reason: To ensure that surface water from the development is discharged as high up the drainage hierarchy as is feasible to accord with policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031. This data is required prior to the commencement of any works as it will affect the permanent surface water drainage management plan, which needs to be confirmed before development takes place).

24. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced within an approved phase or phases until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system for that phase or phases has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The design of this permanent surface water drainage management system shall be in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in the Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment (Rev 03) for the Proposed Residential Development at Tithebarn/Science Park, Land East of Langaton Lane, Exeter, dated November 2018. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

page 92 (Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems to accord with policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031. A detailed permanent surface water drainage management plan is required prior to commencement of any works to demonstrate that the plan fits within the site layout, manages surface water safely and does not increase flood risk downstream).

25. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced within an approved phase or phases until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development site for that phase or phases for the full period of its construction has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system shall satisfactorily address both the rates and volumes, and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site. The construction works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area to accord with policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031. A plan needs to be demonstrated prior to the commencement of any works to ensure that surface water can be managed suitably without increasing flood risk downstream, negatively affecting water quality downstream or negatively impacting on surrounding areas and infrastructure).

26. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced within an approved phase or phases until the full details of the adoption and maintenance arrangements for the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system for that phase or phases have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage management system shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. (Reason: To ensure that the development's permanent surface water drainage management systems will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development to accord with policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031. These details need to be submitted prior to commencement of any works to ensure that suitable plans are in place for the maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage management plan, for the reason above).

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

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.

This outline planning permission is accompanied by a S106 Planning Obligation which must be read in conjunction with the decision notice.

page 93 The planning application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. In accordance with Regulation 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, the Local Planning Authority confirms that they have examined the environmental information, reached a reasoned conclusion on the significant environmental effects of the proposed development and integrated that into the decision, together whether any monitoring measures that are appropriate.

Plans relating to this application:

1123 D Other Plans 07.12.18

1124 D Other Plans 07.12.18

1125 I Other Plans 25.03.19

1126 G Other Plans 25.03.19

1127 H Other Plans 25.03.19

1128 B Location Plan 20.12.18

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

page 94 Appropriate Assessment

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

Application Reference 18/2799/MOUT

Brief description of proposal Erection of up to 150 dwellings with associated infrastructure and public open space including allotments/community gardens. Location Land east of Langaton lane, Exeter Science park, Clyst Honiton.

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

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

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

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

(See Appendix 1 for list of interest features of the SPA/SAC) Step 1 Screening for Likely Significant Effect on the proposed development on land to the east of Langaton Lane, Exeter Science park, Clyst Honiton Risk Assessment Could the Qualifying Features of the European site be Yes - additional housing within 10km of the SPA/SAC will increase affected by the proposal? recreation impacts on the interest features.

Consider both construction and operational stages.

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

See evidence documents on impact of development on SPA/SAC at: East Devon District Council - http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/369997/exe- overarching-report-9th-june-2014.pdf

An Appropriate Assessment of the plan or proposal is necessary.

Local Authority Officer Andy Carmichael Date: 14th February 2019

page 95 Step 2 Appropriate Assessment NB: In undertaking the appropriate assessment, the LPA must ascertain whether the project would adversely affect the integrity of the European site. The Precautionary Principle applies, so to be certain the authority should be convinced that no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects.

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

Mitigation of in-combination The Joint Approach sets out a mechanism by which developers can effects. make a 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.

Assessment of Impacts with Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures included Joint approach standard mitigation contribution required for non- in the proposal. infrastructure • Residential units £201.61 x 150 dwellings = £30,241.50 • Total.

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

Conclusion List of mitigation measures and safeguards Total Joint Approach contribution of £30,241.50 will be secured through the S106 to be completed before planning permission is granted.

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

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

page 96 Local Authority Officer Andy Carmichael Date: 14th February 2019

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

Appendix 1. List of interest features:

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

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

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

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

page 97 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 nature of these heathlands, as this species is typical of wet heath in the more continental parts

page 98 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

page 99

Principal Features (updated 1999)

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

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

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

page 100

page 101 Agenda Item 10

Ward Axminster

Reference 19/0978/FUL

Applicant East Devon District Council Housing Property & Asset

Location Poplar Mount Axminster EX13 5QE

Proposal Erection of 3 no external lift shafts and associated internal alterations

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 102

Committee Date: 1st October 2019

Axminster Target Date: (Axminster) 19/0978/FUL 21.06.2019

Applicant: East Devon District Council Housing Property & Asset

Location: Poplar Mount Axminster

Proposal: Erection of 3 no external lift shafts and associated internal alterations

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before Members as it’s an application by East Devon District Council on its own land that has generated objections.

The proposal seeks planning consent for the installation of three lift shafts attached to an existing block of flats known as Poplar Mount, Axminster.

The three lift shifts proposed would be attached to the rear (north) elevation of the block of flats. This elevation is not highly prominent within the public realm and as such, and given that the materials can be secured via condition in order to ensure that the blend with their surrounds, the visual impact from the proposal is acceptable.

Concerns have also been raised with regard to potential noise pollution resulting from the lift operating. A noise report has been submitted with the application and the Environmental Health Team have confirmed that noise levels from the lifts should not create a noise nuisance to residents.

Given that the visual impact from the proposal will not be harmful, and given that residents will not experience any noise disturbance from the lift shafts, the proposal is acceptable and recommended for approval.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

19/0978/FUL page 103

Parish/Town Council

AXMINSTER TOWN COUNCIL SUPPORTS THIS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO ASSURANCES THAT SUITABLE ARRANGEMENTS WILL BE PUT IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT OCCUPANTS WITH DISABLED ACCESS NEEDS WILL BE ABLE TO ACCESS THEIR FLATS AT ALL TIMES DURING THE WORKS.

Axminster - Cllr Andrew Moulding

APPROVE

Axminster - Cllr Sarah Jackson

I cannot support this application at this time. Accessibility is undoubtably of paramount importance in properties such as this. However I have a number of concerns which are yet to be satisfied before I can support this application. The property is visible from North Street and by surrounding neighbours. However I note no mention in the DAS about sound pollution. Given that these lifts are likely to be in use/available for use 24/7, consideration should be given to establish how audible they are likely to be for neighbouring residents. I also hope consideration will be given to how the lift shafts will be clad to make them as aesthetically pleasing as possible. This property is home to a number of vulnerable members of our community. I note the rubbish chutes and 2 ground floor access doors will be lost with these works. What impact will this have on those residents that currently use these? Have those residents been adequately consulted with about the proposed alterations. What provisions will be put in place for refuse disposal for the top floor residents? Will they be expected to bring their refuse bins up and down via the public lift?

Further comments 18.09.19

I am now satisfied by the report and would like to support this application.

Technical Consultations

Environmental Health

17/07/2019 - I have considered this application and I am concerned that there are no noise reports submitted with the application, which would need to state at least the motor noise levels emitted. This would need to be from of the lifts and the communitive effect of all of them being used together. Once I have seen this data I shall be in a position to comment on the application.

Further comments 02/09/2019:

I have further considered this application on receipt of the noise statement of manufacturers declaration by ThyssenKrupp Encasa and I am satisfied that these levels stated should not give rise to noise nuisance to adjacent properties, therefore I have no further comment to make.

19/0978/FUL page 104

Other Representations

To date three letters of objection have been received and the concerns raised can be summarised as follows:

- Noise resulting from lift operation. - Unsightly - Impact on privacy - Question the need for external lifts

PLANNING HISTORY

None.

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development)

EN14 (Control of Pollution)

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

Site Location and Description

The block of flats known as Poplar Mount is situated within Axminster. To the front (south) of this block of flats is a public car park. To the rear of this block are the adjacent residential properties known as ‘Latches and 17 and 19 The Latches’ to the east of the site is Axminster Community Hospital. To the west is North Street above which the site is located.

Due to the sloping ground levels, one part of the block is four stories in height, with other parts of the blocks being three stories.

Proposed Development

The proposal seeks planning consent for the installation of 3 external lift shafts onto the rear of an existing block of flats. This would allow compliance with buildings regulations to provide easier access for the occupants of the flats.

The existing block of flats are council properties appearing to be from the 1970s.

The lift shafts are proposed in a colour coated steel construction.

19/0978/FUL page 105

ANALYSIS

The main issues are the effect on the character and appearance of the main building and the potential noise pollution deriving from the operation of the lift shaft.

Visual impact

The creation of the lift shaft would bring about a strong vertical emphasis on the building. Further the steel with powder coated finish could have a smooth texture which could appear at odds with the rougher brick textures.

However, to a large extent the lift shafts would be screened by the two storey protrusion which already exists on the side of the building. In addition, as the development takes place on the rear elevation, it is not highly visible from the public domain.

The rear (north) elevation is not visible from the car part to the site frontage, is screened to the east by the school and is screened from the north by residential properties.

Whilst one of the lift shafts would be visible from the junction of North Street with Willhayes Park, it is a glimpsed view with the lift shaft party obscured by a rear projection to the existing building.

Whilst it would be preferable for the lift shafts to be constructed in brick or render to match the existing block, given that they will not be highly visible from the public domain, and given that a condition can be imposed to ensure that the colour and texture used on the external casing is acceptable, it is not considered that the proposal causes harm to the visual amenity of the area to an extent that could justify refusal of planning permission.

At this stage the applicant has put forward a RAL 8008 colour (light brown) with a matt finish. Whilst a matt finish approach is advocated the light brown colour is unlikely to be acceptable, although it is noted that the light brown attempts to blend with the colour of the existing brick. Accordingly a condition shall provide further opportunity for the applicant to provide an alternative colour for the lift shaft.

In terms of scale the lift shaft would be subservient to the overall dimensions of the existing block.

Given the above the proposal is considered to reinforce the local distinctiveness and therefore accord with policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the local plan.

Potential for noise pollution

Some concern has been raised with regard to the potential for noise pollution to arise from the operation of the lift shafts. This could particularly effect occupiers of the flats and properties to the rear of the planning application site.

19/0978/FUL page 106

The Environmental Health department have been consulted on the proposal. The original comments from Environmental Health required further noise information to be submitted which was duly submitted by the applicant in the form of manufactories noise statement. In response to this additional noise information the Environmental Health officer is satisfied that the levels should not give rise to a noise nuisance to adjacent properties.

Both the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Policy Guidance advocate mitigation of noise issues where possible. Additionally, having lift shafts in close proximity to private residences is by no means unusual and in most circumstances operate without harm.

Accordingly, taking into account the expertise of the Environmental Health officer, there is unlikely to be a noise nuisance issue caused through the operation of the lifts.

Other Matters

Concern has been raised with regard to the accessibility of bin storage. There is an external bin storage area situated to the east of the building block. This location would not change as a result of the installation of the lift shafts and residence would still be able to gain access to this area.

Conclusion

The proposal seeks planning consent for the installation of three lift shafts attached to an existing block of flats.

The three lift shifts proposed would be attached to the rear elevation of the block of flats that is not highly prominent within the public realm and as such, and given that the materials can be secured via condition in order to ensure that the blend with their surrounds, the visual impact from the proposal is acceptable despite that application not proposing a finish in brick or render to match the existing block of flats.

Concerns have also been raised with regard to potential noise pollution resulting from the lift operating. A noise report has been submitted with the application and the Environmental Health Team have confirmed that noise levels from the lifts should not create a noise nuisance to residents.

Given that the visual impact from the proposal will not be harmful, and given that residents will not experience any noise disturbance from the lift shafts, the proposal is acceptable and recommended for approval.

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.

19/0978/FUL page 107

(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 submitted details a sample of the external cladding material of the lift shafts shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted sample shall illustrate the colour and finish to be used on the external construction. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed material. (Reason - To ensure that the visual impact of the lift shaft is acceptable, in accordance with policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan).

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Informative: In accordance with the aims of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 East Devon District Council works proactively with applicants to resolve all relevant planning concerns; however, in this case the application was deemed acceptable as submitted.

Plans relating to this application:

P012-19-100 Location Plan 26.04.19

P012-19-104 Proposed Combined 26.04.19 Plans

P012-19-102 Existing Combined 26.04.19 Plans

P012-19-103 Proposed Floor Plans 26.04.19

P012-19-101 Existing Floor Plans 26.04.19

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

19/0978/FUL page 108 Agenda Item 11

Ward Exmouth Brixington

Reference 19/1830/FUL

Applicant Mr And Mrs L Phillips -Clark

Location 26 Withycombe Park Drive Exmouth EX8 4EL

Proposal Construction of single storey rear extension, hip -to-gable extensions and rear dormer window. Change of external materials.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 109

Committee Date: 1st October 2019

Exmouth Brixington Target Date: (Exmouth) 19/1830/FUL 10.10.2019

Applicant: Mr And Mrs L Phillips-Clark

Location: 26 Withycombe Park Drive Exmouth

Proposal: Construction of single storey rear extension, hip-to-gable extensions and rear dormer window. Change of external materials.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is brought before the Development Management Committee for determination because the applicant is a member of staff.

The application proposes a single storey extension to the rear of the property, hip- to-gable extensions and a rear dormer window. It is also proposed to change the stone cladding to the frontage to white painted render.

It is considered that the proposal would not have any detrimental impacts to the character of the surrounding area nor would there be any detriment to the amenity of any neighbours.

The application is therefore recommended for approval.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish Council Meeting 02.09.19

No objection

Technical Consultations

County Highway Authority No comments.

