Agenda Document for Planning Committee, 02/12/2020 10:00

Public Document Pack

Agenda for Planning Committee Wednesday, 2nd December, 2020, 10.00 am

Members of Planning Committee

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

Contact: Wendy Harris, Democratic Services Officer 01395 517542; email [email protected] (or group number 01395 517546) Issued: Thursday 19 November 2020; Reissued Friday 27 November 2020

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Williams, Chief Executive page 1

Parish and town council representatives wishing to speak on an application are also required to pre-register in advance of the meeting. One representative can be registered to speak on behalf of the Council from 10am on Monday 23 November 2020 up until 12 noon on Thursday 26 November 2020 by leaving a message on 01395 517525 or emailing [email protected].

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

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

2 Minutes of the previous meeting (Pages 6 - 10) Minutes of the Development Management Committee meeting held on 4 November 2020

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

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

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

7 Planning appeal statistics (Pages 11 - 19) Update from the Development Manager

Applications for Determination

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

8 20/1001/MOUT & 20/1003/LBC (Major) CLYST ST MARY (Pages 20 - 144)

page 2 (20/1001/MOUT) Winslade Park, Clyst St Mary. (20/1003/LBC) Winslade Park, Winslade Park Avenue, Clyst St Mary.

9 20/1855/FUL (Minor) WOODBURY & LYMPSTONE (Pages 145 - 155) Land Adjoining The Workshop, Longmeadow Road, Lympstone.

10 20/1841/FUL (Minor) AXMINSTER (APPLICATION WITHDRAWN) (Pages 156 - 164) 28A Foxhill, Axminster.

11 20/1399/FUL (Minor) SEATON (Pages 165 - 175) Seaton Jurassic, The Underfleet, Seaton.

12 20/1258/FUL (Minor) EXE VALLEY (Pages 176 - 189) Lower Southmoor Farm, Brampford Speke.

13 20/1234/FUL (Minor) COLY VALLEY (Pages 190 - 221) Land South Of Chilcombe Cross, Northleigh.

14 20/2082/FUL (Minor) DUNKESWELL & OTTERHEAD (Pages 222 - 230) Kains Park Farm, Awliscombe, Honiton.

15 20/1531/LBC (Other) WOODBURY & LYMPSTONE (Pages 231 - 236) Jasmine Cottage, The Strand, Lympstone, EX8 5JR.

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

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

page 3 Agenda Item 1

[Blank page]

page 4

[Blank page]

page 5 Agenda Item 2 EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL

Minutes of the meeting of Planning Committee held at Online via the Zoom App on 4 November 2020

Attendance list at end of document The meeting started at 10.05 am and ended at 2.05 pm. The meeting was adjourned at 12.27 pm and reconvened at 12.45 pm.

165 Speakers' list and revised running order for the applications

The Chair advised Committee Members and members of the public watching online via the livestream that planning application 20/0297/FUL – Ladram Bay Holiday Park, Ladram Bay, Otterton had been withdrawn from the agenda and would not be considered.

166 Minutes of the previous meeting

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 7 October 2020 were confirmed as a true record.

167 Declarations of interest

Minute 170. 20/1246/VAR (Minor) OTTERY ST MARY. Councillor Kathy McLauchlan, Personal, Had met with the residents of the Long Range Caravan Park some time ago.

Minute 172. 20/1617/FUL (Minor) BROADCLYST. Councillor Sarah Chamberlain, Personal, Broadclyst Parish Councillor.

Minute 174. 20/0375/FUL (Minor) - YARTY. Councillor Geoff Pratt, Personal, East Devon AONB Partnership Member.

Minute 174. 20/0375/FUL (Minor) - YARTY. Councillor Paul Hayward, Personal, Clerk to Chardstock Parish Council. Declared he had attended the meeting to give his own submission as Ward Member for Yarty.

Minute 175. 19/2283/COU (Minor) YARTY. Councillor Geoff Pratt, Personal, East Devon AONB Partnership Member.

Minute 175. 19/2283/COU (Minor) YARTY. Councillor Philip Skinner, Personal, Member of the same political group as the applicant.

168 Planning appeal statistics

The Committee noted the Development Manager’s report setting out 7 decisions notified and reported that 5 appeals had been dismissed and 2 allowed.

Members’ attention was drawn to the 2 appeals allowed. Planning application 20/0471/FUL – Holmleigh, Back Lane, Newton Poppleford was allowed. The Inspector determined the visual impact of the increase in height of the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, the street scene or the surrounding page 6 Planning Committee 4 November 2020

area. The second appeal allowed for planning application 19/F0171 – Land Opposite Woodbury Business Park, Woodbury. The Inspector determined the change of use to a car parking area would not harm the visual impact to the countryside.

Members was pleased to note the Inspector had upheld the decision to refuse planning application 19/2348/FUL – 13 – 15 High Street, Honiton for the erection of 2 dwellings in a rear garden within a conservation area.

Members also noted for information planning application 18/2339/MOUT – Hill Pond Caravan Park, Clyst St Mary, EX5 1DP. The Development Manager advised the Inspectors decision to allow the appeal had been challenged by the Council and was quashed by order of the High Court. As a result the appeal had been brought back to the Inspector for determination and was dismissed.

169 20/1395/FUL (Minor) SIDMOUTH TOWN

Applicant: Mr Tim Drake.

Location: Flat 1 Fernbrook, Convent Road, Sidmouth, EX10 8RB.

Proposal: Alterations to front conservatory extension including increase in height (retrospective application).

RESOLVED: Approved as per Officer recommendation but subject to the following additional condition:  In order to protect the amenity of residents, within 3 months of the date of this decision, details of the fitting of an obscure film (or similar method of obscuration) to the glazed roof of the conservatory hereby approved shall have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Within one month of the written agreement of the details by the Local Planning Authority, the agreed fittings shall be provided and thereafter retained in perpetuity. (Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the occupiers of the conservatory and adjoining upper floor flat in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and the National Planning Policy Framework.)

170 20/1246/VAR (Minor) OTTERY ST MARY

Applicant: Mr Darren Squires.

Location: Land East Of The Long Range Hotel, Whimple, EX5 2QT.

Proposal:

page 7 Planning Committee 4 November 2020

Variation of condition 2 of planning permission 12/2444/VAR to remove holiday occupancy restriction and allow permanent residential use, restricting occupation to persons over the age of 50.

RESOLVED: Refused as per Officer recommendation, but with an additional recommendation to officers that the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee, plus the Ward Members, be consulted on any subsequent enforcement action to be taken to ensure that residents are given sufficient time to comply with the requirements of such action.

171 20/1559/OUT (Minor) AXMINSTER

Applicant: Mrs Sandra Gigg.

Location: Garages, Coombe Lane, Axminster.

Proposal: Creation of 2 dwellings (outline consent sought with all matters reserved).

RESOLVED: Approved as per Officer recommendation.

172 20/1617/FUL (Minor) BROADCLYST

Applicant: Mr Gary Moore

Location: Clystside, Blackhorse Lane, Blackhorse, Exeter, EX5 2AR.

Proposal: Construction of bungalow, including detached garage and new vehicular entrance.

RESOLVED: Approved as per Officer recommendation.

173 20/1442/FUL (Minor) COLY VALLEY

Applicant: L Taylor.

Location: Land At Colyford Common, Colyford Road, Seaton.

Proposal: Construction of new tramway halt, pedestrian access bridge, ramp, timber walkways and associated works to provide pedestrian link to Seaton Wetlands.

RESOLVED: Approved as per Officer recommendation.

page 8 Planning Committee 4 November 2020

174 20/0375/FUL (Minor) - YARTY

Applicant: Mrs Gill Keam.

Location: Fordings, Chardstock, Axminster, EX13 7BW.

Proposal: Construction of pitch roof and dormer window to existing garage for the conversion and provision of ancillary living accommodation.

RESOLVED: Approved as per Officer recommendation.

175 19/2283/COU (Minor) YARTY

Applicant: Mr I Chubb

Location: The Big Office, Chubbs Yard, Chardstock, Axminster, EX13 7BT.

Proposal: Change of use from office to dwelling (retrospective).

RESOLVED: Refused contrary to Officer recommendation for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would result in the loss of employment land in a location where there little employment land provision and as such the loss will undermine business and employment opportunities in the area. In addition, the applications has not been accompanied by sufficient information to demonstrate that the premises have been marketed for at least 12 months and fails to adequately demonstrate a surplus of supply of employment provision in the locality. The proposed development therefore represents an unjustified and unacceptable loss of employment land contrary to the requirements of Strategy 32 - Resisting Loss of Employment, Retail and Community Sites and Buildings of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031.

2. The application site is not located close to a range of services or facilities to meet every day needs of its occupiers and as a result the proposed residential use will substantively add to the need to travel by car. As such, the proposal is located in an unsustainable location contrary to Strategy 7 – Development in the Countryside and Policy D8 – Re-use of Rural Buildings Outside of Settlements of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

Attendance List Councillors present (for some or all of the meeting) E Wragg (Chair) S Chamberlain (Vice-Chair) page 9 Planning Committee 4 November 2020

K Bloxham C Brown A Colman O Davey B De Saram D Key K McLauchlan G Pook G Pratt P Skinner T Woodward

Councillors also present (for some or all the meeting) P Arnott P Faithfull P Hayward S Jackson G Jung A Moulding

Officers in attendance: Chris Rose, Development Manager Shirley Shaw, Planning Barrister Anita Williams, Principal Solicitor (and Deputy Monitoring Officer) Wendy Harris, Democratic Services Officer Sarah Jenkins, Democratic Services Officer

Councillor apologies: S Gazzard M Howe J Whibley

Chairman Date:

page 10

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

Ref: 20/0988/FUL Date Received 22.10.2020 Appellant: Mr Ian Connock Appeal Site: Abbotsford Longmeadow Road Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5LE Proposal: Creation of a means of access to a highway (part retrospective) Planning APP/U1105/D/20/3261816 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 20/1779/FUL Date Received 24.10.2020 Appellant: Mr John Lomax Appeal Site: Water Tower At Mount Pleasant Exmouth Road Aylesbeare Proposal: Provision of additional secure storage space adjacent and within structure Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3261920 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 20/0411/LBC Date Received 05.11.2020 Appellant: Mr David Holt Appeal Site: Berry Cottage Longmeadow Road Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5LW Proposal: Remove existing rear porch and construct extension to the rear (north) elevation Planning APP/U1105/Y/20/3262597 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 20/0507/FUL Date Received 05.11.2020 Appellant: Mr S James Appeal Site: Hookmills Chardstock Axminster EX13 7DD Proposal: Change of use of single storey office building to dwelling; store building to associated domestic use and adjoining land to garden Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3262604 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 20/0572/FUL Date Received 07.11.2020 Appellant: Mr J Lacey Appeal Site: Land At Woodhouse Lyme Road Uplyme Proposal: Change of use of agricultural land for siting of static caravan and construction of generator housing (retrospective). Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3262750 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 18/F0494 Date Received 09.11.2020

Appellant: Malcolm John Burrough Appeal Site: Thorn Park Family Golf Centre Salcombe Regis Sidmouth EX10 0JH Proposal: Appeal against the serving of an Enforcement Notice in respect of the siting of two caravans on the site. Planning APP/U1105/C/20/3262840 Inspectorate Ref:

page 11

EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL LIST OF PLANNING APPEALS DECIDED

Ref: 19/1299/FUL Appeal Ref: 20/00019/REF Appellant: Donna Delamain Appeal Site: Hill View Nursery Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4SZ Proposal: Change of use and extension of storage building to form a live-work unit Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 20.10.2020 Procedure: Virtual Hearing Remarks: Delegated refusal, lack of functional need reasons upheld (EDLP Policies D8 & H4 and Dunkeswell NP Policy LE1). BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3249070 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 16/M0001 Appeal Ref: 20/00020/ENFAPP

Appellant: Donna Gant Appeal Site: Hill View Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4SZ Proposal: Appeal against the serving of an enforcement notice in respect of the siting of a mobile home Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 20.10.2020 Procedure: Virtual Hearing Remarks: Enforcement Notice varied and upheld. BVPI 204: No Planning APP/U1105/C/20/3249072 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 20/0015/CPE Appeal Ref: 20/00030/LDC Appellant: Mrs Veronica Strawbridge Appeal Site: Rhode Hill Farm Rhode Hill Uplyme Lyme Regis DT7 3UF Proposal: Certificate of Lawfulness to establish substantial completion of a single dwelling without the benefit of planning consent. Decision: Appeal Allowed Date: 22.10.2020 (no conditions) Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal. The Inspector concluded that on the basis of the available evidence, the Council’s refusal to grant a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development was not well founded. BVPI 204: No Planning APP/U1105/X/20/3251141 Inspectorate Ref:

page 12 Ref: 19/2374/FUL Appeal Ref: 20/00037/REF Appellant: Mr L White Appeal Site: Land Adjacent Valley View Farway EX24 6EE Proposal: Erection of residential dwelling log cabin. Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 22.10.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, countryside protection, landscape and sustainability reasons upheld (EDLP Strategies 7 & 46 and Policies D1 & TC2). BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3254084 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/2336/LBC Appeal Ref: 20/00040/LBCREF Appellant: Mr Andy White Appeal Site: Former Lloyds Tsb Bank Plc 6 Silver Street Ottery St Mary EX11 1DD Proposal: Partial removal of ground floor internal party wall to facilitate the extension of the London Inn into the former Lloyds Bank Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 22.10.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, listed building conservation reasons upheld (EDLP Policy EN9). BVPI 204: No Planning APP/U1105/Y/20/3254977 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/2092/FUL Appeal Ref: 20/00041/REF Appellant: Mr Richard Gray Appeal Site: 1 Victoria Road Exmouth EX8 1DL Proposal: Replacement windows (17 No.) Decision: Appeal Allowed Date: 22.10.2020 (with conditions) Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Officer recommendation to approve, Committee refusal. Conservation reasons overruled (EDLP Policies D1 & EN10).

The Inspector noted that there is a prevalence of uPVC windows in the surrounding area and considered that the proposed windows would neither read as unsympathetic nor visually intrusive additions within their context. They would also appear as high-quality replacements in relation to the condition of the existing timber frames and the mix of uPVC windows in the locality.

He concluded that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Exmouth Conservation Area in accordance with Policies D1 and EN10 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031. BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3254997 Inspectorate Ref:

page 13 Ref: 19/2650/PDQ Appeal Ref: 20/00035/REF Appellant: Mrs M Hazell Appeal Site: Barn West Of Tale Head Cottage Payhembury Proposal: Prior approval for proposed change of use of agricultural building to form 5 no. dwellings (Use Class C3) and associated operational development Decision: Appeal Allowed Date: 23.10.2020 (no conditions) Procedure: Written representations Remarks: The Council refused to grant prior approval on the basis that the proposed works to convert the buildings were in excess of those permitted under Class Q of the General Permitted Development Order.

The Inspector noted that the entire works would take place within the existing footprint of the building and that there was no demolition proposed.