19/1830/FUL page 110

Other Representations No third party comments received.

PLANNING HISTORY

There is no planning history relevant to this application.

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries) Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

Exmouth Neighbourhood Plan (2018 – 2031) Policy EN1: Proposals for development within the Built-up Area Boundary (BUAB) will generally be supported (Cont.) Policy EB2: New development should be mindful of surrounding building styles and ensure a high level of design (Cont.)

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019) National Planning Practice Guidance

Site Location and Description

No 26 Withycombe Park Drive is a detached bungalow finished in brick to the side and rear elevations and stone cladding to the front. The dwelling is located in an area dominated by predominately detached bungalows, although a number have already converted their roof space. The property is within the built-up-area boundary of Exmouth.

Proposed Development

Permission is sought for the construction of a single storey pitched roof extension extending from the rear, hip-to-gable extension and a rear dormer window to facilitate a loft conversation. In addition it is proposed to render the stone cladding to the front elevation.

The proposed rear extension will extend 4 metres from the rear of the property and will have a total height of 4 metres and a height to eaves of 2.4 metres.

Analysis

The principal issues for consideration in the determination of the application are:

- The design and impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; - Impact on residential amenity.

19/1830/FUL page 111

Impact to Character of the Area

Both the proposed single storey rear extension and rear dormer are relatively small scale and located to the rear of the dwelling where there are no immediate public views of the site. The replacement of stone cladding with render is located on the front elevation and would be visible from public viewpoints. However, the use of render is common in the surrounding area (including properties opposite the site) such that it is considered that these elements would not look out of keeping and with therefore not affect the character of the area.

The proposed hip-to-gable would be visible from the highway. However, a number of bungalows in the street have gable ended roofs (again including the property opposite) and as such, and given that the ridge height of the bungalow will not be increased, it is not considered that a hip-to-gable extension to this property would be out of keeping or detrimental to the character of the area.

Residential Amenity

Given the size, single-storey nature and position of the proposed extension set in from the site boundaries, the extension will not be harmful to the amenity of surrounding residents.

With regard to the hip-to-gable extension, again given the location alongside existing properties and with no increase in the overall ridge height and no windows in the side elevation, the proposal will not result in any significant detrimental impact on the amenities of the occupiers of any neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking, overshadowing or visual impact.

Finally, with regard to the dormer window, this is proposed to the rear of the building to serve a bathroom and s such will contain obscure glazing. In addition, the window is located approximately 35m from the rear of the property. This will ensure that the amenity of the properties to the rear is adequately protected.

Conclusion

As a result of the design and nature of the proposals, they are considered to be acceptable and will not result in any harm to the visual amenity of the area or residential amenity of the adjoining occupiers.

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).

19/1830/FUL page 112

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.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Informative: Confirmation - No CIL Liability

This Informative confirms that this development is not liable to a CIL charge.

Any queries regarding CIL, please telephone 01395 571585 or email [email protected].

Informative: In accordance with the aims of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 East Devon District Council works proactively with applicants to resolve all relevant planning concerns; however, in this case the application was deemed acceptable as submitted.

Plans relating to this application:

D083-19-102 Proposed Combined 15.08.19 Plans

D083-19-100 Location Plan 15.08.19

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

19/1830/FUL page 113 Agenda Item 12

Ward Clyst Valley

Reference 18/2504/MFUL

Applicant Mr Mark Tremlett

Location Armada House Odhams Wharf Ebford

Proposal Demolition of existing industrial unit and construction of replacement building, raising of site levels and construction of new bridge

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

Crown Copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 114 Committee Date: 1st October 2019

Clyst Valley Target Date: (Clyst St George) 18/2504/MFUL 04.02.2019

Applicant: Mr Mark Tremlett

Location: Armada House Odhams Wharf

Proposal: Demolition of existing industrial unit and construction of replacement building, raising of site levels and construction of new bridge

RECOMMENDATION:

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before Members as it is a major application and the officer recommendation differs from the view of the Parish Council.

Planning permission is sought for the redevelopment of an existing industrial unit involving the demolition of the unit, re-profiling and raising of the land and the construction of a new building to house 5 new industrial units with associated parking, road ways and other works. Permission is also sought for the replacement of the existing bridge into the Business Park with a new bridge and footpath.

The site lies outside of any identified development boundary but within an existing business park. No development is proposed outside of the existing build development, although the whole of the site is located within a floodzone and Green Wedge, with the bridge and access road lying within the Exe Estuary SPA/Ramsar site boundary.

Development or redevelopment of industrial units within existing business parks has policy support both within the local plan and ‘made’ Clyst St. George Neighbourhood Plan, and there is therefore no objection to the principle of the proposal.

Permission has previously been approved for three office buildings on the site, one of which has been built, and this application seeks an alternative to the previous approval.

18/2504/MFUL page 115

Although the proposed building is approximately 4m higher than the existing building, it is of an almost identical height to that that previously approved which was three storeys with a flat roof. The proposed building has a similar footprint, but with a pitched roof. As such whilst the building will be more prominent than the existing building, the applicant has benefitted from a previous consent for construction of 3 building of a similar height. As per the previous consent the ground levels would be raised by around 2 metres to take the floor levels out of the flood zone, and overall it is not considered that the current proposal would be any more visually intrusive or harmful than that previously consented.

The proposed replacement bridge will be more significant than the existing which is no longer appropriate to accommodate the levels of traffic generated by the business park. It will require some disturbance of the protected landscapes, particularly during the construction period, however it will provide a safer access and will facilitate a reduction in traffic using the southern access the business park which is via a narrow lane that forms part of the national cycle network and where there is currently a conflict between vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists.

Whilst the concerns expressed by the Parish Council are appreciated, the proposed development will have no greater visual impact than the consented scheme and will generate new employment and support the expansion of an existing established and successful local business which is a significant factor in the planning balance.

Natural England have agreed the Appropriate Assessment and mitigation needed to ensure no likely significant effects on the Exe Estuary and its designations.

Overall it is considered that subject to appropriate mitigation works and conditions the proposed development is acceptable and the application is therefore recommended for approval.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council

14/01/19 - The Parish Council wishes to object to this application.;

In addition to the various issues raised by other consultees in relation to environmental and other matters, we are concerned on the overall height and mass relative to the existing building. The proposed ridge height is much higher than the existing unit and this will cause visual harm to surrounding area which has a negative effect to the area, in particular the river setting.

18/2504/MFUL page 116

Technical Consultations

Natural England 04/03/19 - Our ref: 271772 Your ref: 18/2504/MFUL

Dear planning team,

Planning consultation: AMENDMENTS - Demolition of existing industrial unit & construction of replacement building with raising of site levels & construction of new bridge.

Location: Land At Odhams Wharf, Ebford.

Thank you for your consultation on the above, which was received by Natural England on 25 January 2019

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Insufficient information provided There is insufficient information to enable Natural England to provide a substantive response to this consultation as required under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. Please provide the information listed below and re-consult Natural England. Please note that you are required to provide a further 21 day consultation period, once this information is received by Natural England, for us to respond.

Internationally and nationally designated sites

The application site is within or in close proximity to a European designated site (also commonly referred to as Natura 2000 sites), and therefore has the potential to affect its interest features. European sites are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, as amended (the 'Habitats Regulations'). The application site is in close proximity to the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) which is a European site. The site is also listed as the Exe Estuary Ramsar site1 and also notified at a national level as Exe Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

In considering the European site interest, Natural England advises that you, as a competent authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, should have regard for any potential impacts that a plan or project may have2. The Conservation objectives for each European site

1 Listed or proposed Wetlands of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention (Ramsar) sites are protected as a matter of Government policy. Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework applies the same protection measures as those in place for European sites. 2 Requirements are set out within Regulations 63 and 64 of the Habitats Regulations, where a series of steps and tests are followed for plans or projects that could

18/2504/MFUL page 117

potentially affect a European site. The steps and tests set out within Regulations 63 and 64 are commonly referred to as the 'Habitats Regulations Assessment' process.

explain how the site should be restored and/or maintained and may be helpful in assessing what, if any, potential impacts a plan or project may have.

The consultation documents provided by your authority do not include information to demonstrate that the requirements of Regulations 63 and 64 of the Habitats Regulations have been considered by your authority, i.e. the consultation does not include a Habitats Regulations Assessment.

In advising your authority on the requirements relating to Habitats Regulations Assessment, and to assist you in screening for the likelihood of significant effects, based on the information provided, Natural England offers the following advice: the proposal is not necessary for the management of the European site that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site, and can therefore be screened out from any requirement for further assessment

When recording your HRA we recommend you refer to the following information to justify your conclusions regarding the likelihood of significant effects.

Additional Information required

The proposed development site is under 100m from the Goosemoor/ Bowling Green Marsh RSPB reserve, part of the Exe Estuary SPA and Ramsar Site. The reserve supports large aggregations of foraging and roosting waterbirds throughout most of the year, and thus are essential to the integrity of the entire SPA. This lower, tidal part of the river valley is also an important flyway for SPA birds that commute a little further up the valley to forage.

The conclusion in the submitted additional information 'Wintering Birds Wildlife Assessment' alludes to no LSE and no requirement for any avoidance or mitigation. The report fails to demonstrate the following:

awareness of the close proximity of large aggregations of qualifying features; the potential ways in which construction can impact on qualifying features, nor explores which causes of potential disturbance or other impacts relate to this proposal, nor why these would not affect these qualifying features; consideration of the SPA features, their conservation objectives; advice on operations, seasonality table; and doesn't reference any other material to support the conclusion; describe or consider legal aspects, i.e. HRA.

On this basis, the applicant will need to either provide sufficient information including survey work to inform an HRA through to AA level, or provide sufficient information to convince the planning authority that the noise, movement and lighting from demolition and construction of large structures very close to critically important parts of the SPA will avoid resulting in impacts, without any avoidance or mitigation.

18/2504/MFUL page 118

Please note that if your authority is minded to grant planning permission contrary to the advice in this letter, you are required under Section 28I (6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to notify Natural England of the permission, the terms on which it is proposed to grant it and how, if at all, your authority has taken account of Natural England's advice. You must also allow a further period of 21 days before the operation can commence.

The Government has produced core guidance for competent authorities and developers to assist with the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. This can be found on the Defra website. http://www.defra.gov.uk/habitats- review/implementation/process-guidance/guidance/sites/

Further comments 12.06.19:

Planning consultation: UPDATED WILDLIFE REPORT - Demolition of existing industrial unit & construction of replacement building with raising of site levels & construction of new bridge.

Location: Land At Odhams Wharf, Ebford.

Thank you for your consultation on the Wintering Birds Wildlife Assessment Updated 7th May 2019, which was received by Natural England on 07 May 2019. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding.

Natural England has also received a copy of the 10.02.2009 Wildlife Report which was referenced in the 2019 report and further information via an email dated 8.06.2019. Our advice is that because the proposed bridge replacement and the access road to be used by vehicles, cycles and pedestrians are within the Exe Estuary SPA/Ramsar site boundary a Habitats Regulations Assessment must be undertaken by the Local Planning Authority.

In advising your authority on the requirements relating to Habitats Regulations Assessment, and to assist you in screening for the likelihood of significant effects, based on the information provided, Natural England offers the following advice: o the proposal is not necessary for the management of the European site o that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site, and can therefore be screened out from any requirement for further assessment

When recording your HRA we recommend you refer to the following information to justify your conclusions regarding the likelihood of significant effects. o The proposed development site is under 100m from the Goosemoor/ Bowling Green Marsh RSPB reserve, part of the Exe Estuary SPA and Ramsar Site. The reserve supports large aggregations of foraging and roosting waterbirds throughout most of the year, and thus are essential to the integrity of the entire SPA. This lower, tidal part of the river valley is also an important flyway for SPA birds that commute a little further up the valley to forage.

18/2504/MFUL page 119

o It is accepted that the surveys carried out demonstrate that the two fields to the north of Odhams Wharf and the creek alongside the development are used by extremely low numbers of birds. o We advised on previous planning application 09/2412/MFUL that it was reasonable for this proposal to conclude that the development was not likely to have a significant effect on the SPA/Ramsar features (wintering birds). o Existing development, such as Armada House, provide some screening of this site from birds using the Goosemoor and the River Clyst mudflats.

FURTHER ADVICE In view of the sensitive location of this site all available measures to avoid disturbance to wading birds and wildfowl should be adopted, including: o Timing the bridge construction works across the creek to avoid sensitive periods for wintering birds. These period vary by bird species but are generally October to March; o Minimising disturbing activity on the unscreened access road crossing the SPA fields, for example by providing alternative pedestrian and cycle access via the cycle path to the east of the site as part of the Travel Plan.

The above items can be achieved through suitable conditions.

Further comments 12.06.19:

Thank you for your consultation on your Amended Appropriate Assessment (AA), which was received by Natural England on 14 August 2019. We have also had regard to the Traffic Assessment and supporting letter received 13 August 2019.

To clarify, we advise that there would be no likely significant effect on Dawlish Warren SAC or the Pebblebed Heaths SPA/SAC.

Your appropriate assessment concludes that your authority is able to ascertain that the proposal will not result in adverse effects on the integrity of any of the sites in question. Having considered the assessment, and the measures proposed to mitigate for all identified adverse effects that could potentially occur as a result of the proposal, Natural England advises that we concur with the assessment conclusions, providing that all mitigation measures are appropriately secured in any permission given.

MITIGATION MEASURES We concur that all the mitigation measures set out in the Appropriate Assessment are required to make the development acceptable. We advise that an appropriate planning condition or obligation is attached to any planning permission to secure these measures.

As set out in our previous letter we also advise the following is secured by condition:

- Given the proximity of the proposal to the protected sites and the associated potential for damage as a result of storage or disposal of materials, and operation of machinery or plant within the SSSI, no storage of machinery and materials shall take place within

18/2504/MFUL page 120

the protected sites. No operation of machinery and plant shall take place outside of the access road/bridge.

The following informative is also advised:

- The applicant is advised that should storage, access or encroachment within the Exe Estuary SSSI be found to occur as a result of the proposals during or after the works, this will be considered an offence under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) whereby the applicant may be liable on summary conviction to a maximum fine of £20,000 or on conviction on indictment to an unlimited fine. All contractors working on site should be made aware of this informative and provided with a map that clearly shows the boundaries of the Exe Estuary SSSI in relation to the development site.

South West Water

30/01/19 - I refer to the above and would advise that South West Water has no comment other than to acknowledge the response from the Applicant to our original response.

26/11/18 - With reference to the planning application at the above address, the applicant/agent is advised to contact South West Water if they are unable to comply with our requirements as detailed below.

Asset Protection

Please find enclosed a plan showing the approximate location of a public sewer in the vicinity (see under "view associated documents" tab. Please note that no development will be permitted within 3 metres of the sewer, and ground cover should not be substantially altered.

Should the development encroach on the 3 metre easement, the sewer will need to be diverted at the expense of the applicant. The applicant/agent is advised to contact the Developer Services Planning Team to discuss the matter further.

Clean Potable Water

South West Water is able to provide clean potable water services from the existing public water main for the above proposal.

Foul Sewerage Services

South West Water advises a Planning Condition to emphasise that: Foul drainage from the Development (and no other drainage) shall be connected to the public foul or combined sewer.

Reason: To ensure the discharge of drainage from the Development shall not be prejudicial to the public sewerage system and ensure there are adequate public foul sewerage facilities to receive foul water flows, in order to safeguard the public and environment.

18/2504/MFUL page 121

Surface Water Services

The statutory Water and Sewerage Undertaker supports the Planning Policy Guidance for Flood Risk & Coastal Change statement. To accompany its planning application, the applicant must demonstrate how its proposed development will have separate foul and surface water drainage systems and not be detrimental to existing infrastructure, the public and environment (and that any provisions for protecting infrastructure have been agreed with SWWL as service-provider). The applicant should demonstrate to your LPA that its prospective surface run-off will discharge as high up the hierarchy of drainage options as is reasonably practicable (with evidence that the Run-off Destination Hierarchy has been addressed, and reasoning as to why any preferred disposal route is not reasonably practicable):

1. Discharge into the ground (infiltration); or where not reasonably practicable,

Provide written evidence as to why Infiltration devices, including Soakaways, Swales, Infiltration Basins and Filter Drains do not meet the design standards as specified in either H3 Building Regulation standards for areas less than 100m2. Soakaways serving larger areas must meet the design standard specified in BS EN 752-4 (para 3.36) or BRE Digest 365 Soakaway Design.

2. Discharge to a surface waterbody; or where not reasonably practicable,

Provide written evidence for refusal of discharge consent from owner of water body (Environment Agency, Local Authority, Riparian Owner etc)

3. Discharge to a surface water sewer, highway drain, or another drainage system; or where not reasonably practicable,

Provide written evidence for refusal of discharge to drainage system (Highway Authority, Environment Agency, Local Authority, Private ownership)

4. Discharge to a combined sewer.( Subject to Sewerage Undertaker carrying out capacity evaluation) South West Water will carry out a hydraulic capacity review of the combined sewerage network before permission will be granted to discharge to the combined sewer.

Having reviewed the applicant's current information as to proposed surface water disposal for its development, please note that method proposed to discharge into the ground (infiltration) is acceptable and meets with the Run-off Destination Hierarchy. However, should this method be amended, SWWL will require clear evidence to demonstrate why the preferred methods listed within the Run-off Destination Hierarchy have been discounted by the applicant.

Your LPA will be mindful of Local Plan policy to limit the adverse (including cumulative) effect of proposed development such that sustainability is paramount and flooding risk is not increased elsewhere, together with Paragraphs 162 of the NPPF, and Paragraphs 109 and 120 of PPG (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment).

18/2504/MFUL page 122

I trust this clarifies the water and drainage material planning considerations for your LPA, however if you have any questions or queries, please do not hesitate to contact me either via e-mail: [email protected] or direct line: 01392 443983.

Please quote reference number MPP231118 EX3 0PB in all communications and correspondence.

County Highway Authority 18/02/19 - The site is situated off the C527.

The proposed layout utilises the existing access, and as a replacement building, I do not foresee a huge increase in the traffic intensification. Dedicated parking is to be provided with a turing head in order to turn. I would recommend the supply of cycle parking especially with the Exe-Estuary nearby.

Should this application be approved, the estuary footway bridge to be provided may well require the County Highway Authority (CHA) to check the structural integrity through calculations before access is opened to the general public. I would also advise the Environment Agency of the bridge intentions to access the flood risk.

Overall, however the CHA has no objections to this planning application.

Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, MAY WISH TO RECOMMEND CONDITIONS ON ANY GRANT OF PLANNING PERMISSION

1. No development shall take place until details of secure cycle/scooter storage facilities have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To promote sustainable travel to in accordance with the East Devon Local Plan.

DCC Flood Risk SuDS Consultation 04/02/19 - Recommendation:

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

Observations:

18/2504/MFUL page 123

The applicant is proposing to culvert the existing ordinary watercourse which flows adjacent to the site. It is understood that this watercourse 'backs-up' during high tides and so water stores within the channel. This storage will be lost if the watercourse is piped. Therefore, the applicant should reconsider the proposals to ensure that this watercourse remains open. The applicant should clarify the necessity of the access road in the southwest of the site. The site is already accessed via the east and another access may require another culvert.

The Design and Access Statement refers to a surface water attenuation pond to the southwest of the site. However, it is not understood where this attenuation pond is located. The applicant should clarify this.

Where brownfield sites are being developed, peak flow control should still be based on the greenfield runoff rate. The applicant must therefore attempt to match this greenfield rate in the first instance, but if this is robustly demonstrated to be unfeasible, the applicant should work backwards to achieve a runoff rate as close to the greenfield conditions as possible. Importantly, the applicant will be required to provide evidence of the calculations undertaken to achieve the proposed runoff rate. It is noted that pervious paving has been proposed for the car parking spaces, but a further reduction in flow from this site could be achieved.

The applicant must submit details of the exceedance pathways and overland flow routes across the site in the event of rainfall in excess of the design standard of the surface water drainage management system.

The applicant must submit information regarding the adoption and maintenance of the proposed surface water drainage management system in order to demonstrate that all components will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development.

The applicant is advised to refer to Devon County Council's Sustainable Drainage Design Guidance, which can be found at the following address: https://new.devon.gov.uk/floodriskmanagement/sustainable-drainage/

Environment Agency

27.11.2018: Environment Agency position We object to this proposal on the grounds that insufficient information has been submitted. We will object until a more comprehensive Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is submitted which demonstrates that the development is safe from flooding over its lifetime.

Further comments 14.02.2019:

Unfortunately still object to the proposed development, due to concerns around the culverting of the attenuation leat along the southern boundary of the site.

Reason

18/2504/MFUL page 124

Our general policy is that culverting is only permitted for essential access purposes. The proposed culverting to facilitate car parking/landscaping does not fall within this category. We would advise exploring options to maintain an open channel as the attenuation leat along the southern and western boundaries. The open channel provides an important, and critical, storage area at times of high tide, when tide-locking scenarios are realised.

It will be necessary to calculate the capacity required in the leat during a tidal cycle involving a 200 year tide level plus climate change that could also coincide with a severe rainfall event resulting in surface water draining into the channel from the catchment area to the south east of the site.

Overcoming our objection The applicant can overcome our objection by submitting an FRA which address the above points and demonstrates that the proposed development will be safe from flooding over its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

Further comments 30.04.2019:

Environment Agency position We are happy to remove our previous objection to the proposal (dated 26 November 2018 & 14 February 2019).

Reason We have reviewed the newly submitted documents and approve the revised strategy to retain the attenuation leat as an open channel, with no change to the existing capacity of the watercourse.

However, we would like to recommend that a 300mm freeboard is used to set finished floor levels of the development rather than the current 143mm proposed.

Environmental Health 26/02/19 - I have considered this application and recommend the following conditions to be attached to any permission granted:

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

Contaminated Land Officer 28/11/18 - I have considered the application and the Stage 2 report submitted by Paulex. The report suggests that there is contamination on the site which has not

18/2504/MFUL page 125

been able to be quantified at this stage and therefore further work will need to be done should the application be approved. I therefore recommend that standard condition CT3 is included on any approval in order that any contamination encountered is appropriately remediated.

08/03/19 - No additional comments.

EDDC Landscape Architect - Chris Hariades 10/12/18 - 1 INTRODUCTION

This report forms the EDDC's landscape response to the Full application for the above site.

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

2 LANDSCAPE RESPONSE

No comments on submitted details.

3 RECOMMENDATIONS

In the event that approval is recommended, the following conditions should be imposed:

1) No development work shall commence on site until the following information has been submitted and approved: a) A full set of hard landscape details covering earthworks, walls, retaining structures, fencing, pavings and edgings, site furniture and signage. c) Details of locations, heights, light levels and specifications of proposed external lighting. d) A full set of soft landscape details including planting plans showing locations and number of new tree, shrub and herbaceous planting, type and extent of new grass areas, existing vegetation to be retained and removed. e) Plant schedule indicating form size and density of planting f) Specification for soil quality, cultivation, planting, seed sowing, mulching and means of plant support and protection during establishment period.

2) In addition, the following standard EDDC landscape conditions should apply:

L01N, Landscaping - full permissions L02N Landscaping - groundworks L06N Landscaping - fences and boundaries

18/2504/MFUL page 126

L11N Landscaping - landscape management which should include the following details:

- Extent, ownership and responsibilities for management and maintenance.

Inspection and management arrangements for existing and proposed trees and hedgerows.

- Management and maintenance of grass areas. - Management and enhancement of biodiversity value. - Management and maintenance of any boundary structures, drainage swales and other external infrastructure.

L15N Landscape condition for full planning permissions (omitting non relevant parts/sections)

Other Representations

One representation has been received from RSPB raising a number of concerns, summarised below

• Demolition and construction works can be very disturbing • Additional traffic potential increase in disturbance • Potential light spill onto channel which is part of European site • New footpaths leading to disturbance of birds using channel • Enabling pedestrian access along access track and over new bridge will result in likely disturbance due to increased activity • 5 separate business units will result in increased activity and disturbance • Potential pollution of channel

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

15/0700/MFUL Demolition of existing industrial Approved 17.07.2015 building and construction of 3no. office blocks. Raising of site levels and construction of new bridge (re-submission of planning application 09/2412/MFUL

09/2412/MFUL Demolition of existing industrial Approved 12.04.2010 building and construction of 3no. office blocks, raising of site levels and construction of new bridge

18/2504/MFUL page 127

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies

Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) Strategy 8 (Development in Green Wedges)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

EN4 (Protection of Local Nature Reserves, County Wildlife Sites and County Geological Sites) EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) EN14 (Control of Pollution) EN21 (River and Coastal Flooding)

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

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

Clyst St George Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2015 – 2031 Clyst St George Parish Neighbourhood Plan CGS1 – Sustainable Development CGS3 – Flood Risk CGS5 – Development Outside the Settlement Areas CGS6 – Protection of Trees and Woodland CGS9 – Design Matters CGS17 – Parking Standards for New Development CGS19 – Business Development

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

Site Location and Description

The site is located between Ebford and Topsham outside the development limits of any settlement and classified as countryside for the purposes of the Development Plan. The site lies adjacent to the Exe Estuary which is designated as a Special Protection Area which doubles as a Ramsar site and SSSI. The site also lies outside any formal local plan employment land designated area and is shown in the Local Plan as being within a Green Wedge and Coastal Preservation Area where development will be restricted.

Whilst the site is not designated within the local plan, it has been used for storage and industrial purposes as part of the wider adjoining employment/business parks for many

18/2504/MFUL page 128

years. As such, the site is adjoined by business units to the east, south and west with the river to the north.

The site can also be characterised as being 'brownfield' previously developed land within an existing industrial and employment area with a mix of light industrial, general industrial, boat and marine based industries. The current use of the site is a builder's yard. A large industrial building occupies the western portion of the site. This building has a floor area of 800 square metres. The total site area extends to 0.8ha (2 acres).

The site can currently be accessed from the Class C highway leading to Topsham or from a privately maintained road leading to the A376 near Ebford. The former road access to the site is via a small bridge over an inlet of the River Clyst. This bridge has a current weight limit which restricts heavy industrial traffic thereby forcing vehicles to use the private road to the south. The access onto the Topsham Road does however benefit from excellent visibility.

The existing building on the site has a height to its ridge of approximately 5m at an overall length of approximately 64m and maximum depth of 19m.

Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the demolition of two existing buildings and the construction of a new building to house 5 industrial units (B1, B2, B8 uses) of varying sizes with associated ground works and parking. The proposed building would measure around 68m in length by 20m depth, with an overall height of 9.2m. In order to raise the units above the flood level, it is proposed to raise the levels across the whole site by approximately 2m using imported recycled hardcore. Tarmac roads and permeable surface parking areas are proposed together with additional drainage works including the piping of the existing attenuation culvert to the south of the site and further landscaping.

Permission is also sought for the replacement of the existing access bridge to the industrial area which is in need of substantial improvement with a new more substantial and wider structure which would be capable of accommodating the traffic attracted to the site. A footpath/cycle path is proposed to link the site to the national Cycle network to the east of the site.

ANALYSIS

The main issues to be considered in the determination of this application relate to:- • Principle of development • Visual impact and design considerations • Nature conservation and protected habitats • Traffic impact and access • Flood risk • Drainage • Impact on neighbouring properties • Contaminated land

18/2504/MFUL page 129

Principle of the Proposed Development

The site is already in use for industrial purposes and is located within a well- established business park. The land to the south and west has been developed for B1 offices and light industrial uses and the site has benefitted from planning permission for the redevelopment to provide 3 office blocks. In addition the area nearby has a history of maritime uses including boat building. Whilst the site has no formal designation it is clearly an area of brownfield land already within an established industrial area. The demolition of the existing building and its replacement with a new building would not extend the existing industrial use into open grassland areas surrounding the site. The site is relatively close to major areas of population in Exmouth and Exeter and is served by public transport on the A376 corridor and benefitted from a previous consent for 3 office blocks.

The site is recognised in the Clyst St George Neighbourhood Plan (Policy CSG19 – Business Development) which states:

Business development on the business parks listed below (and identified on Map 9) will be supported provided it is in keeping with those uses and business activity already on the site and does not lead to the outward expansion of the site. The following locations are currently in use as business parks: A. Addlepool Farm B. Clyst Works C. Danny’s Court D. Darts Farm E. Knowle House, (Devon & Somerset Fire H.Q.) F. Newcourt Barton G. Sandygate Farm H. Tremletts

All business/commercial development should: i. respect the character of its surroundings by way of its scale and design; ii. not harm the surrounding landscape; iii. not have an adverse effect on its neighbours; iv. not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the transport network and parking; and v. safeguard residential amenity and road safety; vi. promote access on foot or by bicycle; and vii. reduce flooding and improve water quality in main rivers.

The site is referenced as Site C (Danny’s Court) on Map 9 referenced within the above policy.

This policy supports the principle of re-development of the site, and the proposal does not expand the site outside of its current boundaries. With regard to assessment against criteria i-vii of the policy, these are considered below.

The creation of improved employment facilities (that will enable the existing businesses to grow and expand) weighs heavily in favour of the principle of the

18/2504/MFUL page 130

proposal and the expansion of rural businesses is supported in both local and national planning policy, and it is considered that the proposal would provide positive support to the local economy. As such, and whilst the site lies outside of any formal development boundary it lies within an established business park and constitutes previously developed land and as such it is considered that there is no in-principle objection to the proposed development.

Visual Impact and Design

The site occupies a prominent position in the local landscape given the flat nature of the landscape.

The existing new buildings to the west in particular are prominent in terms of their bulk and shape. They are not however prominent with regard to design and materials. The welcome use of natural materials for external cladding (timber cladding with dark grey aluminium windows under a dark grey roof) will help to provide a distinctive development which will complement the existing office buildings to the west and south.

Whilst the proposed building would be constructed on ground raised 2m above the current ground levels (to take the site out of the flood zone), and the building ridge would therefore be approximately 4m higher than the existing building, the visual impact from the proposal would be acceptable. The landscape officer has raised no objection to the visual impact from the building and it is material to the consideration of this current application that the ridge height is almost identical to the height of the previously approved 3 office buildings on the site. Given this, and given that views of the site from the north will be in the consent of the adjoining buildings and business park, the height and profile of the new building is not considered to be unreasonably intrusive.

In addition, the development will be well contained within existing site boundaries and whilst there will be a visual impact this is considered to be acceptable in this context and will not be harmful to the Green Wedge or Coastal Preservation Area to an extent that harm would occur.

Additional landscaping along the northern boundary of the site will also help to soften the impact of the new buildings and form a buffer between the employment site and the land to the north which will retain an open landscape form.

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

Traffic Impact and Access

The existing access via the bridge over the water is of a poor standard and appearance. It is also well known that access from the south in the past has proved

18/2504/MFUL page 131

problematic and it is for these reasons that the previous consent also included consent to provide a new bridge as a replacement to the existing.

The provision of a new bridge is needed and to that end it is recommended that as a first phase of development the new bridge would be put in place. This would allow all construction traffic to access the site from Topsham Road rather than the southerly route which is narrow and generally not suitable for additional traffic. The southern access also forms part of the National Cycle network, and therefore any additional traffic using this narrow lane would be likely to result in conflict between leisure and business users of the road.

Although the Highway Authority have not raised specific concerns in respect of this issue, it is considered that the use of the southern road would be likely to result in significant local amenity issues if heavy traffic during construction and general traffic afterwards was forced to use this route. It will of course be difficult to prevent employees using this southerly access but the northern access route is much more likely to be used following the provision of a new bridge and the good visibility at the junction with Topsham Road.

There are no other highway or road safety concerns and the proposal includes provision of suitable car parking provision at 36 spaces.

Flood Risk

Whilst the site is located within an identified floodzone, it is proposed to raise the land levels to create a flood defence, the details of which have been considered and found to be acceptable by the Environment Agency. These improvements were also proposed and approved as part of the previous application in 2015.

This form of flood defence has been undertaken in other parts of the site, particularly the redevelopment of sites to the south and west and whilst some raising of the ground has already been undertaken on the site boundary with the river culvert, raising of this site will complete the flood defences at the northern end of Odhams Wharf.

Drainage

The proposed development will connect to the public sewer within the site which is considered to be appropriate in this situation, and whilst some additional works may be required the principle of the scheme is acceptable.

The submitted surface water arrangements are also considered to be suitable with the proposed infiltration method of discharge into the ground being acceptable.

Residential Amenity

The application site is centrally located within the business park, with the nearest residential property some distance from the site. Whilst any construction works have the potential to cause noise and disruption for the occupiers of neighbouring residents, this is transitory and in the long term the only likely impact would arise from additional traffic movements.

18/2504/MFUL page 132

Other potential issues, such as noise and light pollution can be suitably controlled by condition.

Contaminated Land

The application is accompanied by a contamination assessment study, and phase 2 site investigation assessment, both of which were undertaken some time ago. Despite the time since the studies were undertaken, it is considered that the general situation is unlikely to have substantially changed in the intervening period. However given the sites previous industrial use there is potential for some contamination of the land, and with this in mind it is considered that a suitable condition should be included on any approval.

Nature Conservation, Protected Habitats and Appropriate Assessment

Part of the site, bridge and access road, are within the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area, and an Appropriate Assessment has therefore been undertaken to assess any impact arising from the proposed development. This has found that whilst the proposal will have some impact on the protected area, this is unlikely to be significant and can be mitigated by appropriate conditions.

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

Some concern has been raised in respect of the impact of the proposals on the nearby RSPB reserve at Goosemoor/Bowling Green Marsh, and whilst this is appreciated it is considered that subject to appropriate conditions/the mitigation outlined in the Appropriate Assessment, including working hours/times and methods, and appropriate lighting the proposal is acceptable and will not be harmful to ecology.

CONCLUSION

The proposed re-development of the site to create more modern and fit for purpose business units is considered to be acceptable in principle and would accord within both neighbourhood and local plan policies which encourage a prosperous rural economy and support employment initiatives on existing business sites.

The replacement of the access bridge to the business park will improve access arrangements, and will provide a safer entrance, and which should also reduce the numbers of large vehicles using the narrow lane to the south of the site, thereby having the potential to improve highway safety and reduce conflict between vehicles and cyclists on this road.

18/2504/MFUL page 133

Whilst the site levels are proposed to be raised, and the building will be taller than the existing building, its visual impact is considered to be acceptable and in any case proposes a building no taller than 3 officer buildings that were approved on the site in 2015.

An Appropriate Assessment has been prepared and agreed with Natural England given the relationship to the Exe Estuary and its wildlife designations. Subject to securing the mitigation within the Appropriate Assessment, the proposal will not have a harmful impact upon ecology.

Subject to appropriate conditions relating to construction methods and working arrangements, suitable landscaping and materials and external lighting, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

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

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

4. Notwithstanding the operational working arrangements identified within any approved Construction and Environmental Management Plan, no works in respect of building demolition and/or works to the bridge shall take place other than between the months of April to September inclusive. Other construction works shall be limited to between April and December inclusive. (Reason – To mitigate any potential impact on protected landscapes and nesting birds in accordance with Policy EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031)

18/2504/MFUL page 134

5. Before any development commences details of final finished floor levels and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - A pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that adequate details of levels are available and considered at an early stage in the interest of the character and appearance of the locality in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013- 2031.)

6. Notwithstanding the submitted information, full details of the proposed new bridge shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works taking place on site. Once agreed the new bridge shall be constructed as a first phase of development prior to any other works taking place on site, and shall form the primary means of access to the site for all construction vehicles. The southerly access route to Ebford shall only be used in emergency situations by any construction traffic. (Reason – To ensure that the bridge is robust enough to carry traffic during development and to ensure adequate access is provided for all construction traffic and future movement of staff and other visitors to the site in accordance with policy TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

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 condition 1. Site Characterisation (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: o human health, o property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes,

18/2504/MFUL page 135

o adjoining land, o groundwaters and surface waters, o ecological systems, o 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'.

Reporting of Unexpected Contamination

In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 1, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 2, which is 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.

Long Term Monitoring and Maintenance

A monitoring and maintenance scheme to include monitoring the long-term effectiveness of the proposed remediation over a period to be agreed, and the provision of reports on the same must be prepared, both of which are 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 are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN16 - Contaminated Land of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

8. Prior to any construction works commencing on car parking and footways the surface details and samples of materials to be used shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall proceed in accordance with the agreed details.

18/2504/MFUL page 136

(Reason - The development will generate vehicle movements and car parking requirements and it is necessary to ensure that in the interests of the visual appearance of the site and to ensure permeable materials are used to avoid potential surface water run-off and increased flood risk before development begins in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN21 (River and Coastal Flooding) and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.)

9. No development above foundation 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 unless any alternative phasing of the landscaping is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the landscaping shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or other plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To ensure that the details are planned and considered at an early stage in the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and D2 - Landscape Requirements of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

10. Secure Cycle/Scooter Storage. No development shall take place above foundation level until details of secure cycle/scooter storage facilities have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. (Reason: To promote sustainable travel to in accordance with Policy TC9 - Parking Provision in New Development of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.)

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

12. Details of any floodlighting or other external lighting (including lux levels) on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to its erection on the site. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. No other external lighting shall be erected on the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The site shall

18/2504/MFUL page 137

not be lit other than during business hours unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interest of the character and appearance of the locality and to avoid excessive light pollution in this sensitive area of countryside in accordance with policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

13. Prior to the first occupation of the building hereby approved the proposed cycle and pedestrian footpath to the site from the Sustrans cycle path on the eastern boundary shall be constructed in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason – in the interests of providing a safe and suitable pedestrian and cycle access to the site, in accordance with Policy TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.

14. Foul drainage from the Development (and no other drainage) shall be connected to the public foul or combined sewer. (Reason - To ensure the discharge of drainage from the Development shall not be prejudicial to the public sewerage system and ensure there are adequate public foul sewerage facilities to receive foul water flows, in order to safeguard the public and environment and in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

15. The development shall not take place other than in compete accordance with the Wintering Birds Environmental Assessment prepared by JD Goss-Custard dated 30.10.2009, as revised by further reports dated January 2019, and updated 7 May 2019. (Reason - In the interests of the protection of wading birds and wildfowl in accordance with Policy EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.)

16. The development shall not take place other than in compete accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment (E04984 CLK Flood Risk Assessment dated 27.03.2019) and additional information submitted in the Response to SWW Consultation document E04984/TN01 dated 23.01.2019. (Reason - In the interests of flood prevention in accordance with Policy EN21 (River and Coastal Flooding) and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

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

The applicant is advised that should storage, access or encroachment within the Exe Estuary SSSI be found to occur as a result of the proposals during or after the works,

18/2504/MFUL page 138

this will be considered an offence under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) whereby the applicant may be liable on summary conviction to a maximum fine of £20,000 or on conviction on indictment to an unlimited fine. All contractors working on site should be made aware of this informative and provided with a map that clearly shows the boundaries of the Exe Estuary SSSI in relation to the development site.