He considered that the scale and extent of the building operations were reasonably necessary for the building to function as five dwellings and concluded that the proposal was classed as permitted development under Class Q. BVPI 204: No Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3253451 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 20/0611/FUL Appeal Ref: 20/00047/REF Appellant: Mr P & Mrs B Keeling Appeal Site: Donnithornes Mill Street Ottery St Mary EX11 1AF Proposal: Widen existing access; works to include: remove section of wall and re-position 1 no. pillar and re-build 1 no. pillar at entrance and replace entrance gate Decision: Appeal Allowed Date: 23.10.2020 (with conditions) Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, conservation reasons overruled (EDLP Policies EN9 & EN10).

The Inspector acknowledged that the proposal would entail the loss of some important historic fabric within the Ottery St Mary conservation area and, to a very limited extent, would also detract from the settings of the neighbouring listed houses. However, he considered that in assessing the impact upon the significance of these designated heritage assets all elements of the proposal must be considered together and any harm needed to be weighed against any public benefits.

The Inspector considered that, on balance, the settings of The Donnithornes and Colby House, would be preserved. The proposals would also preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. Even if there was some degree of overall harm, in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework, this would be less than substantial.

He concluded that the proposal would be of some limited highway (public) benefit andpage whilst 14 no overall harm was found, if some was to be derived it would be outweighed by this benefit. BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/D/20/3256604 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 20/0437/LBC Appeal Ref: 20/00048/LBCREF Appellant: Mr Paul Keeling Appeal Site: The Donnithornes Mill Street Ottery St Mary EX11 1AF Proposal: Widen existing access; works to include: remove section of wall and re-position 1 no. pillar and re-build 1 no. pillar at entrance and replace entrance gate Decision: Appeal Allowed Date: 23.10.2020 (with conditions) Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, conservation reasons overruled (EDLP Policy EN9). The Inspector acknowledged that the proposal would, to a very limited extent, detract from the settings of the neighbouring listed houses. However, he considered that in assessing the impact upon the significance of these designated heritage assets all elements of the proposal must be considered together and any harm needed to be weighed against any public benefits.

The Inspector considered that, on balance, the settings of The Donnithornes and Colby House, would be preserved. Even if there was some degree of overall harm, in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework, this would be less than substantial.

He concluded that the proposal would be of some limited highway (public) benefit and whilst no overall harm was found, if some was to be derived it would be outweighed by this benefit. BVPI 204: No APP/U1105/Y/20/3256621

Ref: 19/2188/FUL Appeal Ref: 20/00034/REF Appellant: Mr Duncan Rawlings Appeal Site: (Land To The South East) 109 Beer Road Seaton Proposal: Construction of 1no. dwelling, utilising existing access and parking area. Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 28.10.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, tree preservation and parking reasons upheld (EDLP Policies D1, D3 & TC9). BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3252871 Inspectorate Ref:

page 15 Ref: 19/2667/FUL Appeal Ref: 20/00046/REF Appellant: Mr Matthew Knight Appeal Site: Land Adjacent 6 The Chase Honiton Proposal: Construction of 1 no. dwelling (resubmission of application ref. 19/0754/FUL) Decision: Appeal Allowed Date: 29.10.2020 (with conditions) Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, amenity reasons overruled (EDLP Policy D1). The Inspector noted that the proposed dwelling would be sited within a relatively small plot however, he considered that the proposal would not appear incongruous given the variation of plot sizes in the surrounding area. The proposed development would respect and maintain the open and spacious character of the well-planned street scene and the layout and modest scale of the dwelling would read as a suitable design response to its context.

He concluded that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area and therefore accords with Policy D1. BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3256468 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/2828/PDQ Appeal Ref: 20/00045/REF Appellant: Mr Karl Mooney Appeal Site: Barn South Of Rull Barton Rull Lane Whimple Proposal: Prior approval for proposed change of use of agricultural building to 1 no. smaller dwelling house (class C3 use) under class Q(a) Decision: Appeal Allowed Date: 12.11.2020 (no conditions) Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal. The Council considered that operational development would be necessary to convert the building to enable the change of use.

The Inspector considered that there is nothing in the Order that explicitly precludes prior approval applications being made for change of use only under Class Q(a). Moreover, whilst applications cannot be made under Class Q for building operations alone, any building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building could feasibly be captured within a subsequent application for change of use and building operations under Class Q(b), or indeed an application for planning permission.

The Inspector concluded that the proposal constituted permitted development. BVPI 204: Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3255904 Inspectorate Ref:

page 16 East Devon District Council List of Appeals In Progress

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

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

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

page 17 App.No: 20/0312/TRE Appeal Ref: APP/TPO/U1105/7890 Appellant: Mrs Kath Pyne Address: Oasis Toadpit Lane West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1TR Proposal: Fell one Pinus Sylvestris protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Start Date: 12 August 2020 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 26 August 2020

App.No: 20/0595/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3255514 Appellant: Mr John Lomax Address: Telecommunications Mast At Mount Pleasant Exmouth Road Aylesbeare Proposal: Provision of additional secure storage space adjacent and within structure Start Date: 2 September 2020 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 9 September 2020 Statement Due Date: 7 October 2020

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

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

page 18 App.No: 20/0643/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3258736 Appellant: Mr D & Mrs J Presnail Address: Taree Cownhayne Lane Colyton EX24 6HD Proposal: Construction of detached dwelling and associated driveway. Start Date: 12 October 2020 Procedure: Written reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 19 October 2020 Statement Due Date: 16 November 2020

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

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

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

page 19 Agenda Item 8

Ward Clyst Valley

Reference 20/1001/MOUT & 20/1003/LBC Applicant Mr Peter Quincey (Burrington Estates Winslade Ltd) Location Winslade Park Winslade Park Avenue, Clyst St Mary, EX5 1DA Proposal (20/1001/MOUT) Hybrid application to include full planning permission for the demolition of an existing pre-fabricated building, refurbishment of 21,131sqm of commercial (Use Class B1a and D2) floorspace, 2,364sqm of leisure space (Use Class D1/D2 and A3), extension to Brook House providing ancillary B1c and B8 floorspace, site-wide landscaping, engineering works and the provision of associated car parking spaces. Outline planning permission with all matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 94 residential units, including affordable housing, replacement cricket pavilion, new toilets/changing facility, reinstatement of associated sports pitches, tennis courts and parkland. (20/1003/LBC) Internal and external works/ alterations to Winslade Manor, Winslade House and the Terrace, refurbishment of the buildings for office use and the Terrace for amenity space.

RECOMMENDATION (20/1001/MOUT): 1. Adopt the appropriate assessment 2. Secure financial contributions and public access through a Section 106 legal agreement. 3. Approve with conditions

RECOMMENDATION (20/1003/LBC): Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 20

Committee Date: 2nd December 2020

Clyst Valley Target Date: (Clyst St Mary) 20/1001/MOUT 14.08.2020

Applicant: Mr Peter Quincey (Burrington Estates Winslade Ltd)

Location: Winslade Park Clyst St Mary

Proposal: Hybrid application to include full planning permission for the demolition of an existing pre-fabricated building, refurbishment of 21,131sqm of commercial (Use Class B1a and D2) floorspace, 2,364sqm of leisure space (Use Class D1/D2 and A3), extension to Brook House providing ancillary B1c and B8 floorspace, site-wide landscaping, engineering works and the provision of associated car parking spaces. Outline planning permission with all matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 94 residential units, including affordable housing, replacement cricket pavilion, new toilets/changing facility, reinstatement of associated sports pitches, tennis courts and parkland.

RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt the appropriate assessment 2. Secure financial contributions and public access through a Section 106 legal agreement. 3. Approve with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

The wider application site forms part of an allocation in the East Devon Local Plan under Strategy 26B, however, what is proposed in the application departs substantially from the allocation in that it seeks to retain the majority of the employment buildings on site and the building of houses on a greenfield site outside the allocation. In such circumstances the application needs to be considered in the context of sustainable development and a determination made as to whether the benefits of the proposal outweigh the harm of departing from the adopted allocation.

20/1001/MOUT page 21

The impacts on the local and strategic highway network, trees, local landscape, the setting of heritage assets, flooding and wildlife have all been addressed.

The provision of housing on 1.5ha of high grade agricultural land outside of a BUAB, below policy level of affordable housing, the less than substantial impact on the setting of heritage assets which are afforded special protection, the increase in traffic in an area where there is congestion at peak times and expanding parking facilities in a flood zone all weigh against the proposal.

However, the overriding benefits of the proposal through providing a wealth of employment opportunities to keep pace with the housing growth that has taken place over recent years in the district, employment provision that is likely to attract highly skilled workers which would help grow the local economy, lack of wider harm from the location of the housing proposed, control of the impact from the housing at the reserve matters stage, together with bringing back into use of heritage assets that have been redundant for a number of years and providing enhanced sports and leisure facilities to the local community and primary school (access to be secured by a legal agreement) are considered to outweigh the dis- benefits of the scheme and less than substantial harm to the heritage assets.

Accordingly, on balance, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable subject to the package of measures proposed in the application to mitigate any harm, secure financial contributions and allow public and school access to the site and its enhanced sports, leisure and recreation facilities secured through a legal agreement and appropriately worded safeguarding conditions.

Committee Date: 2nd December 2020

Clyst Valley Target Date: (Clyst St Mary) 20/1003/LBC 10.07.2020

Applicant: Mr Peter Quincey (Burrington Estates Winslade Ltd)

Location: Winslade Park Winslade Park Avenue

Proposal: Internal and external works/alterations to Winslade Manor, Winslade House and the Terrace, refurbishment of the buildings for office use and the Terrace for amenity space.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

20/1001/MOUT page 22

This application is before members as it forms a tandem application to 20/1001/MOUT and both application should be considered together.

There are a number of heritage assets on site that are afforded special protection when determining applications which have the potential to impact their character and historic features which they may possess.

Winslade Manor is the foremost historic building on site comprising a Grade II* listed building which has been subject to a number of different uses over the years but mostly recently as offices (B1), Winslade House (also in use as offices) was attached to Winslade Manor through a bridge structure and forms part of the listing, the former stables to the rear of the Manor are also heritage assets and have most recently been used as a swimming pool and leisure facilities, a listed terrace and walk also lies with the application site. To the north of Winslade Manor lies a grade II listed church which lies outside the application site.

The works to the listed buildings are relatively minor in nature, mainly internal, and are welcomed as part of a package of measures that enhance the character of the buildings whilst retaining the historic features that can be found in Winslade Manor and providing functional spaces that can accommodate both smaller and larger offices depending upon the employment market requirements and also accommodating café/restaurant facilities for the employees together with leisure facilities for their wellbeing.

A comprehensive schedule of works has been provided for each heritage asset that the conservation officer and Historic England broadly support, subject to a number of safeguarding conditions to secure details that have not been provided for during the determination of the application.

Accordingly, the proposals are considered to comply with Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended), Policy EN9 of the EDDC Local Plan and advice contained in the NPPF.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Clyst Valley - Cllr Mike Howe 20.07.20:

Object

This is now a redundant Brown Field site with many listed buildings that need brining back in to practical use, and as such I am supportive of the principle of redevelopment of the site, but for a number of reasons I don't think this is acceptable in its current form.

1. Area B is effectively a new three story building built on a car park that is directly in view of the Main listed Manor house, This Carpark is in a flood zone that frequently

20/1001/MOUT page 23

floods covering both the whole car park but often the access road as well, The main issue with this is its effect on the setting of the Manor house, This building if it is found acceptable in principle in this location needs to be drastically reduced in height to a Max height of 1.5 story's , and even then ideally with a green roof facing the Manor House. 2. Transport, I believe the local residents and Parish Council have raised concerns about this and I support them in that. 3. Zone J, This is a greatly expanded car park again in a flood zone that is also due to its location next to the Grindle Brook a current untouched wildlife haven, any expansion in this area should be resisted. 4. Church and Zone D. the listed Church's setting needs due consideration in this and due care needs to be taken with this, on that I am not sure that Zone D in outline preserves or enhances the setting of the Church. 5. Zone A, I would expect as per policy 50% affordable homes on this site, As the Main site is being put back to its original use, I cannot find any examples of Vacant Building Credit being offset in this way.

Disclaimer Clause: In the event that this application comes to Committee I would reserve my position until I am in full possession of all the relevant facts and arguments for and against.

Bishops Clyst Parish Council

18th June 2020

BCPC acknowledges that there are a number of benefits to be derived from the proposed development. The refurbishment of Winslade House and Winslade Manor are particularly welcome and long overdue, and the refurbishment of Clyst House is also supported. Some other elements of the hybrid application may be acceptable, subject to appropriate planning conditions (for example, enhanced sport facilities, re- use of the stable block in Zone F and the proposals for open space in Zone K).

Notwithstanding this, BCPC is of the view that these limited benefits are wholly outweighed by the harm which the proposals will be likely to cause. These harms are reflected in the significant number of policy conflicts with the EDLP, the BCNP and the NPPF which are set out in the text of this objection.

Conclusion • The applications are not in accordance with the Development Plan (adopted East Devon Local Plan (EDLP) 2013 - 2031 and the Bishops Clyst Neighbourhood Plan (BCNP) 2014 - 2031), specifically Strategic Policies 5B, 7, 26B and 34, Development Management Policies D1, EN9, EN21, TC2 and TC7 of the former and Policies BiC 05, BiC19 and BiC 21 of the latter. • The applications are contrary to, and conflict with a number of core principles and policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). • There are not sufficient material considerations in favour of the development so as to outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. • The adverse impacts of permitting these proposed developments would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

20/1001/MOUT page 24

For all the reasons set out above these planning applications should be refused. The PC reserves the right to comment further on any relevant matters that may arise following the submission of this objection.

Bishops Clyst Parish Council

12th October 2020

Bishops Clyst Parish Council (BCPC) continues to object to the above-mentioned revised planning application for the reasons set out below. A separate note has been produced responding to Hydrock's Technical Note (dated 7 Aug 2020) on traffic and transport matters. This is appended and should be read in conjunction with this document.

Summary o The amended application is not in accordance with the Development Plan (adopted East Devon Local Plan (EDLP) 2013 - 2031 and the Bishops Clyst Neighbourhood Plan (BCNP) 2014 -2031), specifically Strategic Policies 5B, 7 and 26B, Development Management Policies D1, EN21, TC2 and TC7 of the former and Policies BiC 05 and BiC 21 of the latter. o The amended application is contrary to, and conflict with a number of core principles and policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). o There are not sufficient material considerations in favour of the development at this time so as to outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. o The adverse impacts of permitting this proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

The Parish Council has considered the amendments to the planning application. The amendments to each Zone were considered in turn and the Council resolved as follows in respect of each:

ZONE A The applicants have removed Clyst Valley Football Club from the application site and reduced the number of homes by 24 to 54. Resolution: Notwithstanding our general objections to development in Zone A, if EDDC were minded to grant permission BCPC would require a unilateral undertaking from the developer to ensure that only single storey properties are built on the perimeter with Clyst Valley Road and Winslade Park Avenue and that high ball proof netting is installed to protect homes from the football club.

ZONE B The applicants have removed the under-croft parking and reduced the building height. In addition, the building has been sub-divided with improved design and landscaping. The Environment Agency have stated that it is no longer in a flood zone. Resolution: BCPC is happy with amendments to the building but still question its location in a flood zone.