Plans relating to this application:

ELEVATION+SITE Combined Plans 05.11.18 CROSS SECTION

ELEVATIONS Proposed Elevation 05.11.18

201 REV P7 : Combined Plans 05.11.18 PLANS+SECTIONS

RESPONSE TO General 24.01.19 SWW Correspondence CONSULTATION (ADDITIONAL)

TQRQM183062149 Location Plan 05.11.18 12528

Proposed Floor Plans 05.11.18

Proposed Site Plan 05.11.18

SWW SEWER MAP Other Plans 26.11.18 agent email with Location Plan 23.07.19 plan (additional info)

Foul water drainage Other Plans 01.04.19 site plan I

001 rev P1 : Other Plans 01.04.19 proposed surface water drainage strategy rev C - 12.03.2019 Proposed Site Plan 01.04.19 amended Flood Risk 01.04.19 Assessment

Transport Impact Additional Information 13.08.19 Note

18/2504/MFUL page 139

Wildlife Report General 08.05.19 Correspondence

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

18/2504/MFUL page 140

Appropriate Assessment

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

Application 18/2504/MFUL Reference

Brief Demolition of existing industrial unit and construction of replacement description of building, raising of site levels and construction of new bridge proposal

Location Land at Odhams Wharf Ebford Site is: Within 10km of Dawlish Warren SAC and the Exe Estuary SPA site

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

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

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

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

(See Appendix 1 for list of interest features of the SPA/SAC)

Step 1 Screening for Likely Significant Effect on Dawlish Warren SAC, Exe Estuary SPA or Pebblebed Heaths SPA/SAC or Exe Estuary Ramsar sites

Risk Assessment

Could the The proposal is for an employment use within 10km of the Protected Qualifying Landscapes, the employment units will not generate any increase in Features of the recreation impacts on the Protected Landscapes in themselves. European site be affected by The access road and bridge lie within the Protected Landscape, and the the proposal? proposal will result in an overall reduction vehicle movements, the levels of which have been assessed through the submitted transport impact note. This Consider both has been considered and mitigation measures proposed. The use of the access construction to serve the employment uses are unlikely to increase any recreational and operational impact on the Protected Landscapes. stages. The development will result in an overall reduction in traffic, movements and disturbance and employment/industrial activity adjacent to the Exe

18/2504/MFUL page 141

Estuary. It would remove an open storage area from the site. There may be some disturbance from staff and visitors using the protected landscapes during break times.

Additional noise and disturbance is likely during demolition and construction periods.

Conclusion of Screening Is the proposal East Devon District Council concludes that there may be Likely Significant likely to have a Effects ‘alone’ and/or ‘in-combination’ on features associated with the significant proposal at Land at Odhams Wharf, Ebford effect, either ‘alone’ or ‘in See evidence documents on impact of development on SPA/SAC at: combination’ East Devon District Council - http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/369997/exe- on a European overarching-report-9th-june-2014.pdf site? Exeter City Council - https://exeter.gov.uk/media/4153/sedesms.pdf

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

An Appropriate Assessment of the plan or proposal is necessary.

Local Date: Authority Officer

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

In-combination Effects Plans or Whilst there is additional housing and tourist accommodation within 10km projects with of the SPA/SAC which will add to the existing issues of damage and potential disturbance arising from recreational use, the proposal being of an cumulative in- industrial/business nature is not considered to add to the recreational combination pressure or to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Exe Estuary impacts. SPA, Dawlish Warren SAC and Ramsar sites alone or in combination with How impacts of other plans or projects. current proposal combine with other plans or projects

18/2504/MFUL page 142

individually or severally. Mitigation of in-combination effects.

Assessment of Impacts with Mitigation Measures Mitigation As identified part of the application site (the access road and bridge) lies measures within close to the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar included in the site. These sites are designated for their overwintering wildfowl and waders. proposal. In addition the works are within close proximity to the Dawlish Warren Special Area of Conservation (SAC), designated for its coastal geomorphology and dune systems.

A Wintering Birds Environmental Assessment, and updated Wintering Birds Wildlife Assessment (7 May 2019) have been submitted as part of the application which outlines how the development could impact on the overwintering bird species.

In addition a Transport Impact Note has been prepared in respect of the proposed traffic generation arising from the proposed development. This concludes that the proposed development will result in an overall reduction in traffic movements attracted to the site.

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

East Devon District Council has therefore assessed the impact from the development upon the Exe Estuary and Dawlish Warren, building upon the content contained in the Wintering Birds Wildlife Assessment submissions, and advice from Natural England and conclude the following:

Construction phase: Working practices and procedures shall be undertaken in accordance with a Construction and Environment Management Plan (CEMP) prepared and submitted to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. In addition building demolition and bridge work activities will be limited to the months of April to September inclusive, and no construction activities will be under taken between the end of December and the beginning of April.

Operation Phase All lighting of the site shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme reviewed by an appropriately qualified ecologist and submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and designed to meet zone E2

18/2504/MFUL page 143

(rural/suburban) standards within the Guidance Note for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light 2011.

Alternative pedestrian and cycle access will be encouraged to minimise useage of the access road and the gate access from the Sustrans cycle path moved in accordance with advice provided and as indicated on the amended site plan

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

Are the Yes – the site has been previously developed, and whilst the construction proposed works may result in some minor disturbance the above mitigation measures mitigation are considered to be appropriate to overcome any significant effects of the measures proposed development. sufficient to overcome the Alternative pedestrian and cycle routes are proposed likely significant The reduction in vehicular traffic movements arising from the proposal will effects? reduce the overall impact on Goosemoor Nature Reserve and the protected species and other wildlife within it.

Conclusion List of CEMP submission mitigation Hours of working restricted measures and Restricted months of demolition and construction works safeguards Noise and lighting limitations Alternative cycle and pedestrian access Reduction in traffic movements

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

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

Local Authority Date: Officer

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

18/2504/MFUL page 144

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.) 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

18/2504/MFUL page 145

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 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.

18/2504/MFUL page 146

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.

18/2504/MFUL page 147

Exe Estuary Ramsar

Principal Features (updated 1999)

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

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

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

18/2504/MFUL page 148 Agenda Item 13

Ward Newbridges

Reference 19/1066/FUL

Applicant Mr & Mrs SR & CA Perry

Location Nower Dairy Kilmington Axminster EX13 7HD

Proposal Construction of earth lined slurry lagoon

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 149

Committee Date: 1st October 2019

Newbridges Target Date: (Kilmington) 19/1066/FUL 29.07.2019

Applicant: Mr & Mrs SR & CA Perry

Location: Nower Dairy Kilmington

Proposal: Construction of earth lined slurry lagoon

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before Members as the officer recommendation is contrary to the view of the Ward Member.

The proposal is to construct an earth-lined slurry lagoon to contain 4 months’ worth of the slurry produced by a dairy herd. This is intended to help the operators of the Dairy to store more slurry during the winter, reducing the need to spread slurry during the months when the risk of water pollution associated with the spreading of slurry is highest, in line with best practice advice from the Environment Agency.

The lagoon would be constructed on gently sloping land adjacent to agricultural buildings using a cut and fill method, with on-site soils being used to provide an impermeable liner, avoiding the need to import soil materials from elsewhere. As such, traffic movements associated with the construction would be relatively low.

The site is in the countryside and the Blackdown Hills AONB, however it would not be widely visible and the landscape officer raises no concern regarding the impact on the surrounding AONB landscape.

The Parish Council support the proposal, however neighbours and the Ward Member raise concerns that the lagoon could leak (if poorly constructed) or be damaged by springs in the area, with the risk that groundwater could be contaminated. This is raised as a particular concern because several local dwellings abstract private water supplies from groundwater at locations nearby.

The application is supported by a feasibility assessment (produced by an independent agricultural advisor) describing the soils present at the site and the lagoon construction method. The laboratory test result of the permeability of the proposed liner soil has also been provided.

19/1066/FUL page 150

The Environment Agency have been made aware of the concerns relating to private water supplies and consulted on all the information supplied, including the location of abstraction points as indicated by objectors. The Environment Agency have indicated the Regulatory Controls which relate to the construction and maintenance of slurry lagoons and the prevention of Nitrate pollution and that there is a requirement for them to be notified by the applicant 14 days prior to the commencement of lagoon construction. They have raised no objection to the proposal. The planning system cannot seek to duplicate other existing regulatory controls and it is considered that given that specific controls are in place and administered by the Environment Agency, the pollution risk to ground and surface waters would adequately addressed and controlled.

It is not considered that significant impacts would arise in relation to traffic or odour. Given that the proposal is a pollution prevention measure which would support the improved environmental operation of an agricultural enterprise, with associated economic and environmental benefits, it is considered overall that the proposal represents sustainable development which should be approved.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council 5.7.19 Kilmington Parish Council resolved at a meeting on the 25th June 2019 to have NO objection to this application subject to the Environment Agency report supporting the need for the application and the correct construction.

Newbridges - Cllr Iain Chubb 30.7.2019 This application looks straightforward and would normally be the case, however there is a rather large problem with the land in question having spoken to the farmer who owns and has farmed the land for decades to raise concerns over this application. The amount of slurry being produced and imported in is also a big question, and the quality of the ground that the is proposed to site the lagoon on as tests have been carried out but no results have been divulged. The land in question is also at the head of many private water supplies who will be adversely affected by this slurry lagoon. I therefore think that this application needs a lot more questions to be answered and I would prefer this application to be dealt with by the planning committee rather than being signed of at a delegation meeting. This would hopefully bring all the facts to the table and searching questions can be asked and hopefully answered.

I therefore cannot support this application as it stands and would request it goes to DMC.

19/1066/FUL page 151

Technical Consultations

Environmental Health 29.8.19 I have not raised any concerns in relation to this application and this remains the case because the issues raised are not within our remit in environmental health. The need for the lagoon had been identified by the Environment Agency, along with the engineering design. The concerns of local landowners which were raised in the first consultation period and which were independently copied to me have been considered by the Environment Agency. They have now assured local residents that the pit design has taken the ground conditions into account and that neither properties nor ground water would be put at risk.

We do not usually receive complaints or concerns from people living near to existing lagoons. They are designed and used in such a way that surface disturbance is minimal other than when the lagoon is being emptied and any odours would be regarded as usual for a livestock operation, particularly dairy farms where slightly odorous slurry is normal. It is only where a change of use introduces a potential odour source that would not be considered usual for the premises that we would raise the question. This is not the case in respect of this application.

County Highway Authority 26.6.29 Observations: The site is located on the X718. The proposed lagoon is 10 metres away from the county highway network, so if a breach should occur this will have minimal impact upon the highway network. The lagoon is predominantly a cut feature and therefore the cross-section should not impact upon the highway integrity. 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

Landscape Architect 24.07.19 Having visited the site and surrounding area I am satisfied that there are no significant landscape or visual impacts arising from the proposed scheme and consequently I have no objection on landscape grounds.

Should the application be approved I would recommend that a condition be included requiring that the perimeter bunding is turfed with turfs set aside from excavations or, if it is to be seeded, that the proposed grass seed mix is selected to reflect the species mix of the surrounding field in order to help blend the slopes in to the landscape.

Environment Agency 24.6.19 Thank you for consulting us on this application.

19/1066/FUL page 152

Environment Agency position We have no objection to the proposed development. The applicant should ensure that the work proceeds in accordance with the Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) Regulations 2010 (SSAFO) and the storage requirements of The Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2015, commonly known as the NVZ regs.

Advice - The SSAFO and NVZ regulations aim to prevent pollution from stores of silage, slurry and agricultural fuel oil. They set out requirements for the design, construction and maintenance of new facilities for storing these substances. Site operators should ensure that there is no possibility of contaminated water entering and polluting surface or underground waters. Further information can be accessed via the following web link: https://www.gov.uk/storing-silage-slurry-and-agricultural-fuel-oil

The SSAFO Regulations also require that the Environment Agency is notified 14 days prior to the commencement of construction of a new, reconstructed or enlarged slurry store, silage clamp or fuel stores. More information can be obtained via the following link: http://www.ruralhubspartnership.co.uk/nvz_new_regualtions_and_change_to_ssafo

We advise that farmers can use up to 5,000 tonnes of suitable imported waste clays for the bunding of slurry stores by registering an exemption U1 and following the conditions. Further advice is available from our website via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/waste-exemptions-using-waste

Further comments 13.8.19:

Thank you for reconsulting us on this application.

Environment Agency position: We have no objection to this proposed development.

Reasons: We refer to our previous response (dated 24 June 2019 ref: DC/2019/120658/01-L01) to reiterate that the applicant should ensure that the work proceeds in accordance with the Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) Regulations 2010 (SSAFO) and the storage requirements of The Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2015, commonly known as the NVZ regs.

The Environment Agency normally oppose the establishment of new storage areas for organic manures (farm yard manure, sewage sludge, slurry and other organic manures) within SPZ1 or within 50 metres of any borehole, well or spring. However, we understand that the nearest property to the farm is over 500 metres away and we are not aware of any abstractions within that area and no evidence has been provided to contradict this.

19/1066/FUL page 153

We also have confirmation that the potable abstraction that was contaminated a few years ago was from surface runoff and not leaky infrastructure. We have no record of this being reported to Environment Agency at that time either.

It is worth noting that no enforcement notice has been issued for this property or site although our Environment Officers have liaised with the applicant to advise on best practice and the legal requirements.

We are confident that the consultant, who we understand to be Bob Watson, is a highly credible expert in the creation of slurry storage management and their creation. The test pits mentioned in your correspondence would have been overseen by a qualified consultant and as a result it is our opinion that the applicant meets all of our criteria to allow this development to continue. As such we have no reason to object to this proposal.