20/1001/MOUT page 25

ZONE C The applicants have excluded Clyst Valley Football Club from the site but are including 2 adult and two junior pitches. The addition of timber bollards to protect the land and a new Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play (NEAP)

Resolution: BCPC has no objection to the proposals but would want a unilateral undertaking that the developer puts in place measures to ensure that public access to and use of the site is guaranteed in perpetuity. If EDDC is minded to grant planning permission for development in Zone A, BCPC would wish to have included assurances that work is completed on Zones C and K before permission is given for work on Zone A. BCPC is also concerned that the proposed changing room, close to the boundary with Clyst Valley Road may cause a nuisance and there is no related parking.

ZONE D The applicants have reduced the number of residential units by 19 to 40 by reducing the length of the building with a visual break. Resolution: BCPC does not object to development in this area. It does, however, continue to object to the revised proposals on the grounds that they are too high, too long and their bulk, height and general appearance constitute a major visual intrusion. This will have an adverse impact on the Listed Building and Church and in particular the properties in Clyst Valley Road backing onto the site.

ZONE E to ZONE H. No objections

ZONE J The applicant proposes addition landscaping works. Resolution: BCPC welcomes the improvements made and raises no objections.

ZONE K There are no changes proposed from the original application Resolution: As Zone C, BCPC would want a unilateral undertaking that the developer puts in place measures to ensure that public access to and use of the site is guaranteed in perpetuity.

TRAFFIC The applicants state that their current trip generation figures conclude that the proposals will have 'no detrimental impact on the surrounding highway network and a negligible effect on existing flows' They propose financial support to the junction at the roundabout, Clyst Valley Trail and access for the School.

Resolution: The original objection of BCPC stands. The Councillors and residents of Clyst St Mary live with the problems caused by traffic on the A3052 and A376 merging at the roundabout on a daily basis. We do not accept the statement above.

OTHER ISSUES BCPC is concerned about the impact that the new development and housing in Zone A will have on the ancient sewage system, land drains and surface water flooding in the N.W. corner of the site at the bottom of Winslade Park Avenue.

Planning Policy

The Development Plan for Winslade Park site comprises the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and the Bishops Clyst Neighbourhood Plan 2014 - 2031. The amended application still constitutes a departure from the adopted Development Plan.

20/1001/MOUT page 26

East Devon Local Plan 2013 -2031

Strategy 26B - Re-Development of Redundant Offices Complex at Winslade Park and Land Adjoining Clyst St Mary.

Whilst the overall quantum of residential development envisaged of up to 137 dwellings falls within the parameters of the Strategy, the amended proposal to provide a total of 94 dwellings, 54 will be in Zone A and this still constitutes a clear departure from the Strategy as it lies outside the site allocated by the Strategy.

Whereas Strategy 26B restricts employment uses at the site to B1 office use, the development proposals go far beyond this Use Class, including D1, D2, A3 and B8 employment uses - again, a clear conflict with Strategy 26B and a departure from the Development Plan for the site, which has further impacts on compliance with other LP policies, such as Development Management Policies TC2 and TC7.

Strategy 7 - Development in the Countryside.

As Zone A lies outside the site allocated by Strategy 26B and also lies outside the Built - Up Area Boundary (BUAB), proposed development there falls to be assessed against the policy requirements of Strategy 7. The Strategy states explicitly that development will only be permitted in the countryside where it is in accordance with a specific Local or Neighbourhood Plan policy and where it would not harm landscape, amenity or environmental qualities of the area. As stated above, although Strategy 26B specifically relates to development at Winslade Park, the development as put forward fails to comply with the policy requirements. Consequently there is no explicit (nor implicit) policy support for the scheme in either the EDLP or the BCNP, and, for the reasons set out below, the proposed development will also be likely to cause harm to the landscape, amenity and environment of the area. The proposed development remains in clear conflict with the policy requirements of Strategy 7 of the EDLP.

Strategy 5B - Sustainable Transport. (and DMP Policies TC2 and TC7) Mr James' further comments (Appendix 1) on Hydrock's further Technical Note make clear that the reduction in housing numbers will have a "negligible" effect on forecast trip generation.

In addition, he has further analysed Hydrock's methodology for internalised trip generation, concluding that there are "fatal flaws" in Hydrock's approach to such.

These flaws are set out in detail in Mr James' note, but in summary they have resulted in Hydrock significantly overstating the internalisation of trips for leisure purposes and consequently understating employment related trips.

The analysis bears out Mr James' previously expressed misgivings of Hydrock's assessment and lends further weight to the conclusion that the site is not well located in terms of sustainable transport for either residential or employment uses and very likely to adversely impact on the local highway network.

Planning Balance

20/1001/MOUT page 27

It is noteworthy that a number of statutory consultees, Highways England, Historic England and the Environment Agency still have a number of concerns outstanding in respect of the revised proposals. Significant weight should be afforded to these concerns. Furthermore, the planning application should not be determined until such concerns are resolved to the satisfaction of these consultees.

BCPC remains of the view that the benefits of the revised scheme are still outweighed by the harm which the proposals will be likely to cause at this time. This harm is reflected in the significant number of policy conflicts with the EDLP, the BCNP and the NPPF which are set out in the body of this objection.

Conclusion o The amended applications are not in accordance with the Development Plan (adopted East Devon Local Plan (EDLP) 2013 - 2031 and the Bishops Clyst Neighbourhood Plan (BCNP) 2014 -2031), specifically Strategic Policies 5B, and 26B, Development Management Policies D1, EN21, TC2 and TC7 of the former and Policies BiC 05 and BiC 21 of the latter. o The amended applications are contrary to, and conflict with a number of core principles and policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). o There are not sufficient material considerations in favour of the development at this time to outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan.

For all the reasons set out above this planning application and amendments should be refused.

BCPC reserves the right to comment further on any relevant matters that may arise following the submission of this objection.

Bishops Clyst Parish Council

3rd November 2020

BCPC acknowledges that there are a number of benefits to be derived from the proposed development. The refurbishment of Winslade House and Winslade Manor are particularly welcome and long overdue, and the refurbishment of Clyst House is also supported. It is noteworthy that a number of statutory consultees, Highways England, Historic England and the Environment Agency still have a number of concerns outstanding in respect of the revised proposals. Significant weight should be afforded to these concerns. Furthermore, the planning application should not be determined until such concerns are resolved to the satisfaction of these consultees.

20/1001/MOUT page 28

Conclusion • The amended applications are not in accordance with the Development Plan (adopted East Devon Local Plan (EDLP) 2013 - 2031 and the Bishops Clyst Neighbourhood Plan (BCNP) 2014 -2031), specifically Strategic Policies 5B, and 26B, Development Management Policies D1, EN21, TC2 and TC7 of the former and Policies BiC 05 and BiC 21 of the latter. • The amended applications are contrary to, and conflict with a number of core principles and policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). • There are not sufficient material considerations in favour of the development at this time to outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. For all the reasons set out above this planning application and amendments should be refused. BCPC reserves the right to comment further on any relevant matters that may arise following the submission of this objection.

Clyst St George Parish Council

17th June 2020

Object. NB part of this application includes an area within the Parish of Clyst St George. Housing area: is contrary to Bishops Clyst Neighbourhood Plan and EDDC's Local Plan. Traffic: the Offices have not been fully occupied for a number of years, yet the traffic in the area has continued to increase and the A376/A3052 roundabout and the M5 Sandygate roundabout are both very congested during the daily commute times, this already has an impact on traffic at the two Clyst St George roundabouts, so any increase, without any mention of infrastructure improvements is unacceptable to Clyst St George. We fear it will lead to the increase of the use of 'Rat Runs' as drivers try to avoid the congestion. There is little in the plan to improve the use of cycling or an increase to public transport. Whilst the area to the south, designated Open Space, has little detail and we would like to see public access to that area.

Technical Consultations

Devon County Highway Authority

19/06/2020

Pre Application Discussions

It is understood that there has been Pre Application Discussions between the developer and various Stakeholders, summarised as:

20/1001/MOUT page 29

1. EDDC Members Advisory Panel - 2nd December 2019 2. Public Consultation events at Clyst St Mary Village Hall: Monday 3rd February 2020, 6th February 2020 and Saturday 8th February 2020. 3. Parish Council Presentation and meeting Monday 3rd February 2020. 4. Meetings with Clyst St Mary FC, Clyst St Mary Primary School and other Stakeholders.

Unfortunately the Local Highway Authority (LHA) was not invited to any of these Pre Application events and therefore this Formal Highway Response is the first chance it has had to comment upon, influence and discuss the development proposals from the highways point of view. Also, the applicant states in the Transport Assessment (Appendix N) that the applicant has agreed in correspondence between DCC- LHA and HE relating to accepting methodology for the calculation of Trip Rates, unfortunately Appendix N is not contained within the application documentation on the LPA's Planning Public Access web site and therefore until proof of this correspondence is shown, I must ignore this statement. I have however, asked the LPA to see if Appendix N can be published, if indeed it does exist.

Site Location and Existing Conditions

The LHA agrees with the description of the site location and existing conditions as described in the TA.

Site Access

The LHA notes that at 2.2.7 the applicant makes mention of the existing automatic barrier:

"Currently entry to the Winslade Park estate is controlled by automatic barriers located 300m south of the junction with Winslade Park Avenue. An area to the immediate east of the barriers has been surfaced to provide a turning area for vehicles not passing through the barrier control, for whatever reason". I will be returning to this arrangement later in this response.

Summery of Highway Safety

Personal Injury Accidents

The LHA broadly agrees with the Personal Injury Accident records as these generally correspond with Devon County Council's Collision Map (01/01/2014 to 31/12/2018). However, it would have been more informative to see these accidents plotted on the Fig. 2.3 PIA Study Extent (Hatched Blue) map which would have shown the accidents proximity to the Clyst St Mary roundabout.

It should be noted that the number of accidents in both the applicants and the LHA's 5 year study periods are the most recent and are with traffic that does not include the existing potential of the application site, because the site is and has been 'mothballed' for more than the five year study period, or similarly the traffic generated by the proposed development. It would therefore be reasonable to say that the incident of

20/1001/MOUT page 30

accidents would be likely to worsen if the development is approved as there would be an increase of traffic on the roundabout above that which currently occurs or has occurred in the study periods.

The Exmouth approach onto the Clyst St Mary roundabout was identified by Devon County Council Road Safety Team in the 2019 Cluster Review, when the collisions were analysed they were mainly shunt type collisions where drivers were making their decisions too early on their approach. A visibility screen was proposed to reduce forward visibility on the approach to the roundabout to reduce the speed of approach.

The Applicant is therefore respectively requested to make a contribution of £21,000.00 for the supply and installation of a visibility screen or similar in mitigation of the increased traffic from the proposed development. This amount to be agreed in a suitable legal agreement between the Applicant, East Devon District Council and Devon County Council. Transport Policy and Guidance Local Plan Strategy 26B - Re- development of Redundant Offices Complex at Winslade Park and Land Adjoining Clyst St Mary

This strategy states:

"Land is allocated on the southern side of Clyst St Mary village, as shown on the Proposals Map, for the conversion and redevelopment of redundant office buildings for residential uses with capacity to accommodate around 150 dwellings and to include 0.7 hectares of land (or retained office space equivalent in existing buildings) to provide for B1 office employment uses."

The application includes development under classes A3; D1; D2; B1 and B8, of which B8 is of particular concern to the LHA is B8 because it applies to properties which are used for storage or as a distribution centre and this could influence the type and size of traffic attracted to the site. Whilst it will be for the LPA to determine whether these uses are compliant with Strategy 26B or not, the LHA would wish for some breakdown and analysis for the proposed B8 use in terms of the type of traffic that it is likely to attract.

Local Policy

Bishops Clyst Neighbourhood Plan

The Transport Assessment states the objectives listed in the Bishops Clyst Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2031, but the Neighbourhood Plan goes on to say under (11) Community Services and Facilities (11.3)

"Access to the Primary School is problematic.

By arrangement with the Village Hall, most parents dropping children off at school now use the Village Hall car park. This has reduced parking problems. It has the disadvantage however that parents and children must use the length of the village street fronting Rydon Motors, where there is no footpath. This route is also used by parents bringing children on foot from Winslade Park and will, in future, be the main pedestrian route into the village from any new development beyond the Village Hall".

20/1001/MOUT page 31

The County Council has been in consultation with the Parish Council, the Village Hall Committee and County Councillors regarding various improvements schemes to provide a continuous footway from the Village Hall car park to the Primary School and has also discussed the possibility of acquiring land needed to provide a footway from the proprietor of Rydon Motors. Unfortunately, because of a lack of a budget to proceed with plans for a scheme, this much needed facility which would also serve new development at Winslade Park, has been left to languish.

The LHA therefore recommends the following condition of planning:

Suggested Condition 'The County Highway Authority proposes, if the LPA are minded to grant planning permission, with the proposed increased residential element of development at Winslade Park, the developer (Burrington Estates) is required to provide this footway and take forward a scheme in agreement with the Parish Council, Village Hall and proprietor of Rydon Motors in mitigation for the increased pedestrian footfall that will occur from the development at Winslade Park to and from the Village Primary School'.

Sustainable Transport Access Accessibility by Walking /Cycling The Clyst Valley Trail

The application notes the importance of the recently approved cycle network between Clyst St George, Clyst St May and Clyst Honiton, which travels through and close to the proposed development.

To enhance the connectivity of Clyst Valley Trail the LHA is keen for it to be continued on the western side of the A376 Exmouth Road and respectfully requests a contribution from the Applicant of £100,000.00 to be used for the provision of an extension of Clyst Valley Trail to the west of the A3 junction of A376/Winslade Park Avenue, this amount to be agreed in a suitable legal agreement between the Applicant, East Devon District Council and Devon County Council.

Ideally a connection from the proposed west Clyst Valley Trail to the east could be made using and improving the Winslade Park estate access road. However, it would appear from the available evidence in this application that this access road is to remain barred to the public in general by the continued use of the automatic barrier, as referred to in the above 'Site Location and Existing Conditions'. This is where pre- application consultation with the LHA would have been most useful however, the LHA would still like to explore the possibility of linking the Clyst Valley Trail from the east to the west through the development site with the applicant.

Clyst St Mary Footpath 1

The existing Public Footpath/Cyclepath (Clyst St Mary Footpath 1) where it runs between buildings from Church Lane to Clyst Valley Road and Winslade Park Avenue to the A3052 connecting to the signalled controlled crossing and the over bridge, is substandard in width for cycles being only between 1.6m and 1.8m in places, with a tight dogleg at the access on to Church Lane that is virtually impossible to cycle.

20/1001/MOUT page 32

The application Transport Assessment says that this pedestrian and cycle route is traffic free however, this is not the case with at least two road crossings required within the Winslade Park Avenue Estate. Also it is not segregated from the footway with many residential vehicle access drives crossing its path. The LHA would welcome proposals from the applicant to improve the cycle element of this route and make it "traffic free".

Summery

The Local Highway Authority (LHA) welcomes the proposed development of the "mothballed" Winslade Park site because of its historic buildings and setting, landscaping and connectivity to Exeter and strategic routes and believes that the site has lain dormant for too long.

However, it would have appreciated some pre-application discussions with the applicant so that it could have advised and influenced the application in terms of all highway elements.

The LHA wants clarification on the proposed access arrangements to the site including the retention and use of the barrier and the access road.

The LHA has identified the approach to the Clyst St Mary Roundabout from A376 Exmouth Road. in its 2019 Cluster Review and respectfully requests a contribution of £21,000.00 for a visibility screen, probably under Section 106 agreement. The LHA requires information on the B8 element of the application and what type and size of traffic this is likely to attract.

The LHA recommends a condition for the applicant to deal with the Bishops Clyst Parish Council and Village Hall with regard to bringing forward an improved footway provision from the Village Hall to the Clyst St Mary Primary School in mitigation for the number of footfall movements from the development.

The LHA respectfully requests a contribution of £100,000.00 for the extension of the Clyst Valley Trail to the west of the application site which may include a pedestrian/cycle phase to the signalled junction on the A376 Exmouth Road.

The LHA wishes to explore with the applicant ways of connecting the Clyst Valley Trail through the development site. The LHA wishes to see proposals from the developer for improved cycle connectivity and motor traffic free movement along the Clyst St Mary Footpath 1.

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

Devon County Highway Authority 19/10/2020

20/1001/MOUT page 33

The CHA has been re-consulted for:

Hybrid planning application including an outline application for up to 94 residential units, replacement cricket pavilion, new toilets/changing facility, reinstatement of associated sports pitches, tennis courts and parkland. Full planning and listed building consent for refurbishment of 21,131sqm of commercial (Use Class B1a) floorspace and 2,364sqm of leisure space (Use Class D1/D2 and A3), extension to Brook House providing ancillary B1c and B8 floorspace, site-wide landscaping, engineering works and the provision of 1,012 associated car parking spaces. Works include alterations to Winslade House, Winslade Manor, Brook House and Clyst House and the demolition of an existing single storey pre-fabricated building.

Whilst the above amendments to the application will have some reduction in the type and size of vehicles attracted to the site, this does not change the view of the CHA and the mitigating measures above in the form of contributions and more clarity of access arrangements is still requested.

Highways England Referring to the notification of a Hybrid application to include full planning permission for the demolition of an existing pre-fabricated building, refurbishment of 15,441sqm of commercial (Use Class B1a) floorspace, 2,364sqm of leisure space (Use Class D1/D2 and A3), the development of a new commercial (Use Class B1a/D1) building extension to Brook House providing ancillary B1c and B8 floorspace, site-wide landscaping, engineering works and the provision of associated car parking spaces, and Outline planning permission (all matters reserved except access) for the erection of up to 137 residential units, including affordable housing, replacement cricket pavilion, new sports pavilion, reinstatement of associated sports pitches, tennis courts and parkland, at Winslade Park, east of Exeter, notice is hereby given that Highways England's formal recommendation is that we: b) recommend that conditions should be attached to any planning permission that may be granted (see Annex A - Highways England recommended Planning Conditions);

Annex A Highways England recommended Planning Conditions

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND ("we") has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network (SRN). The SRN is a critical national asset and as such we work to ensure that it operates and is managed in the public interest, both in respect of current activities and needs as well as in providing effective stewardship of its long-term operation and integrity. This response represents our formal recommendations with regards to the planning application (ref: 20/1001/MOUT) and has been prepared by the Planning Manager for Devon. We have undertaken a review of the relevant documents supporting the planning application to ensure compliance with the current policies of the Secretary of State as set out in DfT Circular 02/2013 "The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of

20/1001/MOUT page 34

Sustainable Development" and the MHCLG National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), being advised on this matter by our consultants, Jacobs.

Statement of Reasons

The Hybrid application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of an existing pre-fabricated building, refurbishment of 15,441sqm of commercial floorspace (B1a use), 2,364sqm of leisure space (D1/D2 and A3 use), the development of a new commercial building (B1a/D1 use), an extension to Brook House providing ancillary B1c and B8 floorspace, site-wide landscaping, engineering works and the provision of associated car parking spaces. It seeks outline planning permission (all matters reserved except access) for the erection of up to 137 residential units, including affordable housing, replacement cricket pavilion, new sports pavilion, reinstatement of associated sports pitches, tennis courts and parkland, at Winslade Park, east of Exeter, Devon. The Winslade Park site is located approximately 1.5km south-east of M5 Junction 30, and forms a mixed-use allocation (strategy 26B) in the East Devon Local Plan 2013- 2031 (adopted January 2016). Several buildings are currently located on the Winslade Park site, including the Grade II* listed Mansion House, Winslade House, Brook House and Clyst House, and the site benefits from extant permission for commercial use. The current proposals follow a number of previous applications for the proposed redevelopment of the site, following historic occupation of buildings for the regional headquarters of Friends Provident, together with the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

A Transport Assessment (TA) prepared by Hydrock dated 9 April 2020 has been submitted in support of the application. Pre-application discussions were undertaken with Highways England where we requested comparison of the existing and proposed employment floorspace to allow a TRICS-based assessment of traffic generation levels associated with the extant and proposed site uses to be compared. This was not provided in the initial submission, but has been provided subsequently.

Previous Correspondence

Highways England was consulted on the above application on 21 May 2020. Following our review of the application documents we issued a holding recommendation on 12 June 2020 for a period of three months to enable the applicant to provide sufficient information that should have been included in the transport assessment, to enable us to make an informed decision on the impact of the development on the SRN.

Highways England Planning Response (HEPR 16-01) January 2016

We requested that the applicant provide information relating to the trip generation and distribution of the extant and proposed development uses, and extended our holding recommendation by a further three months on 10 September 2020 to enable this to be submitted. The applicant's transport consultants, Hydrock, subsequently submitted the requested TRICS assessment and provided clarification relating to the proposed development traffic trip distribution. We have reviewed this and consider that the predicted trip

20/1001/MOUT page 35

generation and distribution are acceptable. Whilst the majority of development trips would route via M5 Junction 30, based the number of vehicular trips likely to be generated in addition to the traffic generated by the extant use of the site it not considered reasonable to request a detailed impact assessment of Junction 30.

However, noting that the proposed development would result in an increase of trips at M5 Junction 30, we requested that the applicant undertake a safety risk assessment as set out in GG104 Requirements for safety risk assessment of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB,) to ensure this increase in traffic would not result in an adverse impact on the safe operation of this junction.

Follow the review of the GG104 safety risk assessment submitted by Hydrock, and subject to the provision of a comprehensive travel plan which seeks to reduce the traffic generation of the proposed development, we are satisfied that the development is unlikely to result in a severe impact on the safe and efficient operation of the strategic road network, as defined by NPPF. We have subsequently concluded that the implementation of a travel plan is necessary to ensure that the traffic generation of the site can be managed in line with the conclusions set out in the supporting Transport Assessment, and in accordance with paragraphs 28 and 29 of DfT Circular 02/2013 "The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development".

We are therefore lifting our current holding recommendation and replacing it with a recommendation that a comprehensive travel plan for the site is submitted for our review and approval ahead of the site being brought into use, with all measures to be fully implemented, monitored and managed.

Amendment to Quantum of Development

Highways England was notified by the Local Planning Authority on 12 October 2020 that proposed development within 'Zone B' of the application site was being formally withdrawn. Development within Zone B was to comprise of 2,656sqm of B1 Light Industrial Use.

The removal of the above quantum of development will result in a reduction in the number of trips generated by the development to that previously considered by Highways England. We are therefore satisfied that this amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the operation of M5 Junction 30, and that our below recommendation remain appropriate.

Recommendation

Highways England recommends that planning conditions should be attached to any permission that the Local Planning Authority is minded to grant in respect of application 20/1001/MOUT, to the effect that:

1. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use unless and until comprehensive Residential and Employment Travel Plans have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Highways England).

20/1001/MOUT page 36

The Travel Plan shall be prepared in line with prevailing policy and best practice and shall include as a minimum:

- the identification of targets for trip reduction and modal shift; - the measures to be implemented to meet these targets including an accessibility strategy to specifically address the needs of residents with limited mobility requirements; - the timetable/phasing of the implementation of the Travel Plan measures and its operation thereafter; - the mechanisms for monitoring and review; - the mechanisms for reporting; - the remedial measures to be applied in the event that targets are not met; - mechanisms to secure variations to the Travel Plan following monitoring and reviews. Reason: in the interest of the safe and efficient operation of the M5 Motorway. Referring to the notification of a Hybrid application to include full planning permission for the demolition of an existing pre-fabricated building, refurbishment of 15,441sqm of commercial (Use Class B1a) floorspace, 2,364sqm of leisure space (Use Class D1/D2 and A3), the development of a new commercial (Use Class B1a/D1) building extension to Brook House providing ancillary B1c and B8 floorspace, site-wide landscaping, engineering works and the provision of associated car parking spaces, and Outline planning permission (all matters reserved except access) for the erection of up to 137 residential units, including affordable housing, replacement cricket pavilion, new sports pavilion, reinstatement of associated sports pitches, tennis courts and parkland, at Winslade Park, east of Exeter, notice is hereby given that Highways England's formal recommendation is that we:

C) recommend that planning permission not be granted for a specified period (see Annex A - non determination);

Highways Act Section 175B is not relevant to this application.1 1 Where relevant, further information will be provided within Annex A Highways England Planning Response (HEPR 16-01) January 2016

This represents Highways England formal recommendation and is copied to the Department for Transport as per the terms of our Licence. Should you disagree with this recommendation you should consult the Secretary of State for Transport, as per the Town and Country Planning (Development Affecting Trunk Roads) Direction 2018, via [email protected].

Annex A Highways England recommended further information required

20/1001/MOUT page 37

This response represents our formal recommendations with regards to the planning application (ref: PA20/1001) and has been prepared by the Planning Manager for Devon.

We have undertaken a review of the relevant documents supporting the planning application to ensure compliance with the current policies of the Secretary of State as set out in DfT Circular 02/2013 "The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development" and the MHCLG National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), being advised on this matter by our consultants, Jacobs.

Statement of Reasons

The Winslade Park site is located approximately 1.5km south-east of M5 Junction 30, and forms a mixed-use allocation (strategy 26B) in the East Devon Local Plan 2013- 2031 (adopted January 2016).

Several buildings are currently located on the Winslade Park site, including the Grade II* listed Mansion House, Winslade House, Brook House and Clyst House, and the site benefits from extant permission for commercial use. The current proposals follow a number of previous applications for the proposed redevelopment of the site, following historic occupation of buildings for the regional headquarters of Friends Provident, together with the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

A Transport Assessment (TA) prepared by Hydrock dated 9 April 2020 has been submitted in support of the application. Pre-application discussions were undertaken with Highways England where we requested comparison of the existing and proposed employment floorspace to allow a TRICS-based assessment of traffic generation levels associated with the extant and proposed site uses to be compared. This has not been provided ahead of submission of the application.

Previous Correspondence

Highways England was consulted on the above application on 21 May 2020 and following our review of the application documents we issued a holding recommendation on 12 June 2020 for a period of three months to enable the applicant to provide clarification and further assessment as below:

20/1001/MOUT page 38

Highways England have been unable to replicate Hydrock's outturn traffic generation figures following internalisation, based on the information provided in the TA. We question with the scale of internalisation assumed, and consider that external traffic generation figures should be higher than those stated by Hydrock. Updated site traffic generation forecasts using Highways England recommended internalisation should be provided. o Highways England has previously requested comparison of the existing and proposed employment floorspace to allow a TRICS-based assessment of traffic generation levels associated with the extant and proposed site uses. Site traffic forecasts using TRICS data and comparison of existing and proposed floorspace should be provided. o Hydrock calculate a percentage distribution based on current turning proportions at the signalised junction of the A376 and Winslade Park Avenue. The surveyed distribution is based on limited existing use of the junction, and may not reflect future travel demands associated with proposed redevelopment of the site. Highways England require that distribution assumptions are updated, based on a 2011 Census Travel to Work distribution and assignment or gravity model approach. o Following the further analysis requested above it is likely that an assessment of the development impacts on the safe and efficient operation of M5 Junction 30 will be required. Highways England would welcome discussion around this requirement following the agreement of development trip demands.

Since the issuing of our previous planning response Hydrock have submitted the requested TRICS-based assessment and discussions between Hydrock and Highways England are ongoing to determine the traffic impact of the proposed development and whether further assessment will be necessary. We are therefore extending our holding recommendation for a further three month period to allow time for the above transport assessment work to be completed. We do however anticipate that matters can be concluded in advance of this date.

Recommendation

Highways England recommends that application reference PA20/1001 not be granted for a period of 3 months from the date of this recommendation. This is to provide time for the conclusion of transport assessment work to enable Highways England to fully understand the impact of the development on the safe and efficient operation of Junction 30 of the M5 motorway, and thereby provide the Local Planning Authority with fully informed advice.

Highways England Dear Planning (West Team),

Thank you for consulting Highways England on proposed amendments to the above application.

20/1001/MOUT page 39

The amended masterplan looks to provide for 94 residential units (reduction of 43 residential properties) together with the reinstatement of existing commercial floorspace. The proposals for each of the masterplan zones as amended are as below: o Zone A (Field immediately to the north) - new residential development, 54 units (Reduction of 24 houses). Proposals no longer include the Clyst Vale football club site (Outline). o Zone B (Existing car park south of recreation fields) - Retained as vehicle parking for 176 cars (Detailed). o Zone C (Central Area) Continued use of the former parkland for recreational activities, including football, cricket and tennis. Facilities will also be introduced to provide toilets and changing together with disabled parking and emergency access. (Outline). o Zone D (North of existing building complex) - residential, 40 units (Reduction of 19 apartments). Reduction in scale and bulk of apartment building (Outline). o Zone E Comprehensive repair and refurbishment of Winslade Manor (GIA 1,619 sqm) and Winslade House (GIA 9,936 sqm) for office use and basement gym, with minor floorplan alterations to both (Detailed). Minor internal changes and introduction of ground floor terrace to the Manor. o Zone F Reuse of the curtilage-listed stable blocks, including reuse of existing swimming pool, with a new extension to provide additional space for users, D1/D2/A3 use classes (GIA 2,570sqm) (Detailed). No changes as part of this submission. o Zone G Extension of Brook House to provide a refurbished and extended commercial use, B1a with ancillary B1c and B8 use classes (GIA 3,018 sqm) (Outline). No changes as part of this submission. o Zone H Clyst House - retention and refurbishment of the office space (7,299sqm) (Detailed). No changes as part of this submission. o Zone J Existing area of parking extended to provide 395 spaces (Detailed). Minor changes as part of this submission to introduce further landscaping. o Zone K Green space to the south of the formal gardens enhanced for recreational use with a new link across Grindle Brook (Outline). No changes as part of this submission.

Highways England issued its formal planning response to the application on 21 October, following confirmation from the Local Planning Authority that 2,656sqm of B1 use within Zone D had been formally withdrawn from the application.

We have reviewed the other proposed amendments and are satisfied that these will not result in a material impact on the safe and efficient operation of the strategic road network. As such we consider that our planning response of 21 October remains appropriate, which I have attached for your ease of reference.

I trust the above is clear, but please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss further.

DCC Flood Risk Management Team

16.06.2020

20/1001/MOUT page 40

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

Observations:

We would encourage the applicant to fully explore the use of infiltration led techniques as a starting point for the drainage design in line with the principles of the surface water management hierarchy. Please note that if infiltration is proposed, we have a requirement for a years worth of groundwater monitoring so it is advisable to carry out on site infiltration tests as early as possible within the project Please note that from 1st June 2020 we only accept FEH rainfall for new applications in line with best practice. The FSR is based on a dataset from 1970s and is out-of- date.