Advice: The SSAFO and NVZ regulations aim to prevent pollution from stores of silage, slurry and agricultural fuel oil. They set out requirements for the design, construction and maintenance of new facilities for storing these substances. Site operators should ensure that there is no possibility of contaminated water entering and polluting surface or underground waters. Further information can be accessed via the following web link: https://www.gov.uk/storing-silage-slurry-and-agricultural-fuel-oil

Other Representations 8 objections to the proposal have been received raising the following concerns (note that only concerns relating to the proposed development are listed here):

- The scale of the lagoon is excessive and not needed as there is already a concrete lined slurry pit at the site which has been sufficient for many years; - The farm is run by tenants who rent additional farmland, and their current tenancy ends in September 2023. The main landholding of 193 acres does not support a herd size which triggers the need for the lagoon, therefore the lagoon will not be necessary and proportionate in the future if the agricultural practices at the holding change; -The lagoon will be used for imported slurry which is unjustified; - The proposal would contaminate nearby streams, rivers, springs and their catchment areas and a flood risk assessment should have been provided; - The proposal poses a pollution risk to an underground aquifer/spring network within 50 m of the proposed slurry lagoon with public health implications from slurry contamination of private spring water supplies above and below the level of the lagoon, relied upon by several dwellings; - The ground within the site is complex and springs are likely to be encountered at the construction site; - The soil type and condition is unsuitable for the proposal and could be subject to slippage, such that a full geotechnical survey is required; - Sewage will leak into the water table if the lagoon is only earth lined as this is unlikely to provide a reliable, secure barrier. Plastic or preferably a concrete liner should be used instead; -The submitted feasibility report is subjective and has not been independently verified

19/1066/FUL page 154

- There are no guarantees that the lagoon would not fail, that sufficient clay would be available, or that sand would not become mixed with the clay liner, reducing its effectiveness as an impermeable barrier; - The soil permeability test results have not been published (Note that since this point was raised the test results have been published); - The Environment Agency guidelines are generic and there is no assurance that he applicant will meet the SSAFO regulations or that compliance will be monitored. A condition should be imposed to require inspection by the Environment Agency and to allow residents to inspect the site; - Slurry tankers and construction traffic would have an adverse impact on Nower Road, which is already in poor condition; -The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the dwelling at Nower Farmhouse; - The proposal will have an adverse visual impact on the AONB.

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D2 (Landscape Requirements)

D7 (Agricultural Buildings and Development)

EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features)

EN14 (Control of Pollution)

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019) National Planning Practice Guidance

Other Documents Blackdown Hills AONB Management Plan 2019 - 2024

The emerging Kilmington Neighbourhood Plan - no draft is currently available

The Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (England) Regulations 2010 (as amended 2013) (‘SSAFO’)

Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2015 (NVZ regs)

Site Location and Description

The site lies outside of any Built-up Area Boundary and is thus in the countryside in planning terms. It is a rectangular area in a grassed field, approximately 14 m to the north of an unclassified road and immediately to the east of a group of agricultural

19/1066/FUL page 155

buildings. The ground within the site slopes down towards the southeast although the wider context of the site is the shoulder of a hill, with surrounding land sloping down towards the east, through to the south and southwest. The site is within the Blackdown Hills AONB.

The nearest dwellings include Nower Farm and an annexe, approximately 66m to the southwest and Nower Dairy Farm (the applicant’s dwelling) approximately 170m to the northwest. A public footpath lies approximately 194m to the west of the site, terminating on the southern side of the road which runs past the southern edge of the site.

Proposal

The application proposes the construction of an earth lined slurry lagoon.

The applicants are tenants of the holding known as Nower Diary which comprises 193 acres and operates as a dairy unit, milking 150 to 170 cows and rearing replacements. The proposed slurry lagoon is to provide for an additional 4 months of slurry storage (there being a small slurry lagoon already at the site capable of storing slurry produced in 1 month) whilst cattle are winter housed. It is stated that the existing lagoon at the site this does not have sufficient capacity to satisfy Environment Agency requirements and that the additional lagoon is intended to help address diffuse pollution issues in the Corry Brook catchment. The lagoon would be constructed by ‘cut and fill’ and clay lined using on-site materials, without the importation of soil.

During the course of the determination soil test results and further comment from an independent agricultural advisor, indicating that one of the soil types on-site would be suitable as an impermeable liner, have been provided. The applicants have also submitted additional information which states that they do not bring in slurry from elsewhere and that they have been issued with a Notice by the EA to the effect that they cannot continue to keep dairy cows from October 2019 without having at least 4 months slurry storage capacity. They explain that storage of slurry over winter avoids slurry spreading on land in winter months, when risk of surface water pollution through rainfall run-off is greater and that spreading at other times has other environmental benefits in that it enables the more effective use of slurry as a natural soil fertiliser and reduces soil compaction in fields.

Notwithstanding that the proposed development is in an area described as a ‘sensitive area’ in the Regulations (as it is within an AONB) the proposed development is not one of the development types listed in Schedules 1 or 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 as it is not itself an intensive agricultural operation (which would result in the production or increase of waste in itself), rather it is an improved management system for the existing waste produced on the farm. Therefore the proposal does not require an Environmental Statement.

ANALYSIS

The main issues for consideration include the principle of the proposal, pollution, visual impact and impacts on local amenity.

19/1066/FUL page 156

Principle

Agricultural development is supported in principle through policy D7 where there is a genuine agricultural need for the development and several criteria are met.

With regard to need, it is accepted that the provision of a slurry lagoon on a livestock farm is often encouraged by the Environment Agency as these structures can help reduce water pollution through providing for storage of slurry during certain months of the year, so that it is not spread at the times of the year when the risk of surface water run off mixing with slurry is higher.

The Environment Agency indicate that no enforcement notice has been issued in relation to Nower Dairy but that their officers have advised the applicant on best practice and legal requirements.

Given the accepted benefits of slurry storage, there is no reason to consider other than there is a genuine agricultural need for the lagoon, particularly given that there is cost and effort involved in seeking planning permission for it and constructing it, and that a slurry lagoon would be unlikely to be suited to other uses.

Objectors indicate the lagoon is excessive in size for the tenanted holding and that the need for the lagoon may change in the future. However, there is no evidence of this with the applicant having calculated the size of the lagoon needed to cater for the 4 months and has confirmed that slurry would not be imported. If it were to be imported from other farms, a breach of planning would have occurred as slurry imported to the site from a separate agricultural operation would be defined as a waste requiring further planning permission relating to the deposit or processing of waste.

It is considered that the specific size of lagoon need not be overly restricted, particularly as the size of the holding may change in the future, and as the longer the slurry is stored the less likelihood there is of wider pollution.

It is therefore considered overall that the agricultural need for the lagoon proposed is genuine and that the proposal is acceptable in principle. The other criteria of Policy D7 are discussed under separate headings below.

Pollution

The concerns of objectors with regard to slurry leaking from the lagoon and the impacts this could have on private water supplies and a surface waters are noted and understood.

Whilst the impacts of a development upon impact on a private water supply would be a civil matter rather than a planning matter, the pollution of ground and surface waters are material planning considerations. It is acknowledged that, in certain circumstances, slurry could pollute ground and surface waters, however, it is understood that the lagoon proposal has come about as a response to best practice advice on slurry management to reduce pollution risk, provided to the applicant by The Environment Agency, a regulatory body whose stated purpose is the protection and

19/1066/FUL page 157

enhancement of the environment. It is also clear that storing slurry securely at certain times of year can help to reduce pollution of the wider environment.

The applicant has provided a feasibility study and soil test result in support of the application which describes the soil profiles at the site, the permeability of the soil proposed to be used as a liner (with a comment on its acceptability) and sets out how the lagoon would be constructed. The measured permeability of the soil tested is noted to be less than (i.e. better than) the maximum figure set out in published Government Guidance “Guidance - Storing silage, slurry and agricultural fuel oil (SSAFO) - Rules you must follow, who’s responsible and when to notify the Environment Agency”.

The Local Planning Authority have made the Environment Agency aware that private water supplies are drawn from boreholes and capped springs near the site and their attention has been drawn to objectors’ comments which describe where these are located. The Environment Agency indicate they normally oppose new slurry stores within 50m of any borehole, well or spring or within Source Protection Zone 1. An assessment of the information provided by objectors found that no capped spring or borehole is located within 50 m of the proposed lagoon. It is also noted that the site is also not within Source Protection Zone 1. It is further acknowledged that the Environment Agency have wrongly stated that there are no properties within 500m of the lagoon, but the key distance is that there are no capped springs or boreholes within 50m.

In their initial consultation response the Environment Agency indicate that SSAFO and Nitrate Pollution Prevention (NVZ) Regulations aim to prevent pollution from slurry (in addition to other substances) and that the regulations set out requirements for the design, construction and maintenance of new facilities for storing slurry. They also indicate that the SSAFO Regulations require them to be notified 14 days prior to the commencement of construction of a new, reconstructed or enlarged slurry store.

It is noted that objectors are concerned that the construction of the slurry lagoon may not be properly carried out and that subsequently the lagoon could leak. However given what the Regulations referenced above set out to achieve, the role of the Environment Agency in administering them and the opportunity afforded to them to oversee the works following 14 days’ notice of commencement being given to them, it is considered that there are adequate controls in place to ensure that the slurry lagoon would be constructed to required standards. Planning controls must not duplicate other existing regulatory controls, and it is therefore not considered reasonable or necessary to impose planning conditions to require that the Environment Agency inspect the works or to require that access be afforded to residents to inspect them, as suggested by an objector. Following 2 rounds of consultation the Environment Agency have raised no objection to the proposal.

It is therefore considered overall that pollution risk would be controlled and that there are no reasonable grounds on which to require further information from the applicant or to impose conditions relating to the construction of the lagoon.

19/1066/FUL page 158

Local Amenity

There is the potential for the lagoon to impact on residential amenity in relation to odour, however the proposal is located immediately adjacent to agricultural buildings where livestock are kept and there is an existing slurry store closer to the nearest dwelling than that which is now proposed. Environmental Health have been consulted on the proposal, including specifically in relation to potential odour issues) and raise no objection. It is therefore concluded that the proposal would not give rise to an unacceptable impact on local amenity.

Visual Impact

The proposal is on a gentle slope near the top of a hill and where visible at close range, this would be from limited viewpoints close to the Dairy, where the lagoon would be seen in the immediate context of a large group of agricultural buildings. It would not be particularly discernible from more distant viewpoints.

Having visited the site and surrounding area the Landscape Officer is satisfied that there are no significant landscape or visual impacts would arise from the proposed scheme and consequently no objection to the proposal is raised in terms of harmful visual impact and impact on the AONB. The landscape officer has recommended that if approval is granted, a landscaping condition should be imposed to ensure that the appearance of the perimeter bunding blends well with the surrounding landscape.

Due to existing buildings and hedgerows, the slurry lagoon would not be highly visible from the right of way and bridleway to the west of the site. Any view of the lagoon would take in the context of the large group of agricultural buildings immediately adjacent to it, which would be in closer proximity to the right of way than the lagoon. The impact on the amenity of the right of way would also be negligible.

Other issues

Objectors indicate that the construction works and the movement of slurry on the road adjacent to the site would damage it. However, whilst there may be traffic movements on the local road network associated with lagoon construction, these are likely to be limited to a low level, given that materials to construct the lagoon would not be imported. It is noted that no objection has been raised by the County Highway Officer. Neither is it likely that the provision of the lagoon would itself significantly alter the number of farm traffic movements necessary to spread slurry on the land, although such movements may occur over different months than they would have if the lagoon was not available.

An objector is concerned that a flood risk assessment has not been provided, however the site is not within a flood risk zone and is less than 1 hectare in area, so an assessment was not required.

No protected or important wildlife habitats or features are likely to be affected by the proposal. Through reducing pollution risk, the proposal would help to protect aquatic wildlife in surface waters in the vicinity.

19/1066/FUL page 159

CONCLUSION

Taking into account the regulatory controls in place relating to the construction of slurry lagoons, it is considered that the proposed lagoon would enable slurry to be managed at Nower Dairy with a reduced risk of ground and surface water pollution, which would help to support the continued operation of an agricultural enterprise and the local agricultural economy, in addition to bringing about environmental benefits.

The size of the lagoon has been justified by the applicant and would not have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding AONB landscape, on residential amenity or on highway safety.

As such, the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

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 perimeter bunding around the lagoon hereby permitted shall be turfed with turfs set aside from excavations or, if it is to be seeded, the proposed grass seed mix shall be selected to reflect the species mix of the surrounding field. (Reason: To help blend the bunded slopes in to the landscape and in accordance with Strategy 46 Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs and Policies D2 Landscape Requirements and D7 Agricultural Buildings and Development).

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:

Location Plan 29.05.19

2052/2 Proposed Site Plan 17.05.19

19/1066/FUL page 160

2052/3 Sections 17.05.19

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

19/1066/FUL page 161 Agenda Item 14

Ward Sidmouth Rural

Reference 19/0597/FUL

Applicant Mr Upchurch

Location Partridge Hill Sidbury

Proposal Construction of agricultural building, access track and widened access and depositing of soil excavated from the side of the building

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

Crown Copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 162

Committee Date: 1st October 2019

Sidmouth Rural Target Date: (Sidmouth) 19/0597/FUL 24.05.2019

Applicant: Mr Upchurch

Location: Partridge Hill Sidbury

Proposal: Construction of agricultural building, access track and widened access and depositing of soil excavated from the side of the building

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is before Members as the officer recommendation differs from the view of a ward member.

The proposal involves the construction of a two storey agricultural building at Partridge Hill Farm, a modest holding occupying a site within the Roncombe Valley to the north east of Sidbury within the designated East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is accessed off Starcombe Lane, a private road that is also a public bridleway.