The applicant should provide a significant betterment over the existing runoff rates. It is acknowledged that pre application discussion has occurred at some point in the past with DCC LLFA however, we would now require more of a betterment than just the proposed 20% offered as part of this submission. The applicant should submit the Micro Drainage greenfield runoff calculation for Zone A. The applicant should also explain how the long term storage requirements have been incorporated for Zone A.

Following the publication of the Flood Risk Assessments: Climate Change Allowances document (dated 19th February 2016) by central government, the applicant will be required to use a climate change uplift value of 40% when sizing the proposed surface water drainage management system for this development.

It is understood that in various zones, the intention is for the car park areas to flood for events greater than the 1 in 30 year event. The applicant should provide information on the predicted depth of flooding for these events so we can assess whether this is suitable from a health and safety perspective.

The applicant should provide evidence that they have secured a permission in principle agreement or similar from South West Water for permission to discharge into their network.

DCC Flood Risk Management Team

4/11/2020

Recommendation:

20/1001/MOUT page 41

be required to submit additional information in order to demonstrate that all aspects of the proposed surface water drainage management system have been considered.

Observations:

Following my previous consultation response 20/1001/MOUT, dated 16/06/20, the applicant has submitted additional information in relation to the surface water drainage aspects of the above planning application, for which I am grateful.

Drainage Strategy Layout Sheet 1 WIN-HYD-XX-XX-DR-C-1000 P05 Drainage Strategy Layout Sheet 2 WIN-HYD-XX-XX-DR-C-1001 P05 Drainage Strategy Layout Sheet 3 WIN-HYD-XX-XX-DR-C-1002 P05

The applicant has failed to address concerns raised in my previous response. The applicant should submit the greenfield runoff rate calculation for Zone A and explain how long term storage will be dealt with in this area.

The applicant should submit the existing runoff rate calculations for the other zones.

The applicant should submit all attenuation calculations using FEH rainfall data.

The applicant should provide evidence that they have secured a permission in principle agreement or similar from South West Water for permission to discharge into their network.

The Drainage Strategy Statement Rev A explains how a basin or swale will be used within an area of public open space however this has not been carried through into the drainage design. The statement also mentions how infiltration is unlikely to be successful which is surprising as extensive permeable paving is proposed for attenuation and treatment.

We would be happy to provide another substantial review if additional information is submitted to the local planning authority.

DCC Flood Risk Management Team

11.11.2020

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 development hereby permitted shall commence until the following information has been submitted prior to reserved matters / discharge of conditions stage and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

(a) Soakaway test results in accordance with BRE 365 and groundwater monitoring results in line with our DCC groundwater monitoring policy.

20/1001/MOUT page 42

(b) Evidence that there is a low risk of groundwater re-emergence downslope of the site from any proposed soakaways or infiltration basins/tanks.

(c) A detailed drainage design based upon the approved Flood Risk Assessment Winslade Park, Clyst St Mary 13528-HYD-XX-XX-RP-FR-0001 dated 2nd April P02 and Drainage Strategy Sheet 3 WIN-HYD-XX-XX-DR-C-1002 P08, Drainage Strategy Sheet 2 WIN-HYD-XX-XX-DR-C-1002 P09 and Drainage Strategy Sheet 1 WIN-HYD- XX-XX-DR-C-1002 P06 and the results of the information submitted in relation to (a) and (b) above

(d) Detailed proposals for the management of surface water and silt runoff from the site during construction of the development hereby permitted.

(f) Proposals for the adoption and maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage system.

(g) A plan indicating how exceedance flows will be safely managed at the site.

(h) A detailed assessment of the condition and capacity of the existing surface water drainage systemthat will be affected by the proposals. The assessment should identify and commit to, any repair and/or improvement works to secure the proper function of the surface water drainage receptor.

No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until the works have been approved and implemented in accordance with the details under (a) - (h) above.

Reason: The above conditions are required to ensure the proposed surface water drainage system will operate effectively and will not cause an increase in flood risk either on the site, adjacent land or downstream in line with SuDS for Devon Guidance (2017) and national policies, including NPPF and PPG. The conditions should be pre- commencement since it is essential that the proposed surface water drainage system is shown to be feasible before works begin to avoid redesign / unnecessary delays during construction when site layout is fixed.

Observations:

Following my previous consultation response 20/1001/MOUT, dated 09/11/2020, the applicant has provided additional information in relation to the surface water drainage aspects of the above planning application, in an e-mail dated 06/11/2020, 10/11/2020 and 11/11/2020 for which I am grateful.

 Email from Avalon Planning to East Devon District Council dated 9th November 2020  Micro Drainage Outputs Zone A Greenfield Runoff  Micro Drainage Outputs Zone A Attenuation FEH  UK SuDS Greenfield Runoff Rate Tool  Micro Drainage Zone D Car Park FEH  Micro Drainage Zone J Car Park FEH  Micro Drainage Zone G Car Park FEH  Drainage Strategy Layout Sheet 2 WIN-HYD-XX-XX-DR-C-1001 P09

20/1001/MOUT page 43

 Drainage Strategy Layout Sheet 3 WIN-HYD-XX-XX-DR-C-1002 P08  Technical Design Note Existing Discharge Flow Rates dated 11.11.2020

The applicant has submitted a feasible surface water drainage strategy for the site which will provide a betterment of 20% compared to existing runoff rates. Attenuation will take the form of a combination of underdrained permeable paving and tanks. Areas for above ground sustainable drainage systems have been set aside for features such as rain gardens, bioretention areas and swales as per the approved drainage strategy drawings and we would encourage these features to be brought to fruition at the detailed design stage.

Environment Agency We write further to your consultation of 21 May 2020 and the subsequent flood modelling information submitted by Hydrock in respect of the above planning application.

Environment Agency position

Whilst we have no in principle objections to this proposed development we recommend that the application is not determined until further information is submitted with regard to river ecology and biodiversity net gain. The clarification we are asking for along with advice (and suggested conditions) regarding flood risk and construction environment management is set out below.

Advice - River ecology

Our records indicate the presence of 2 weirs on the Grindle Brook within the application area and a further weir immediately downstream between the carriage ways of the A376. There may be an opportunity to contribute towards biodiversity net gain through mitigation measures to provide fish and/or eel passage applied to these structure as a part of the development of the site. We would welcome the opportunity to assess the current impacts of these structures and investigate mitigation measures which could bring these structures within the requirements of the Eel Regulations 2009 and the salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975.

The plans for Zone K shows a proposed footpath along the southern side of the Grindle Brook which borders directly onto the watercourse at the north eastern extreme of the area. Maintaining a buffer of semi-natural vegetation along the full extent of a watercourse can provide benefits to aquatic and riparian wildlife and we would suggest a buffer of at least 5m from the bank top is maintained.

Any new structures over the Grindle Brook should be designed as single span structures with no loss of riparian vegetation or intrusion into the channel itself.

There are a number of car parks within the development site adjacent to the Grindle Brook and the impact of lighting on the value of this watercourse to commuting and foraging species of bats must be considered. Bats frequently utilise watercourses for foraging and commuting and this value should not be compromised by the extensive presence of associated lighting which should be designed and located to minimise any spill of light into the riparian zones of the Grindle Brook. The Lighting Report refers to

20/1001/MOUT page 44

an 'Ecology Report' by Burton Reid Associates which is not available to view on your online planning register.

There is a ditch/drain running from north to south through Zone K and consideration should be given to maximising the benefit of this feature to wildlife and providing net gain for biodiversity as part of the development. There may be potential to modify this watercourse and/or use it to reduce the drainage of the adjacent area to create wetland habitats and features of wildlife value. Under the Eels (England and Wales) Regulations 2009, there must not be any adverse impact on eel passage or their habitat. This should be taken into account before any works take place that may affect this habitat.

Advice - Flood risk

The provision of a response has been delayed owing to the need to consider detail that has been provided by Hydrock. Following discussion within the team, it has been agreed that the EA do not need to scrutinise the model-build in providing a planning response for this application. Please therefore use my earlier response, as follows, as our formal comments back to the planning authority.

The flood risk assessment (dated 02 April 2020, Ref. 13528-HYD-XX-XX-RP-FR- 0001) and additional modelling prepared by Hydrock has been reviewed. This is seen to be a comprehensive assessment conforming to the requirements of the NPPF. We can agree with the conclusions and recommendations of the report, particularly with reference to the hydraulic modelling to refine the flood zone extents, the derivation of a design flood level and development allocation within the site giving regard to the vulnerability classification. There are no in-principle flood risk objections.

We therefore consider that the proposal will be acceptable from a flood risk perspective provided that the following matters are addressed prior to commencement (and secured by way of planning conditions): o An emergency plan should be developed for the site, specifically in respect of managing flood risk. This should outline the ability to receive flood warnings and necessary actions that will be required to ensure the safety of occupants of the site. o A suitable long-term management agreement should be established to ensure that routine inspection and maintenance of the culverted watercourse beneath the recreation area is carried out. This will ensure efficient drainage and reduce the risks posed by a blockage/failure scenario.

Furthermore, it is noted that an access route within the site, and areas allocated for car parking, are at risk of minor flooding. We recommend that, prior to any reserved matters application for these elements of the proposed development, opportunities are explored to raise these areas to remove the flood risk and improve safety, particularly in respect of the eastern car park which effectively becomes an island under flood conditions. These areas are both on the periphery of the flood extent, so the impact upon overall flood storage would be minimal and major mitigation would not be required.

20/1001/MOUT page 45

It should be noted that for any works within 8m of the bank top of this designated Main River that the Environment Permitting Regulations for Flood Risk Activities will apply. The applicant is referred to https://www.gov.uk/permission-work-on-river-flood-sea- defence for confirmation of requirements.

Advice - Construction Environment Management Plan

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

We recommend that a CEMP is drafted using the guidance from PPG6. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/construction-and-demolition-sites-ppg6- prevent-pollution

As a minimum the CEMP should o Name an Environmental Clerk of Works responsible for managing the environmental risks and site waste management through the construction phase, including an environmental induction for the workers, sub-contractors, and utilities entering the site. They should also maintain 24 hour emergency contact numbers, undertake early liaison with the local Environment Agency Environment Officer and be responsible for the maintenance and management of pollution control measures such as spill kits. o Include Pollution Control measures to avoid silt run-off, which should be in place before the main ground works e.g. soil stripping are started. Often, silt control can be created where SUDs infrastructure is to be sited and refurbished at the landscaping phase, once all other surfaces are sealed on the site. o Protect biodiversity, sensitive sites and protected species, drawing on recommendations from environmental reports or statements supporting a planning application to ensure that biodiversity features to be retained as part of the development are protected through the construction phase and the correct ground conditions are left for the landscaping phase and biodiversity enhancements. o Identify high risk operations in the construction programme where a method statement should be agreed in advance with the local Environment Agency Environment Officer.

You Authority may deem it appropriate to secure a CEMP by way of a condition on the subsequent planning permission.

Environment Agency Thank you for your consultation of 26 August 2020 following submission of further information in respect of the above planning application.

Environment Agency position We recommend that the application is not determined until you have considered whether the applicant's justification for not implementing a continuous buffer along the Grindle Brook is reasonable. If your Authority is satisfied we consider that the proposal

20/1001/MOUT page 46

will only be acceptable if subsequent planning permission includes conditions regarding biodiversity net gain, flood risk management and construction environment management.

Advice - River ecology and biodiversity net gain Our letter of 14 July 2020 recommended that a buffer of at least 5m from the bank top of the Grindle Brook is maintained which would provide benefits to aquatic and riparian wildlife. Accordingly we note the applicant's justification for ruling out such a buffer due to loss of parking area. We maintain, however, that a continuous 5m buffer strip along the entire watercourse should still be integrated into the scheme. In light of this we ask that your Authority determines whether the applicant's justification for not including the watercourse buffer on the basis of loss of parking spaces is reasonable taking into account the fact that less residential units are now proposed. We would welcome confirmation of your determination on this matter.

With regards to biodiversity net gain, we note the reference in the Ecological Impact Assessment (Table 'A.2 Designations / important sites / sites of geological importance) where it states that 'Biodiversity Net Gain calculations to be provided for final scheme'. We consider that ideally these should be provided prior to determination. However, the most important thing is securing a commitment to biodiversity net gain (we recommend at 10% net gain). Therefore we would be content with this requirement being secured by way of a planning condition.

Our letter of 14 July 2020 refers to opportunities to contribute towards biodiversity net gain through mitigation measures to provide fish and/or eel passage applied to these structure as a part of the development of the site. We note that with regard to eels Table 14 (ecological enhancement measures) states that 'There is opportunity within the Application Site to enhance Grindle Brook for European Eels Anguilla Anguilla through upgrading fish passes on existing weirs. This could be discussed with the Environmental Agency at an appropriate stage of the planning Process'. We would recommend that such enhancements for eel (and fish) passage are secured by way of a condition to be agreed at reserved matters stage.

In the first instance we advise the applicant to employ a specialist to assess the weirs to determine to what extent they might be actually causing a barrier to migratory fish and eels. If they are deemed to be causing a barrier to passage then the developer will need to consult a specialist on design of the fish/eel passes. They will need to submit fish and eel pass designs to us for approval. There is further information on GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/fish-pass-approval).

With regard to other matters of river ecology raised in our letter of 14 July 2020 (e.g. new structures over the Grindle Brook and the impact of lighting on the watercourse for bats) we cannot see that these have been addressed by the further information submitted.

Advice - Flood risk Our comments regarding flood risk remain unchanged from our letter of 14 July 2020. These included recommendation of planning conditions covering a flood emergency plan for the site and establishment of a long-term management agreement regarding inspection and maintenance of the culverted watercourse beneath the recreation area.

20/1001/MOUT page 47

Advice - Construction Environment Management Plan Our letter of 14 July 2020 included a recommendation for a condition requiring that a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) is produced to pull together and manage the pollution control and waste management requirements during the construction phase. This recommendation remains unchanged

Environment Agency We have reviewed the recently submitted documents in support for this application. We note the amendment to the description and revised plans. We consider that our position remains unchanged to that outlined in our previous responses, most recently on the 15th September. Please find a copy of this response attached for ease. We would request that you confirm whether you are satisfied with the justification from the applicant regarding the lack of buffer along the Grindle Brook because of parking provision. Please re-consult us with this information and we will provide additional comments.

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

NHS Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust Introduction

Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The creation and maintenance of healthy communities is an essential component of a sustainability healthy community as articulated in the Government's National Planning Policy Framework, which is a significant material consideration. Development plans have to be in conformity with the NPPF and less weight should be given to policies that are not consistent with the NPPF. Consequently, local planning policies along with development management decisions also have to be formulated with a view to securing sustainable healthy communities. Access to health services is a fundamental part of a sustainable healthy community. As the attached document demonstrates, Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) is currently operating at full capacity in the provision of acute and planned healthcare.

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

The Trust's funding is based on the previous year's activity it has delivered subject to satisfying the quality requirements set down in the NHS Standard Contract. Quality requirements are linked to the on-time delivery of care and intervention and are evidenced by best clinical practice to ensure optimal outcomes for patients.

The contract is agreed annually based on the previous year's activity plus any pre- agreed additional activity for clinical services. The Trust is unable to take into consideration the Council's housing land supply, potential new developments and housing trajectories when the contracts are negotiated. Further, the following year's contract does not pay the previous year's deficit retrospectively. This development

20/1001/MOUT page 48

creates an impact on the Trust's ability to provide the services required due to the funding gap it creates. The contribution sought is to mitigate this direct impact.

CIL Regulation 122

The Trust considers that the request made is in accordance with Regulation 122:

"(2) A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is—

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development." S 106

S 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) allows the Local Planning Authority to request that a developer contribute towards the impact that a development creates on the services. The contribution in the amount £196,265.00 sought will go towards the gap in funding created by each potential patient from this development. The detailed explanation and calculations are provided within the attached document.

Without the requested contribution, the access to adequate health services is rendered more vulnerable thereby undermining the sustainability credentials of the proposed development due to conflict with NPPF and Local Development Plan policies as explained in the attached document.

Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust

Historic England Thank you for your letters of 21 May 2020 regarding the above applications for listed building consent and planning permission. On the basis of the information available to date, we offer the following advice to assist your authority in determining the applications.

Historic England Advice

The redevelopment of this grade II* listed restrained Palladian villa and its unusual modern extensions offers a positive opportunities for regeneration. However, significant reductions are required to address the potential harm caused by the development of Zone B and D on the setting of the grade II* listed manor.

Significance

Winslade Park is a country estate based around a restrained Palladian villa set within a designed landscape. Redeveloped in the later 20th century to form the headquarters of an insurance company, the substantial office buildings were skilfully woven into the landscape by the notable architects Powell and Moya.

20/1001/MOUT page 49

Built in the late 18th/ early 19th century, the neo-palladian country house, Winslade Manor, was designed with a plain restrained appearance with later embellishment through applied architectural details. The interior retains much of its original plan form and features, including doors, staircase and extensive plasterwork. It focal point and architectural climax is the central atrium that cuts through the building with light provided via a glazed dome. Due to the surviving quality of the building's interior and exterior, Winslade Manor is listed at grade II*, due to its more than special interest

An unusual aspect of this site was its comprehensive redevelopment in the latter half of the 20th century. Undertaken by the notable architects Powell and Moya, the works adapted the site into the headquarters of the London and Manchester Assurance Company.

The works included the restoration and conversion of the main house to office accommodation, the installation of leisure facilities into the historic stable block and finally the construction of Winslade House, a multi-ranged purpose built office block. Its notable design of open floors set on concrete columns resulted in Winslade House winning the RIBA Architecture Award for the South West Region in 1979. As Winslade House is physically attached to the manor, it is covered by the grade II* listing. However, it is also a building of merit in its own right and represents a key and unusual phase in the development in this unusual estate.

The surviving landscape is based on the designs of the former owner Henry Porter during the 19th century; it included pleasure grounds, terraces, ornamental lake, lawns, woodland walks and kitchen gardens. Aspects of the historic landscape still survive like the Ornamental Terrace, listed at grade II. Historically, the site was accessed from the north, via the White Lodges. This land was subsequently sold off and is now occupied with modern housing. In the 1970s, the re- imagination of the site saw a new drive installed from the Sidmouth Road. This cuts across the lawns to the west of the house and provided sweeping views that retained the mansion as the principal focus. The 1970s landscaping interpreted the original parkland setting and adapted it for the age of the motor car, while retaining its original open character.

Impact

This application forms a comprehensive redevelopment of the site, utilising and adapting the existing buildings as well as proposing some new development within the landscape. Historic England's interest relates largely to the development proposed in Zones B, D, E and F situated around the historic core of the listed buildings.

The scheme is part outline and part full. It proposed 137 units, a significant amount of commercial space, leisure facilities, as well as car-parking and landscaping. An allocated site within the East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031 (Strategy 26B), it has been the subject of a number of applications. The most recent was for a similar mixed use scheme in 2016 (ref 16/2460/MOUT & 16/2461/LBC).

Zone B

20/1001/MOUT page 50

The proposed development on Zone B will have an impact on the open character of the parkland and thus the setting of the grade II* listed house. We consider there are opportunities to accommodate development in this site but it will need to have a recessive appearance.

Development in Zone B will fundamentally change the way in which Winslade Manor is experienced. This is through the loss of the open character and the introduction of a significant feature on the approach to the main house. This approach is part of the thoughtfully reinterpreted by Powell and Moya scheme in the 1970s which allowed Winslade Manor to retain a sense of drama to its arrival.

Development on this site will result in harm; however, there are opportunities that can assist in reducing the impact creating a more recessive and less assertive addition in views from the house and on the approach along the drive. The key areas to address are the scale, mass and design.

Consequently, we would strongly encourage the following steps to be taken to reduce the overall impact. This should include -

- The height of the building should be reduced to between 1 ½ - 2 storeys.

- The loss of the undercroft car parking reducing it to two storeys

- Breaking the mass into smaller units, allowing for gaps to help reduce the overall bulk,

- Consideration over the building's position within the site,

- Greater use of the eco-design to provide a more organic shape on which the proposed materials and textures could be applied,

- Comprehensive landscaping scheme. Where the footprint of the commercial space has been reduced there might be potential to some further sensitive redevelopment elsewhere within the site. This is with particular respect of Zone H and G, although in zone G consideration will need to be given to the impact on the scheme on the setting of the church.

Zone D

Although Zone D is at outline only, the quantum of development sought will dictate the scale and mass of any future development. Further information is required to fully understand the impact of the scheme on the Manor and to inform opportunities to minimise any identified harm.

The current arrangement for the 59 units indicates a three storey linear structure forming a solid and conspicuous feature along the site's boundary. This results in a permanent and physical visual separation of the manor from its former parkland and approach.

20/1001/MOUT page 51

We would encourage visualisation to be provided that indicate the potential mass of the development, associated with this fixed quantum. A further assessment of the potential impact can then be undertaken and used to inform how the scheme can be amended to minimise its impact. This may need to consider massing, design and landscaping.

Stable (Zone F)

The proposed redevelopment of the stables offers an opportunity to enhance this component feature of the former country estate. In views of the stable's courtyard, any new additions should not project above the roofline. Careful consideration needs to be given to the height of the new additions to ensure that the stable maintains its sense of primacy.

Carparking (zone E)

The aplication seeks to formalise previously informal parking areas across the site. Of particular note is the land north of the grade II listed Ornamental Terrace, which forms an important survival of the earlier 19th century pleasure grounds. The application proposes a number of positive works to this area including the reinstatement of part of the Ornamental Terrace's balustrade and axial path that historically lead down from the house to the river, as well as opening up public access along the river bank. Some of these good works would be undermined by the proximity and prominence of the car-park to the Ornamental Terrace. We acknowledge that there is pressure on the site to provide sufficient car-parking but we would encourage in this location that further consideration is given to creating a more meaningful buffer between the car-park and the designed landscape.

Winslade Manor (Zone E)

The conversion of the manor has sought a light touch approach to upgrading the property's interior.

The proposed change of colour to the external appearance of the building forms one of the more notable works. The aim is to unify the building's appearance following repairs to the external envelope, which will create a variation in colour across the elevations. We are not averse to the building being painted; however, agreement as to the colour should be made in consultation with the council.

The application contains a significant amount of detail regarding the refurbishment. We do not wish to comment in detail on this aspect of the scheme, but we would encourage the council to seek the view of their conservation officer.

Winslade House (Zone E)

The general approach to the conversion of Winslade House is again light touch. Some of the proposals will impact on the internal arrangements of the original building. However, on balance these works appear pragmatic in improving the building's functionality and in some instances proving positive enhancements, such as the

20/1001/MOUT page 52

improved energy gain through the double glazing and insulation. Details again should be agreed with the conservation officer.

Other sites

Some aspect of the application will have limited or negligible impact on the significance of the historic environment. This is either because they are discretely located with a suitable level of screening, as in the case of zones A, H and J. Or in the case of C and K, the nature of the works and its outline status does not warrant further comment at this stage.

Policy

This is a comprehensive scheme affecting a number of heritage assets and the significance they derive from their setting. Consequently, the council should be mindful of their statutory duty under section 16 and 66, (Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990) to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting and any features of special interest when making their decision.

The NPPF looks for planning authorities to identify opportunities for new development within conservation areas and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably (NPPF, 200).

Where development is seen to conflict with the conservation of a heritage asset, the authority should seek to improve proposals so that they avoid or minimise harm to the significance of designated heritage assets (NPPF, 190). The council should ensure there is sufficient information, to enable the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of the affected heritage asset to be understood (NPPF, 189). If harm cannot be avoided, the council need to ensure that any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification (NPPF, 194). Heritage assets are irreplaceable and therefore great weight should be given to their conservation (NPPF, 193). If the proposal cannot be amended to avoid all harm, then the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal NPPF, 196).

The site is identified within the East Devon's Local Plan 2013 - 2031, as a brownfield site. Identified as Strategy 26B, it is seen as an exception to the policy on village development in part to protect the listed building.

Historic England's Position

This is a highly sensitive and complex site. Although the scheme offers positive opportunities in respect of the existing historic buildings, the impact of new development on the setting of the grade II* listed Winslade Manor raises concern. The comprehensive regeneration of Winslade Park presents a number of opportunities for the sensitive conversion of Winslade Manor and House. This will allow these important buildings to be brought back into beneficial reuse.

20/1001/MOUT page 53

Historic England's has concerns regarding the potential impact of the new development on the setting of Winslade Manor through the proposed scale and massing of the new blocks (NPPF, 200). This is due to the erosion of the open parkland character through the introduction of conspicuous features that would erode the manor's sense of primacy as the focal point to the site.

Historic England has identified opportunities within our advice (set out above) that will assist in avoiding and minimising the impact of the development on the significance of Winslade Manor. Although the harm will not be avoided completely, we consider that the identified steps will help to reduce the level of harm through the creation of a more recessive structure within this sensitive location. These steps should be based on sufficient evidence, particularly in the case of Zone D, in order to understand the impact and make informed decisions regarding any proposed changes (NPPF, 189).

We have identified other areas that also required further consideration and would encourage the council to seek amendments in line with our advice (NPPF, 190). As the harm cannot be wholly avoided, any harm to a designated heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification (NPPF, 194). Therefore, the local authority need to be convinced that the construction of commercial space in Zone B and residential in Zone D is necessary and that the same benefits cannot be achieved by alternative less harmful means. As this is a grade II* listed building, great weight should be given to the conservation of the heritage asset (NPPF, 193,). It is not until the harm has been justified that the council can undertake the planning balance to consider the harm against any public benefits (NPPF, 196).

Recommendations

Historic England has concerns regarding the applications on heritage grounds.

Our concerns relate to the impact of development in Zone B and D on the significance of Winslade Manor, as derived from its setting.

The council, in consultation with their conservation officer and the applicant, should seek amendments in line with our advice as set out above in order to identify a more recessive scheme for Zone B that reduces it impact in views from the Manor and on the approach along the drive (NPPF, 190).

The council should also seek additional information in Zone D in the form of visualisations. This information will allow the council, through discussions with their conservation officer, to identify opportunities to reduce the potential scale and mass of the development, reducing its impact on Winslade Manor (NPPF, 189 and 190).

The council will need to ensure that any resulting harm is clear and convincingly justified (NPPF, 194), ensuring that great weight is given to the heritage asset (NPPF, 193). Only harm that the council considers to be justified can be considered as part of the planning balance under Para 196 (NPPF). In determining these applications you should bear in mind the statutory duty of sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess.

20/1001/MOUT page 54

Your authority should take these representations into account and seek amendments, safeguards or further information as set out in our advice. If there are any material changes to the proposals, or you would like further advice, please contact us.

Historic England 16 September 2020

Arrangements for Handling Heritage Applications Direction 2015 & T&CP (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 & Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990 WINSLADE PARK WINSLADE PARK AVENUE CLYST ST MARY EX5 1DA Application No. 20/1003/LBC & 20/1001/MOUT

Thank you for your letters of 26 August 2020 regarding further information on the above applications for listed building consent and planning permission. On the basis of this information, we offer the following advice to assist your authority in determining the applications.

Historic England Advice

The amended proposals for the redevelopment of Winslade Manor and its wider estate have gone someway to addressing the concerns Historic England previously raised to the application. However, we consider that additional information and revisions to the design are required in order to further reduce the level of harm to the significance of the Manor and the contribution made by its setting.

Significance

Due to its more than special architectural and historic interest, Winslade Manor has been listed at grade II*. The Powell and Moya extensions are listed by virtue of being physically attached to the main house.

For a more detailed assessment of significance, we would refer you to our original response from the 2 July 2020

Impact

The application is for the adaption and refurbishment of the existing buildings on site as well as some new development within the landscape. Historic England's interest continues to relate to the development proposed in Zones B, D, E and F situated around the historic core of the application site.

20/1001/MOUT page 55

As the most recent amendments look to address a number of points raised in our previous correspondence (2 July 2020), the council should read this letter and our original response in conjunction.

Zone B

Zone B is particularly sensitive due to its location along the main drive and within principal views of the main house.

We maintain that any form of development on this site is likely to result in some level of harm. The amendments proposed through the reduction in height from three to two storeys as well as the break of its massing, go some way to reducing the impact caused by the previous scheme. However, we consider that within the proposed design there are further opportunities that would allow for the new buildings to be appear more recessive in views from the main house. This includes reversing the angle of the roof pitch to reduce the assertive north elevation. The result would be a more prominent roofscape; however, it could be softened through the creation of a green/ sedum roof allowing the new buildings to blend into their background in elevated views from the house. Both steps will be required in order to for the identified reduction in harm to be achieved.

Zone D

Zone D is located in close proximity to the grade II* listed Winslade House to the east of the site. It also sits on the former historic approach that swept into the west side of the house and has subsequently been lost through the development of former parkland to the east.

The amendments to Zone D include a reduction in the quantum of development from 59 to 40 units. The reduction is likely to reduce the impact of the proposed development on the property but it is not clear whether that will be sufficient to address the potential harmful impact that could be caused to the setting of Winslade House.

We understand that this is an outline element of the application but its proximity to the main house makes the site sensitive to change. Therefore, we would encourage a massing study or visualisation to be provided to ensure that the site can accommodate the extent of development proposed but also to identify parameters that may need to be considered within the Reserved Matters application.

Zone F

The substantial redevelopment of the stable block does impose some taller new build element around the historic structure. In order for the stable block to remain the primary feature within the complex, the council should be confident that any increased height of the new additions will not be visible in views of the stable's courtyard from the north.

Zone E (Car Park)

20/1001/MOUT page 56

We maintain that some of the good works associated with the reinstatement of part of the Ornamental Terrace's balustrade will be undermined by the proximity and prominence of the car-park to the Ornamental Terrace.

The Heritage Statement sets out that to create a more meaningful barrier, there would be a loss of a row of car-parking in this area. It is understood that car-parking is constrained on the site, which is why the buffer has not been created. In their consideration of the application, the council need to confident that the buffer could not be achieved by alternate means and the justification in respect of the loss of a limited section of car-parking is sufficient to outweigh the potential harm caused to the setting of the Ornamental Terrace.