The farm comprises a small scale mixed enterprise with a particular emphasis on the rearing of free range turkeys. The proposed building would be designed to facilitate the rearing of turkey chicks up to ten weeks old, whereupon they would be allowed to free range on the holding, whilst also providing storage space for machinery, fuel and feed.

The proposal also involves engineering operations in the form of the significant excavation of the site, in order to both dig the building into the hillside and allow for the laying out of an associated yard area, together with a raising of the level of a length of an existing track in order to improve access to the building and yard. It is intended that spoil from the required excavations would be deposited over a significant part of the surrounding area, both within an existing copse of protected trees and on part of an adjacent field. These operations would themselves involve a significant increase in the height of the present levels of the land.

The submission follows two previous attempts to secure permission for a similar building on the unit. The first of these (application ref. 16/2507/FUL), involving a site at the lower end of a field below the present application site, was refused in February 2017 on grounds relating to the lack of justification for the design, scale,

19/0597/FUL page 163

form and agricultural need for the development and the harmful visual impact as a result of the prominent and elevated position of the building and the proposed engineering operations required in order to provide access to it. The second application, relating to the same site as the current proposal and submitted last year (application ref. 18/1856/FUL), was withdrawn in the light of officer concerns largely centred around the same issues.

Although the stated justification for the building and the associated engineering works is more robust than before, and there is recognition that the site probably represents the least intrusive location on the holding for the development in terms of the wider landscape impact upon the AONB, there remains concern that the various engineering works, in relation to both excavation and raising of land/ground levels, would result in a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of this part of the AONB landscape. Furthermore, the intended raising of ground levels within the copse would, through compaction, also represent a threat to the rooting systems of the trees with the potential for longer term damage to their health. Any loss of the screening that this group would otherwise provide for the development would expose it and its effect upon the landscape to wider public view from a number of roads and rights of way to the detriment of the AONB.

The prospective benefits of the building to the applicant are acknowledged. However, it is not thought that compelling evidence has been provided to demonstrate that it is essential to the fundamental viability of the enterprise, to which greater weight could otherwise possibly be given in the overall planning balance. Indeed, it remains officers' view that this is outweighed by the harm to the AONB that would result from it and the threat to the trees and the screening effect that they provide.

In this regard, the objections raised to the proposal by the town council are entirely supported.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council UNABLE TO SUPPORT Reasons: Members considered that the building would be obtrusive and damaging in the natural landscape. They did not agree that the agricultural requirement for the building in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty outweighed the damage caused and therefore could not be justified. The proposal was therefore contrary to East Devon Local Plan Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs)

Sidmouth Rural - Cllr John Loudoun

19/0597/FUL page 164

Ward Member comments in support of this planning application.

The applicant is known to me as he lives nearby.

I am aware of the small farming business that Ben Upchurch operates and I have discussed with him his intensions for the site that he is seeking planning permission for. I believe that the small-scale agricultural business that Mr Upchurch has is one that should be encouraged in the Sid Valley.

I have looked at Mr Upchurch's planning application, visited the site to discuss his plans and business intensions, as well as discussing the matter with a planning officer and speaking to a couple of Mr Upchurch's neighbours.

Mr Upchurch operates his farm over 60 acres in the Roncombe Valley. This site, which he owns, covers 10 of those acres. On the remaining 50 acres he operates as a tenant farmer.

I understand that this application is Mr Upchurch's third one for this site. He informs me that he has amended previous applications in order to seek to meet the concerns, particularly regarding less engineering and excavation, that officers have expressed over previous applications. I believe that Mr Upchurch has engaged positively with the planning officer and his latest proposals seek to meet, as best as the site allows him, to meet the concerns of the officer.

The site is clearly not an easy one to operate from and to build on. It is relatively well hidden and in my opinion the site and the proposed building would not disturb the views within the Roncombe Valley. Indeed, I understand that there remain concerns from officers about the view of the site and the proposed building from the track that passes on side of the site. As this is a track that is very infrequently used by vehicles or walkers and given that there already is a building on site, I would have thought that setting a condition that a fence, hedging or trees should be erected or planted would allow this concern to be overcome.

It is my understanding that in order to erect the proposed building the site will require some excavation as the location is on a slope, as is the whole of the site that Mr Upchurch operates from.

As with any construction there will be an element of noise from the build and excavation. However, in my opinion given the relatively small nature of the proposed new building I believe that the negatives associated with this will be short term and that the positives for the growth of a small local business would out way them. After all this application is for an agricultural building to be built in an agricultural setting

In summary, I support Mr Upchurch in his intensions to grow his farming business from this site and through his planning application, and in doing so I would recommend that members of the Committee make a site visit in order to more fully understand the site and its location.

Technical Consultations

19/0597/FUL page 165

EDDC Trees I have concerns over this development and the effects on the tree population for the following reasons, - Although the tree report states individual trees are not significant in the landscape, the overall tree cover is significant and this should be protected by protected all specimens of trees - The track improvements have level changes both by excavation and infill, it appears within the RPAs of the trees - There is no clear detail on the 'Tree Protection Plan of RPA’s, tree loss or sufficient fencing

Environmental Health I have considered this application and do not anticipate any Environmental Health Issues with this application, therefore I have no objections to this application

Other Representations Four representations of support and two 'neutral' representations have been received.

Summary of Grounds for Support 1. An agricultural barn will greatly assist the applicant in the management of his land and the care of his livestock; it will provide much needed accommodation in order to rear turkeys from day-old chicks instead of buying them in at 10-week-old poults and to store machinery for which there is no accommodation at the moment. 2. Barn would occupy a well screened site and would have little or no impact on the area. 3. Encouraging to see a young hard working farmer having the initiative to establish a farming business in the valley, bring back some traditional farming ways and make use of land that has been sparingly used. 4. A great deal of the beauty of the AONB comes about by the land being farmed. 5. The development would not adversely affect any local residents. 6. The applicant has behaved with an exemplary and conscientious respect for the countryside and with courtesy towards Roncombe Lane residents. 7. The applicant has established a niche market for his hardy grass fed lamb, his woodland pork and the raising of free range traditional breed turkeys.

Summary of Other Comments 1. Increased continual and intrusive noise from larger numbers of turkeys to the detriment of enjoyment of neighbouring residential property. 2. Concern if slaughtering is ever conducted on the site. 3. Increased potential traffic up Sandcombe Lane; would wish for assurances that there would never be any direct sales to the public or visitors. 4. Cannot see how detritus is to be disposed of year round. 5. Over-intensification of use on what is a small non-residential smallholding, with difficult access, unsuited to upscaling. 6. Would want assurances that at no time generators would be used on the site due to noise. 7. Believe only acceptable compromise to be a smaller barn with a limit to the number of turkeys kept outside or limited to the keeping of turkeys inside.

19/0597/FUL page 166

8. Hoped that a single storey building would suffice as this, and the existing shed, would meet needs as described; concern that scale of enterprise could become disproportionate to the size of the holding. 9. Would like entrance to be constructed and finished with scalpings, rather than brick rubble at present in use, and satisfactorily drained. 10. The submitted Renewable Energy Feasibility Study does not make sense.

POLICIES

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

Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D2 (Landscape Requirements)

D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

D7 (Agricultural Buildings and Development)

EN14 (Control of Pollution)

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

EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development)

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

Site Location and Description

Partridge Hill (Farm) is a registered agricultural holding comprising around 7.7 acres (3.12 hectares) of mainly pastoral and steeply sloping land that occupies an elevated situation on the western side of the Roncombe valley approximately 2.5 km. to the north east of Sidbury. It is located within the designated East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

The holding, which is owned by the applicant, principally consists of three fields and two areas of woodland on the south western side of Starcombe Lane which, although essentially a private single vehicle width lane off Roncombe Lane that serves Starcombe Farm, is also a public bridleway (no. 73). It is a small scale mixed farming enterprise producing rare breed pork, hill sheep lamb, hogget, mutton and traditionally bred free range turkeys (the main source of income) for the Christmas market.

The only building within the holding (there is no dwelling or any other form of accommodation on the unit) is a relatively basic single storey agricultural shed that is

19/0597/FUL page 167

used for general storage purposes, which is positioned just off the public bridleway adjacent to the only vehicular access to the holding off Starcombe Lane around 270 metres north west of its junction with Roncombe Lane. This access serves an unmade track which, together with the building itself skirt the edge of a small copse of mainly Alder trees. Beyond the building the track is cut into the hillside and flanked by trees on both sides. Just beyond the copse to the south is a steeply sloping grass area that forms part of one of the fields which is, to all intents and purposes, positioned centrally within the land holding, around 50 metres south of Starcombe Lane.

Proposed Development

The application proposal relates to the construction of a two storey agricultural building within this area of the farm together with the laying out of a levelled yard area alongside it at the same level as that of the building itself. A short new length of access track, extending south off of the existing track, is also proposed in order to provide access to the yard whilst an adjacent section of the existing track is to be raised to meet the intended yard level in order to facilitate vehicular access to it.

The submitted details show that the proposed building would incorporate a machinery and feed storage area on the ground floor with a poultry loft above. It would exhibit a gabled form and would measure 17.8 metres in length by a width of 5.9 metres with a shallow pitched roof with a ridge height of 8 metres above yard level. The design/external appearance shows vertical batten and timber board cladding over a blockwork plinth with a series of ten top-opening stable doors/hatches at the proposed upper level around all four elevations of the building, which is intended to provide rapid ventilation of the poultry loft. The roof would be finished in profiled metal sheeting.

An external staircase would be added at the northern end of the building to provide access to both the poultry loft and a path alongside the rear elevation at loft level that would itself access the proposed hatches.

The development of both the building and the yard alongside it would necessitate significant engineering operations in the form of the excavation of the hillside in order to cut them into the steeply sloping hillside and create an appropriate level such that vehicular access via the existing track off Starcombe Lane can be achieved. Section details accompanying the application indicate, for example, that the rear part of the building would be excavated into the hillside by up to almost 6 metres.

It is also proposed that the spoil from the excavated area is deposited around an area of approximately 0.15 hectares within the adjacent copse and the higher part of a field alongside it to the south east. Section details have again been supplied with the application to illustrate the extent of the various level changes that this would entail. These suggest that they would largely vary between 1 and 2 metres. It is also presumed that this spoil would be used to undertake the work relating to the increase in the level of the section of the existing length of track referred to above.

Further work is envisaged to widen the present entrance to the holding off Starcombe Lane from its current width of around 4 metres to 10 metres and lay out a double gated entrance. This would also necessitate some increase in the ground levels in order to

19/0597/FUL page 168

create a suitable gradient for vehicular access given the present quite significant fall in level towards the lane.

The proposed lengths of extended and heightened track would be finished in compacted hard core.

The work to create the proposed levels for the building and yard and the length of raised track would necessitate the felling of seven of the Alder trees within the copse. However, it is intended that this loss would be compensated for by new tree planting within two areas of the field to the south east of the copse and a further area immediately to the north of the building and yard themselves. Whilst these have been shown indicatively on the submitted plans, no further details as to the species, numbers, planting intervals, etc. of the proposed planting itself have been provided.

PLANNING HISTORY

The application follows two previous attempts to obtain permission for the construction of an essentially very similar building on the holding.

The first of these, submitted under application ref. 16/2507/FUL, involved the development of lower land at the very south eastern edge of the field to the south east of the present site. Aside from the agricultural building, this proposal also included the formation of a new access off Starcombe Lane and the laying of a hardstanding for vehicles.

However, the proposal was refused in February 2017 on the following grounds:

1. Inadequate justification has been provided in relation to the design, scale, form and agricultural need for the building proposed and as such it would represent unnecessary and inappropriate development in the countryside contrary to Strategies 7 (Development in the Countryside) & 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs) and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) & D7 (Agricultural Buildings and Development) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

2. The proposed development by virtue of the design, form and external appearance of the building, its prominent and elevated position above adjoining road level and the additional visual impact of the engineering operations that would be required to provide access to it, would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area and would fail to conserve or enhance the landscape character of the surrounding Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal is therefore contrary to Strategies 7 (Development in the Countryside) & 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs) and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) & D7 (Agricultural Buildings and Development) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

More recently, application ref. 18/1856/FUL proposed a largely similar development to that subject of the current application in much the same location (which had also been suggested informally during the course of application 16/2507/FUL but not considered since it related to a different site on the holding). Although involving less excavation

19/0597/FUL page 169

into the hillside than the scheme now being proposed, together with a smaller and differently configured yard, it did incorporate the laying out of an entirely new access track, off a widened entrance off Starcombe Lane very similar to that currently proposed, to run almost alongside the existing track up to a point where it crossed it. Beyond this, it was shown with a loop before reaching the proposed yard.

That proposal generated significant officer concerns similar to those raised in relation to the proposals that were the subject of application ref. 16/2507/FUL as well as issues regarding the visual impact of the engineering operations required in order to create the access track and the harmful effect that it was perceived these would cause upon the landscape character and appearance of the AONB together with its consequential failure to conserve or enhance this.

In the light of these, the application was withdrawn in December 2018. The current submission therefore represents an attempt to address these, but in relation to the same site, which is clearly different to the site to which the original 2016 application related.