Zone E - Winslade Manor and House

In respect of the amendments proposed to the Manor and the later additions, we do not wish to offer any comments at this stage. Instead, we would encourage you to liaise with our conservation officer, who has had significant discussions regarding the proposed works to the listed building. We would suggest that you seek their views in respect of the range of works proposed.

Policy

We have set out in more detail the relevant legislation and policy context in our letter of 2 June 2020.

Our advice has focused on the ensuring that sufficient information has been provided to assess the impact of the application on the significance of the grade II* listed Mansion (Para 189, NPPF). We have also focused on the opportunities to avoid and minimise harm through the proposed development (Para 190, NPPF). In so doing, we encourage the maximisation of opportunities to enhance or better reveal the significance of the surrounding heritage assets (Para 200). In our view, the additional steps we have recommended will contribute to achieving a better balance in planning terms in relation to the historic environment.

Position

Historic England appreciates that Winslade presents a major opportunity for redevelopment. We welcome the most recent amendments which have sought to address our previous concerns. Nevertheless we consider that it is possible to achieve further reduction in the level of harm caused to this important historic complex, allowing for it to better reveal its significance (NPPF, Para 200).

Due to the outline nature of some of the works such as Zone D, further information is required to enable us to assess the potential impact of the scheme on the significance of the grade II* listed Manor, as derived from its setting (Para 189, NPPF). Once provided, it will be clear if there are opportunities by which any harmful impact can be avoided or minimised (Para 190, NPPF)

For those elements, which continue to result in harm such as Zone B, we have also identified a number of constructive solutions that would in our opinion reduce the harm

20/1001/MOUT page 57

caused in heritage terms. These would contribute to delivering a more successful version of the current scheme through a more sensitive response to the historic environment (Para 190, NPPF).

Recommendation

Historic England has concerns on heritage grounds.

The recent amendments have looked to address the concerns set out in our previous letter. However, we consider there are additional steps that could reduce the impact of the development further.

Therefore, the council in consultation with their conservation specialist should seek amendments and additional information in line with our advice set out above (NPPF, Para 189 and 190). This will ensure that opportunities to enhance or better reveal the significance of the manor including the contribution made by its setting are identified (NPPF, Para 200).

In determining these applications you should bear in mind the statutory duty of sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess.

Historic England

Thank you for your letters of regarding further information on the above applications for listed building consent and planning permission. On the basis of this information, we offer the following advice to assist your authority in determining the applications.

Historic England Advice The recent amendments respond to a number of points raised in our letters dated 2 July and 16 September 2020. This response deals with the recently submitted amendments and additional information and should be read in conjunction with those earlier responses. Also within those letters a full assessment of significance can be found.

Impacts on the affected designated asset

The additional information relate specifically to Zone B and D, which both form part of the landscape setting of the grade II* listed Winslade Park.

Zone B

The amendments to Zone B fall in line with our previous advice assisting to reduce the adverse impact of the proposed development within views of the grade II* listed Winslade Manor and along the principal approach to the aforementioned property.

20/1001/MOUT page 58

Further steps could be taken to reduce the impact through the removal of the proposed roof lights, which disrupt the appearance of the green roof and clarification should be sought that the current landscaping bund will be retained.

The current steps have created a more recessive structure within the setting; however, the introduction of built form into the open character of the parkland will nonetheless have an adverse impact on the contribution the setting makes to the significance of Winslade House.

Zone D

Zone D is covered only by an outline application, although through these proposals the quantum of development on the site would be established. The additional images are beneficial as they allow for the massing and scale of the structure to be better understood within the space.

The landscape within this locality has been altered through the extensive mass of car- parking, although the open nature of the landscape allows it to remain subservient within the setting of the main house. We appreciate that any design proposals could change at reserved matters stage; however, the current arrangement set out in the visualisation is for a substantial three storey linear range. This indicates that a structure of significant scale and mass would be needed to accommodate the quantum of development proposed and therefore would not appear recessive or subservient in views to or from Winslade Manor.

Historic England's Position

This application forms an extensive scheme affected a number of assets across a large site. As previously highlighted we would encourage the council to consider this letter in conjunction with previous correspondence in order for the full extent of impact to be ascertained.

In consideration of the application, the council should ensure that they give great weight to the conservation of Winslade Park, whose grade II* listed status affords it high significance.

In respect of Zone B, further steps have been taken to reduce the overall impact of the scheme within views of Winslade House. However, the enclosure of the open parkland through the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the significance of Winslade House as derived from its setting. The NPPF identifies that any harm needs to be clear and convincingly justified. The council therefore need to be convinced that there are not less harmful locations on the wider site where this development could be accommodated. If there is, it follows that the harm to the setting is not justified in line with para 194 (NPPF).

The indicative design for Zone D would introduce a significant structure into the setting of the grade II* listed Winslade Manor. Therefore, they do not offer confidence that the quantum of development sought on the site could be sufficiently adapted at the design stage to deliver a recessive and subservient scheme within the setting of Winslade Manor (NPPF, Para 200). It is for you the Local Planning Authority to consider whether

20/1001/MOUT page 59

a less harmful solution can be arrived at and if not, seek further amendments to the overall quantum of development (NPPF, Para 194). This will allow at reserved matters stage that the right solution for the site is found, without a high quantum of development forming an additional constraints (NPPF, Para 190).

Recommendation Historic England has concerns regarding the applications on heritage grounds. These relate specifically to Zone D and B ensuring that their impacts have been sufficiently justified and opportunities have been taken to avoid or minimise any potential conflict with the landscape setting of Winslade Manor (NPPF, Para 194 and Para 190).

Due to the significant constraint the fixed quantum of development proposed at Zone D could create at the reserved matters stage, you as the Local Planning Authority need to be convinced that a more recessive design can be achieved on the site, minimising the impact on Winslade Manor (Grade II*) (NPPF, Para 194). If not, you should seek amendments to the quantum of development in order to enable a more successful solution to be identified (NPPF, Para 190).

Meanwhile the enclosure of the open parkland at Zone B will have an adverse impact on the Manor. You, the council, needs to be convinced that there are not less harmful locations on this site where this development could be accommodated (NPPF, para 194). As we have identified in this letter we would refer you, the local planning authority to our previous responses. This is a large site with a number of impacts, these impacts should be considered holistically ensuring that they have been clear and convincinglt justified. Only when justified, can the cumulative harm identified across the scheme be considered within the overall planning balance and will need to be demonstrably outweighed by the public benefits offered by the scheme (NPPF, Para 194 & Para 196).

Historic England 13 November 2020

Thank you for your letters of 22 October 2020 regarding further information on the above applications for listed building consent and planning permission. On the basis of this information, we offer the following advice to assist your authority in determining the applications.

Historic England Advice

The council need to ensure they have sufficient information by which to assess the impact of the amended proposals in Zone D on the setting of the grade II* listed Winslade Manor. This information will enable the council to ascertain whether further amendments to the quantum of development is required to avoid and minimise any adverse impact.

20/1001/MOUT page 60

We do not intend to review in detail all aspects of the proposal within this response. We would refer you to our previous correspondence (date 2 July, 16 September and 5 October 2020), which should be read in conjunction with this latest advice. This is where a detailed assessment of significance can also be found.

Our principle interest lies in the proposed changes to Zone B and D.

Zone B

We welcome the removal of development from Zone B, retaining it as parking. The revised scheme preserves the current arrangement on site and therefore we do not wish to offer any further comments on this aspect of the scheme.

Zone D

Our previous response identified that the council needed to be satisfied that the proposed quantum of development could deliver a recessive and subservient addition within the setting of Winslade Manor. There has been no reduction in the number of units but the amended plans have demonstrated that the site could accommodate an alternative layout and massing.

The council need to ensure they have sufficient information by which to assess the proposed impact (NPPF, Para 189). This could include visualisations or photomontages. Once provided, should concerns remain regarding the level of harm caused, then the council should identify ways in which to avoid or minimise that impact (NPPF, Para 190). This could be through further amendments to the layout and massing of the proposals or the reduction in the number of units.

Recommendation

Historic England has concerns regarding the applications on heritage grounds.

These concerns relate to the potential impact of the development in Zone D on Winslade Manor.

You, the council, need to ensure that they have sufficient information to satisfy the requirements of NPPF, Para 189. This information will allow you to identify whether further steps are required to avoid and minimise the proposed impact as set out in Para 190.

Any remaining harm from Zone D or identified as part of the wider scheme will need to be clear and convincingly justified (NPPF, Para 194). Only once any harm has been justified, can it be considered within the planning balance (NPPF, Para 196).

In determining these applications you should bear in mind the statutory duty of section 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess.

Your authority should take these representations into account and seek amendments,

20/1001/MOUT page 61

safeguards or further information as set out in our advice. If there are any material changes to the proposals, or you would like further advice, please contact us.

Conservation

29/07/2020

CONSULTATION REPLY TO PLANNING WEST TEAM LISTED BUILDING CONSENT PLANNING APPLICATION AFFECTING LISTED BUILDING

ADDRESS: Winslade Park, Clyst St Mary

GRADE: II/II* APPLICATION NO: 20/1001/MOUT & 20/1003/LBC

PROPOSAL: Hybrid application to include full planning permission for the demolition of an existing pre-fabricated building, refurbishment of 15,441sqm of commercial (Use Class B1a) floorspace, 2,364sqm of leisure space (Use Class D1/D2 and A3) , the development of a new commercial (Use Class B1a/D1) building extension to Brook House providing ancillary B1c and B8 floorspace, site-wide landscaping, engineering works and the provision of associated car parking spaces. Outline planning permission with all matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 137 residential units, including affordable housing, replacement cricket pavilion, new sports pavilion, reinstatement of associated sports pitches, tennis courts and parkland

Internal and external works/alterations to Winslade Manor, Winslade House and the Terrace, refurbishment of the buildings for office use and the Terrace for amenity space

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC CHARACTER/ ARCHITECTURAL MERIT:

Winslade Manor is a grade II* listed property. The principal property is an early 18th century house that was significantly remodelled in the late 18th century. The site became the head headquarters of the London and Manchester Assurance Company in the mid-20th century and a modern commercial office block designed by Powell and Moya was built in the 1970s. The principal house retains a sense of primacy within the site with aspects of its designed landscape including the green open space to the west of the principal façade and the grade II listed Terrace Walk with associated planting to the west including specimen trees. It has also retained component parts of the wider estate including the stables, walled garden and a close relationship to the church. The site also retains a clear corporate character through its former office use with the number of car-parks and the large office buildings of which the Powell and Moya is by far the most accomplished architecturally.

HOW WILL PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AFFECT HISTORIC CHARACTER OF BUILDING AND ITS SETTING:

This application has been the subject of pre-application advice and is for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site. The current scheme is for a mixed office/

20/1001/MOUT page 62

residential use utilising many of the buildings and some additional development throughout the site. The comments below relate most specifically to Winslade Manor, Winslade House (Block A, B, C & D) and the Stable Block (Zone F). Historic England have commented in detail and specifically in relation to Zones, B, D, E & F. These comments should be read together to provide a full assessment of the impact of the proposed works on both the buildings themselves and the wider setting of the heritage assets.

Overall Site plans: showing the various buildings & zones Winslade Manor Winslade House: Block A, B, C D Zone A: residential development (outline) 78 units to NE Zone B: driveway Zone C: cricket pitch area - the retention of the playing fields as open space is welcomed. The provision of any new pavilion should retain a recessive appearance responding to the character of the space, but seeking clarification relating to the retention of the existing pavilion, see below; Zone D: Outline for 59 residential units on car park Zone E: fronting Manor Zone F: Stable block - see below Zone G: Brook House - no specific comments Zone H: Clyst House - no specific comments Zone J: existing car parking Zone K: open space area - new gate pillars? Not clear where these are to be located?

Landscaping plans (3): see comments from Landscape. Cricket pavilion retained and refurbished? Discrepancy in plans and Heritage Statement, please clarify if pavilion is to be retained or replaced. Both are mentioned in the supporting documentation and plans. Front lawn to manor? - these aspects need clarification. Setting of Winslade Park from historic terrace to south;

Car parking to south of Winslade House: listed structures, terrace etc. Re-instates the central axis from the Manor to the terrace. Landscape input/comments required.

20/1003/LBC

Site plan: lawned seating area to Winslade Manor - this is to be the subject of further detailing and additional plans are to be submitted, see email 2nd July 2020;

Illustrative plan: no specific comments, see below;

Design & Access Statement: no specific comments, see Heritage Statement below;

Heritage Statement: a very detailed and comprehensive document. Some minor issues:

Again, this raises discrepancies over the glazing, suggesting minor repairs to doors and windows rather than replacement or double glazing or secondary glazing;

20/1001/MOUT page 63

Cricket pavilion and new sports block, clarification sought; New sport pavilion on Plan L01.22 Zone C. Replacement cricket pavilion on L01.23 Zone C.

NB. This document refers to Winslade Park as Grade II* and is correct. Other documentation refers to the building as curtilage listed.

Schedule of Works

Winslade Manor: clarification relating to Window Schedule - this shows the repair of the single glazed sash windows or replacement using original glass if beyond repair and the insertion of either timber or aluminium double glazed secondary glazing. This does not correlate with the Drawings, see below. Obscure glazing film eg W24/25 why? W47/48 etc, please clarify;

Door Schedule: no specific comments;

Fireplace Schedule: no specific comments;

External Schedule: condition rainwater goods where replacement necessary. Balustrading and piers - subject of email 2nd July 2020 Dome: to be conditioned Rendering: to be conditioned

Winslade House: no specific comments;

Winslade Manor 02 drawings

Detail Zone E: replacement cricket pavilion - there is some confusion here where plans refer to a replacement pavilion, but the Landscaping Plan (Zone C) shows it being retained and refurbished, please clarify;

North elevation: detailed notes relating to repair. Possible areas of concern: dome over portico; balustrade & piers - stone/ replacement - material? Render - steam cleaned and repaint using Keim mineral paint - colour/finish to be agreed. Rainwater goods -repair and or replace; repair and redecorate timber sash windows - please clarify those to be replaced? The information within the Schedule of Works needs to be transferred to the application drawings where replacement is envisaged.