ANALYSIS

Considerations/Assessment

In essence, the current proposal falls to be considered having regard to the extent to which it overcomes the grounds for refusal of application 16/2507/FUL, albeit that it relates to a different site within the farm holding, and the very similar reasons for officer concern regarding the proposals for the revised site subject of withdrawn application 18/1856/FUL.

The main issues therefore relate to the principle of development, visual impact upon the AONB and highway safety.

Principle of development

Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement) of the adopted Local Plan requires that development be undertaken in a manner that is sympathetic to, and helps to conserve and enhance the quality and local distinctiveness of, the district's natural landscape character, especially within AONBs. This reflects relevant guidance set out at paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which confers upon AONBs, and other designated landscape areas, the highest status of protection in relation to the conservation and enhancement of its landscape and scenic beauty.

The provisions of Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the Local Plan in part reflect this as, among other things, they only permit proposals that respect the key characteristics and special qualities of the area and do not adversely affect important landscape characteristics or trees worthy of retention.

In addition, Policy D7 (Agricultural Buildings and Development) permits new agricultural buildings where there is a genuine agricultural need for them and where various criteria are met. Principal among these is the requirement that they are well integrated with their surroundings, closely related to existing buildings and of

19/0597/FUL page 170

appropriate location, scale, design and materials so as not to harm the character and landscape of the rural area, particularly within the AONB.

It is considered that these criteria are key to the assessment of the planning balance in this case.

In terms of the stated justification for the proposed building, it is intended that the provision of accommodation would allow the applicant to purchase and rear turkey chicks from a day old for the first ten weeks of their life up to 'off-heat poult' stage. This is not the case at present. As such, the intention would be to use the first floor space within the building as a poultry loft for this process. This would be designed to be insulated sufficiently so that chicks can be kept warm but allowing for ventilation, via the series of hatches, to maintain an optimal atmosphere for growth following this early stage.

Once the chicks reach ten weeks old they are then housed in the woods, or on the pasture land, in mobile shelters for the remainder of their time on the farm.

The proposed floor area of the loft would allow for the accommodation of 200 ten week old turkeys. This represents the projected optimal number to be produced and sold from the enterprise.

It is intended that the ground floor of the building be used to store machinery, fuel and feed; the former being needed to manage the holding and including a tractor, mini digger, grass topper, mower, trailers, a chain harrow and feed, fuel and livestock records stores.

It is considered that the need for a building, to aid the expansion of the business, has been demonstrated.

Visual impact

The submitted supporting statement contends that the topography of the land prevents the creation of a single storey building of adequate floor area for the applicant's requirements and the revised siting is within a wooded area. It is also suggested that the extent of the engineering work proposed has been reduced from that proposed under the scheme subject of application 18/1856/FUL insofar as it predominantly utilises the existing track with only a minor 5.5 metres length of new track directly adjacent to the proposed yard area while the yard level itself has also been reduced by a metre. Moreover, the tree planting scheme proposed would ensure that the building remains screened and unobtrusive in the surrounding landscape 'in keeping with other similar agricultural buildings'.

However, while these points are duly acknowledged and accepted to a degree, the extent of the level of impact upon the landscape that it is considered would result from the submitted revised proposals would be broadly equivalent and, indeed, potentially worse.

There is an acceptance that, given the relatively modest acreage attached to the holding and its mostly visually exposed valley hillside location within a particularly

19/0597/FUL page 171

attractive and unspoilt part of the AONB, the proposed location for the building would probably represent the least harmful and visually prominent and intrusive position for it, owing not least to the proximity of, and screening provided by, the adjacent area of woodland. It is thought that there is no other site within the unit where the development could be positioned where it would appear less harmful to the rural landscape character and landscape and scenic beauty of this part of the AONB.

However, aside from the stated justification for the building summarised above, it is considered that this needs to be balanced against other factors.

Principal among these is the fact that, whilst there would be a considerably reduced length of new track introduced, the current proposals for the creation of the yard and the floor level for the building would involve more substantive excavation of the hillside than those subject of application 18/1856/FUL, bearing in mind that these would be 1 metre lower in comparison. Moreover, the raising of the level of the section of the existing track and the widening of the entrance to the holding off Starcombe Lane would also continue to involve significant engineering interventions in the profile of this part of the landscape.

Coupled with these is the potential effect of the proposed works to the track and widened access and the deposition of the spoil from the excavation operations upon the local landform, the absence of any proposals detailing how the re-profiled land within the affected area would be planted, grass seeded, etc. and, potentially most significant of all, the impact of these works upon the health and well-being of the trees within the copse.

Furthermore, as is evident from the consultation comments made by the Council's Arboricultural Officer, there is concern regarding the proposal in relation to the impact of the development upon these trees, not least that likely to be created by the proposed level changes to part of the track and the deposition of the excavation spoil within their root protection areas where it is considered that compaction of the rooting systems would be caused, leading to eventual decline in their condition.

In the light of these concerns, a tree preservation order has been placed on the group (ref. 19/0045/TPO).

There would therefore ultimately be a threat to the longer term screening of the proposed building that their ongoing retention would otherwise continue to provide.

As stated, the site is on an elevated hillside where, without the screening provided by the tree group, the development would appear particularly visually prominent and intrusive in the landscape, not least given the fact that, the existing single storey building aside, the holding contains no buildings, farmhouse, etc. Moreover, there are a number of public rights of way on the opposite slope of the Roncombe valley from which the building would be particularly visible in the event that the building were approved and exposed to view as a result of the failure of the tree screening.

This impact would also be emphasised by its two storey height and, notwithstanding that the engineering operations and ground levelling to dig the building into the hillside are intended in part to mitigate its wider landscape impact, these would also

19/0597/FUL page 172

themselves be particularly apparent in views of the site and be alien to the landform and landscape.

Although, as stated above, the proposals incorporate areas of replacement tree planting, this is likely to take a number of years to establish and provide the same level of screening of the development as the retention of the existing tree group. Indeed, retention of landscape features is generally the preferred option over the introduction of replacement or additional screen planting. It is not therefore considered to represent an issue to which significant weight can be given in this matter.

The possibility of amending the proposal to omit the spoil deposition (i.e to take the spoil off site), and therefore better safeguard the trees, has been the subject of discussion with the applicant and his agent. However, officers' view remains that, even if this were to be pursued, the level of engineering and excavation work proposed for the building and amended/widened access is still considered likely to be harmful to the area's landscape character and quality and would therefore fail to conserve or enhance the wider AONB.

It is understood that the need for the building is derived principally from the applicant's intention to rear the turkey chicks from day old which he is unable to do at present in the absence of a building that provides suitable conditions for this purpose. However, it is not considered that it has been demonstrated that this requirement is essential, or indeed fundamental, to the ongoing functioning or viability of the farming enterprise operated from Partridge Hill that it could be argued might add greater weight in favour of an offer of support for the building and the attendant engineering operations. As such, and as was largely the case with the proposal for a similar development lower down the hillside subject of application 16/2507/FUL and the previous withdrawn proposal for the current site, it is maintained that the harm to the AONB that would result from the development outweighs the need for the building in this case.

It is noted that the applicant is a tenant farmer on other parcels of land elsewhere, mostly within the Roncombe valley but also at Coombehayes Farm to the south of Honiton. Although it is recognised that there is no security of tenure in relation to these, unlike the Partridge Hill unit, it is considered that alternative options for accommodating the building, without the level and extent of engineering and excavation work involved, could be explored.

The possible alternative of adapting and enlarging (including heightening) the present single storey building nearer to Starcombe Lane has been discussed at some length with the applicant owing to the avoidance of anything like the level of engineering work required that it would be likely to necessitate, and therefore the reduced impact upon the AONB. However, it has been explained that this building is itself required for further storage purposes and could not therefore be reasonably adapted, enlarged or replaced to provide the space required in order to satisfactorily house the turkey chicks. The need to access the loft hatches from outside ground level seems to be of particular importance in this regard.

As such, unlike the original proposal to position the building lower down the hillside (subject of application 16/2507/FUL), it is thought that the current proposal has been appropriately justified and is not necessarily therefore itself 'unnecessary' or

19/0597/FUL page 173

'inappropriate' development, notwithstanding the concerns below regarding its AONB impact.

Amenity and Highway Safety

The remaining criteria set out in Local Plan Policy D7 require that agricultural development; is not detrimental to the amenity of nearby residents on grounds of smell, noise or fly nuisance; will not lead to an unacceptable increase in traffic on the local highway network, and involves the separation of clean surface and roof water from foul drainage.

Although the observations made by interested third parties are acknowledged, there is no particular evidence that the development would result in any detrimental effect upon the amenities of nearby residents through nuisance from smell, noise or flies.

The nearest residential properties to the development site, at Starcombe Farm to the north and Roncombe View and Bovetts Farm to the south, are around 300 metres and 250 metres away respectively. Moreover, whilst the increase in the numbers of turkeys could add to general noise levels when allowed to free-range the pasture or woodland, it is not considered that this would itself justify an objection to the proposed development on noise nuisance grounds. Equally, although no details as to how it is intended to deal with the management of waste have been provided, this could be controlled by condition in the event that the proposal were considered acceptable.

Similarly, whilst the shortcomings of Starcombe Lane, in terms of its width and gradient, are recognised, there are no compelling reasons to support a view that the proposal would lead to a material increase in traffic movements. As observed previously in the assessment of application 16/2507/FUL, whilst the proposal may facilitate an increase in livestock on the farm it might also mean that more machinery can be stored on site rather than brought to it as and when required. Furthermore, the applicant is likely to visit the site on a regular basis already, a situation that is unlikely to change.

The application suggests that foul drainage would be disposed of via a septic tank system while surface water would discharge to a sustainable drainage system. Again, although no further details have been provided with the application, in the event that the proposal were otherwise considered to be acceptable these could be suitably conditioned.

The proposal is therefore thought to largely comply with these other Policy D7 criteria.

CONCLUSION

The proposal involves the construction of a two storey agricultural building at Partridge Hill Farm within the designated East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The proposal also involves engineering operations in the form of the significant excavation of the site, in order to both dig the building into the hillside and allow for the laying out of an associated yard area, together with a raising of the level of a length of an existing track in order to improve access to the building and yard. It is intended

19/0597/FUL page 174

that spoil from the required excavations would be deposited over a significant part of the surrounding area, both within an existing copse of formally protected trees and on part of an adjacent field. These operations would themselves involve a significant increase in the height of the present levels of the land.

Although the stated justification for the building and the associated engineering works is accepted, and there is recognition that the site probably represents the least intrusive location on the holding for the development in terms of the wider landscape impact upon the AONB, there remain significant concern that the various engineering works, in relation to both excavation and raising of land/ground levels, would result in a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of this part of the AONB landscape.

Furthermore, the intended raising of ground levels within the copse (by between 1m and 2m) would, through compaction, also represent a threat to the rooting systems of the trees with the potential for longer term damage to their health. Any loss of the screening that this group would otherwise provide for the development would expose it and its effect upon the landscape to wider public view from a number of roads and rights of way to the detriment of the AONB.

The prospective benefits of the building to the applicant are acknowledged. However, it is not thought that compelling evidence has been provided to demonstrate that it is essential to the fundamental viability of the enterprise, to which greater weight could otherwise possibly be given in the overall planning balance. Indeed, it remains officers' view that this is outweighed by significant harm to the AONB that would result from it and the threat to the trees and the screening effect that they provide.

In this regard, the objections raised to the proposal by the town council are entirely supported and the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, by virtue of the extent and visual impact of the engineering operations that would be required in order to accommodate the construction of the agricultural building and provide access to it, would have an unduly harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the area and would fail to conserve the rural landscape character or landscape or scenic beauty of the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in which the site is located. As a consequence, the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of Strategies 7 (Development in the Countryside) and 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs) and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and D7 (Agricultural Buildings and Development) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013 -2031 and the guidance contained within paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

2. On the basis of the information submitted the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed spoil deposition would not, through the effects of compaction of the ground, represent a threat to the health and well-being of the

19/0597/FUL page 175

adjacent group of trees (that are the subject of a tree preservation order) and their rooting systems. These trees currently provide screening for the site for the proposed development within the surrounding landscape and any loss of tree cover would result in both a loss of amenity and expose the development to views from public vantage which, on account of its visually prominent and elevated position within the landscape, would appear intrusive to the detriment of, and fail to conserve or enhance, the landscape and scenic beauty and rural landscape character of the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in which the site is located. As a consequence, the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of Strategies 7 (Development in the Countryside) and 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs) and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), D3 (Trees and Development Sites) and D7 (Agricultural Buildings and Development) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013 -2031 and the guidance contained within paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

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

Plans relating to this application:

Location Plan 25.03.19

18/008/PL01 Layout 20.03.19 RevC

18/008/PL02 Proposed Floor Plans 20.03.19 RevA

18/008/PL03 Proposed Elevation 20.03.19 RevC

18/008/PL04 Proposed Elevation 20.03.19 RevC

18/008/PL05 Proposed Elevation 20.03.19 RevC

18/008/PL06 Proposed Elevation 20.03.19 RevC

19/0597/FUL page 176

18/008/PL07 Sections 20.03.19 RevB

18/008/PL08 Sections 20.03.19 RevB

18/008/PL09 Proposed Combined 20.03.19 RevB Plans

18/008/PL11 Sections 20.03.19

18/008/PL12 Other Plans 20.03.19

TPP1 Tree Protection Plan 20.03.19

TPP2 Tree Protection Plan 20.03.19

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

19/0597/FUL page 177