Some of these items could form the basis of further information/conditions;

East elevation: as above. Bridge link to Winslade House;

South elevation: as above;

West elevation: as above;

Lower Ground floor: less significance, minor reconfiguration of the space;

Ground floor: some very minor reconfiguration of the layout to revise WC's;

20/1001/MOUT page 64

First floor: some very minor reconfiguration of the layout to revise WC's, new handrail to atrium, see detail below. No change to staircase handrail. Dome over entrance to be cleaned or replaced, again this could be conditioned;

Second floor: some very minor reconfiguration of the layout to revise WC's, new handrail to atrium, see detail below. No change to staircase handrail;

Roof plan: details of inspection/roof repairs and replacement of central dome rooflight over atrium, acceptable subject to details - condition;

Typical sliding sash window (basement): single glazing to heritage double glazed unit - see clarification;

External door detail existing: altered to achieve double glazing - check justification;

Fall protection Hand rail detail & elevations: internal to central atrium/hallway, brass handrail above existing timber rail fixed to existing column and underside of existing handrail;

Flooring details: marble & parquet flooring, no objection in principle. 25mm cut from bottom of door for both, minimal impact;

Architrave & Heater Grille (Ground floor): single glazing to double glazed heritage unit - this does not correlate with the Window Schedule, see above. There is no justification, see clarification. Shutters to be retained and refurbished where possible. No objections to grilles;

Disabled access: no objection in principle to improving access to the ground or upper floors of Winslade Manor. This is limited to the mainly public areas at ground floor and includes a new folding stair with ramp up to front entrance - see Schedule of works. Sits back behind the column against the existing stone balustrade, could easily be removed? This could be conditioned eg. fixings;

Sections: no specific comments:

Temporary building: attached to Winslade Manor, to be removed, no objection;

Winslade House

Lower Ground floor: some minor reconfiguration of layout;

Ground floor: some minor reconfiguration of layout

First floor: some minor reconfiguration of layout;

Second floor: some minor reconfiguration of layout, clerestory windows to be retained;

Ceiling Plans: Lower Ground floor, Ground, First, all noted; Second floor: suspended ceiling to be removed and underside of roof to be insulated and plaster boarded;

20/1001/MOUT page 65

Roof plan: no details shown;

Elevations: some minor alterations;

Sections: no specific comments;

CCTV: can no longer find the plans for these;

Air Con (M & E units): can no longer find the plans for these;

Suspended floor detail (all blocks): no specific comments;

New stair core detail (Block C): this provides improved access and therefore the viability of the office space for various users. Link block to Manor, no specific comments;

Replacement window - typical glazing detail: all blocks, unit retained and glazing replaced with double glazing 12mm, acceptable

Terrace fall protection handrail (Block A & B): glazed balustrade system, no objections;

Clerestory ceiling detail (Block B): no specific comments;

Entrance canopy: new glass canopy over existing entrance with new signage, Winslade House, to hammered granite finish - details to be agreed by condition. Clarification required regarding signage. Does this require any other permission? Details to be conditioned re: typeface and design;

Stable Block Zone F

East elevation - 06 the stables: walkway roof and squash court roof removed. New openings for windows. Extension to gym/leisure facility roof;

North elevation - 06 The Stables: removal of squash court & gym roof. New extensions to have flat roofs;

South elevation - 06 The Stables: removal of walkway roof and windows. Height of existing rendered wall raised and gym roof removed;

West elevation - 06 The Stables: walkway roof, handrails and gym roof removed. New extensions above the ridge height - uncomfortable block with flat roof - signage on frontage likely to need consent, details to be conditioned;

Section A-A: no specific comments;

Section B-B: extension above ridge line - this aspect needs to be addressed, see below;

20/1001/MOUT page 66

Stable Block Zone F - Internal courtyard:

South: new large opening at ground floor (powder coated aluminium frame);

West: new larger openings;

North: new ground floor door and signage;

Lower Ground floor: no comments;

Ground floor: new openings to main block and the internal spaces opened up providing café, restaurant, reception and spa/treatment area;

First floor: no existing plans on LBC;

Roof: concerns relating to new flat roof;

Views: this shows that the stable block has now been completely enclosed by development with the new extension rising above the original main block. There is considerable concern relating to the development of the Stable Block which detracts from the overall character and appearance of this curtilage listed structure. Any extension here needs to be subservient to the principal building and this aspect of the development therefore needs further consideration to minimise the harm and impact.

20/1001/MOUT

Zone A: residential development to NE. Sufficient distance to have minimal impact/harm on the setting of the heritage assets. No specific comments;

Zone B: this is a two storey well-crafted linear block with undercroft level for parking. The development occupies a sensitive site within the overall parkland setting, see comments from Historic England. Concerns relating to views on approach to the Manor and the impact on the setting of the listed buildings/heritage assets. This needs further consideration to reduce the overall impact of the development and to minimise the harm;

Block C: cricket pitch and football pitches, tennis courts, no specific comments other than clarification regarding the two structures, cricket pavilion and sports pavilion;

Zone D: a residential development of three storeys, but no details supplied. This is in the immediate setting of the listed building and needs considerably more information to be submitted to assess what will clearly have an impact on the Manor, its setting and the original historic parkland, see Historic England comments;

Conclusion: this is a considerably detailed scheme involving both repair and restoration of the existing buildings and new development. The protection of the heritage assets, including setting and significance, is paramount and any harm needs to be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme.

PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATION - PROPOSAL

20/1001/MOUT page 67

ACCEPTABLE in principle, but concerns relating to specific issues and zones, see above

SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: to be agreed

Conservation ADDRESS: Winslade Park, Clyst St Mary

GRADE: II/II* APPLICATION NO: 20/1001/MOUT & 20/1003/LBC

Amended plans received 26th August 2020:

The comments below relate to the submitted amended plans. However, there are still some issues that require clarification or amendment:

Landscaping plans (3): see comments from Landscape. Cricket pavilion now shown as replaced.

20/1001/MOUT

Zone B: the development occupies a sensitive site within the overall parkland setting, see comments from Historic England. Concerns relating to views on approach to the Manor and the impact on the setting of the listed buildings/heritage assets. This still needs further consideration to reduce the overall impact of the development and to minimise the harm;

Block C: cricket pitch and football pitches, tennis courts, no specific comments other than clarification regarding cricket pavilion now received;

Zone D: a residential development of three storeys, which has now been reduced from 59 units to 40. This is in the immediate setting of the listed building and still needs considerably more information to be submitted, as previously requested, to assess what will clearly still have an impact on the Manor, its setting and the original historic parkland, see Historic England comments;

Zone E: please seek comments and views from Landscape

PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATION - PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE in principle, but still some concerns relating to specific issues and zones, see above

SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: still to be agreed on submission of further information

Conservation

20/1001/MOUT page 68

ADDRESS: Winslade Park, Clyst St Mary

GRADE: II/II* APPLICATION NO: 20/1001/MOUT

Amended plans received 24th September 2020:

Zone B: the development occupies a sensitive site within the overall parkland setting. There are still concerns relating to views on the approach to the Manor and the impact on the setting of the listed buildings/heritage assets. None of the plans (elevations, floorplan, 3D) appear to show the existing grass bund which currently screens the site behind. Is this being removed making the development more prominent?

This still needs further consideration to reduce the overall impact of the development and to minimise the harm, see comments from Historic England

Zone D: a residential development of three storeys, which has now been reduced from 59 units to 40. As shown, in the 3D illustrations, this is totally unacceptable and appears to mimic the modern office development on the site or a student housing block. This should be an innovative well designed scheme being in such close proximity to the listed Manor.

This is in the immediate setting of the listed building and still needs considerably more information to be submitted, as previously requested, to assess what will clearly still have an impact on the Manor, its setting and the original historic parkland, see Historic England comments;

PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATION - PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE in principle, but still some concerns relating to Zones B & D, see above

SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: still to be agreed on submission of further information

Sports England

16/06/2020

Sport England objects to the application because it is not considered to accord with any of the exceptions to Sport England's Playing Fields Policy or with Paragraph 97 of the NPPF.

The loss of the Clyst Valley FC playing pitch without adequate replacement could be addressed in a revised layout of Zone A with reduced housing and the inclusion of an adult football pitch in close proximity to the proposed sports building which should have improved access and parking.

20/1001/MOUT page 69

As a Statutory Consultee this objection should carry the appropriate with in the decision making process. In the High Court decision to quash a planning consent for development adjoining the East Meon cricket ground in East Hampshire District (High Court Ref: Case No: CO/1894/2014). In summing up the case, the Inspector said:. In my judgment, the officers and the Planning Committee failed to have proper regard to the representations of Sport England in its capacity as statutory consultee". Sport England would therefore request that the local planning authority give due weight to the concerns raised by Sport England with regard to this proposal, given our status as a statutory consultee.

We welcome the issues in this response to be addressed

Sports England

23/09/2020

From the amended information provided, we are satisfied that the proposal does not involve the loss of playing field land and we no longer object to the planning application. However, the applicant needs to address the risk of balls leaving the Clyst Valley FC site and providing appropriate mitigation at no cost to the football club.

Additionally there are a number of issues that require clarification in future proposals and planning conditions attached to this application are required to deliver and manage fit of for purpose sports facilities at Winslade Park as shown by the developer. Sport England recommends, based on our assessment, that if the Council is minded to approve the application, the following planning conditions should be imposed.

1. a. No occupation shall take place in Zone A and Zone D until: (i) A detailed assessment of ground conditions of the land proposed in Zone C for the playing field land as shown on drawing number.. shall be undertaken (including drainage and topography) to identify constraints which could affect playing field quality; and (ii) Based on the results of this assessment to be carried out pursuant to (a) above of this condition, a detailed scheme to ensure that the playing fields will be provided to an acceptable quality (including appropriate drainage where necessary) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority after consultation with Sport England. b. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme within a timescale to be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority after consultation with Sport England. Reason: To ensure that site surveys are undertaken for new or replacement playing fields and that any ground condition constraints can be and are mitigated to ensure provision of an adequate quality playing field and to accord with LP Policy **

2. The playing fields and pitches in Zone C shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with the [planning application *, Section * and Drawing No. **] and with the standards and methodologies set out in the guidance note "Natural Turf for Sport" (Sport England, 2011), and shall be made available for use before first use or occupation [or other specified timeframe] of the development [or specified

20/1001/MOUT page 70

part of the development/] hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure the quality of pitches is satisfactory and they are available for use before development (or agreed timescale) and to accord with LP Policy **.

3. Prior to the bringing into use of the playing fields and tennis courts a Management and Maintenance Scheme for the facility including management responsibilities, a maintenance schedule and a mechanism for review shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority after consultation with Sport England. The measures set out in the approved scheme shall be complied with in full, with effect from commencement of occupation of Zone A and Zone D. Reason: To ensure that new facility/ies is capable of being managed and maintained to deliver playing fields and tennis courts which are fit for purpose, sustainable and to ensure sufficient benefit of the development to sport (National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) para 97) and to accord with LP Policy **

4. No occupation in Zone A and Zone D until a community use agreement prepared in consultation with Sport England has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and a copy of the completed approved agreement has been provided to the Local Planning Authority. The agreement shall apply to [describe facilities forming part of the development] and include details of pricing policy, hours of use, access by users [/non-members], management responsibilities and a mechanism for review. The development shall not be used otherwise than in strict compliance with the approved agreement." Reason: To secure well managed safe community access to the sports facility/facilities, to ensure sufficient benefit to the development of sport and to accord with Development Plan Policy **.

If you wish to amend the wording of the recommended condition(s), or use another mechanism in lieu of the condition(s), please discuss the details with the undersigned.

Sport England does not object to amendments to conditions, provided they achieve the same outcome and we are involved in any amendments.

The absence of an objection to this application, in the context of the Town and Country Planning Act, cannot be taken as formal support or consent from Sport England or any National Governing Body of Sport to any related funding application, or as may be required by virtue of any pre-existing funding agreement.

Housing Strategy Officer Melissa Wall This application includes the provision of 137 residential units and under strategy 34 would require 50% (68.5 units) for affordable housing.

The applicants in their affordable housing statement are claiming that because the site contains vacant buildings then vacant building credit should be applicable. To support the re-use of brownfield land, national policy permits the reduction of affordable housing contributions where vacant buildings are being reused or redeveloped, known as 'vacant building credit' (VBC). In such cases, the affordable housing requirement should be reduced by a proportionate amount, equivalent to the existing gross floor

20/1001/MOUT page 71

space of existing buildings. If the total floor space of existing buildings to be reused or redeveloped is equal to or exceeds the total floor space created, then no affordable housing would be required.

We understand that the planning officer is taking legal advice on the application of VBC as the vacant buildings are intended to be used for their current (or most recent) use and the residential use is to be located on greenfield land.

If vacant building credit is to be applied then further confirmation needs to be sought on the correct floor areas to be used. The calculation in the affordable housing statement only includes the residential element. As the floor space of the existing buildings is larger than the proposed residential new build element then this results in no affordable housing being required. If however we take into account all of the proposed development including the commercial use then there would be a requirement for affordable housing. It should also be noted that this is only an outline application for the residential element and the size of the proposed dwellings are not yet confirmed therefore the issue of VBC will have to be resolved and confirmed at reserved matter stage. The S106 will have to allow for this.

Without the application of VBC 50% affordable housing (68.5 units) would be required with a tenure split of 70% rented and 30% for affordable home ownership products.

In accordance with Strategy 34 where a proposal doesn't meet the affordable housing targets set it will be necessary to submit evidence to demonstrate why provision of affordable housing is not viable. An overage clause will be sought and secured via a S106 agreement in respect of future profits where levels fall below policy targets. In line with our adopted Planning Obligations Supplementary Guidance viability constraints can only actually be confirmed at reserved matters stage and the S106 will need to secure this. With an outline application viability is difficult to establish as there are many unknown factors.

The amount of affordable housing to be secured on this site will be determined once the question of vacant building credit is resolved. It is also likely that viability issues will be raised. However early discussions with a registered provider are recommended and these discussions will assist with the design and type of affordable dwellings to be provided.

Housing Strategy Officer Melissa Wall The amendments to the application result in the reduction of dwellings to 94, with 40 apartments in Zone D and up to 54 dwellings in Zone A. This would reduce the amount of affordable housing to 47 units if applying 50% as per planning policy.

The applicants are intending to provide 10% affordable housing in Zone A only which would now equate to 5.4 dwellings. The question of whether Vacant Building Credit (VBC) is applicable has yet to be decided. If VBC is not applicable and the level of affordable housing provision is below the policy target of 50% then a viability assessment will need to be submitted.

Natural England Thank you for your consultation on the above application dated 21 May 2020.

20/1001/MOUT page 72

DESIGNATED SITES [EUROPEAN] - FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED

Habitats Regulations Assessment - Recreational Impacts on European Sites

As submitted, the application could have potential significant effects on the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC, East Devon Heaths SPA and the Exe Estuary SPA/Ramsar. It is your Authorities duty to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment and Appropriate Assessment prior to determining the applications (see below);

The following further information is required:

- How the requirement for mitigation in relation to the above European sites will be met through the provision of financial contributions and/or Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS). - Demonstrate that the proposed SANGS will be fit for purpose and how it will be secured. - Phasing plans to ensure that the SANGS is operational prior to first occupation of the residential development.

Without this information, Natural England may need to object to the proposal.

Please re-consult Natural England once this information has been obtained.

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

Additional Information required

HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT

This development falls within the 'zone of influence' for the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site and the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and East Devon Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) as set out in Strategy 47 of the East Devon 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.

The consultation documents provided by your authority do not include any information to demonstrate that the requirements of Regulations 61 and 62 of the Habitats Regulations 2017 (as amended) have been considered, i.e. your authority has not

20/1001/MOUT page 73

recorded your assessment and conclusions with regard to the various steps within a Habitats Regulations Assessment. If your authority is not able to rule out the likelihood of significant effects without additional mitigation measures you should undertake an Appropriate Assessment, in accordance with Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations, including consultation with Natural England.

Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS)

Paragraph 7.8 of the Planning Support Statement notes that there is considered potential for the proposed open space at Zone K, south of Grindle Brook, to provide SANGS which would mitigate impacts on increased recreational pressure. Natural England have not been approached to comment on the suitability of this possible SANGS but on the basis of the information provided, we are able to advise the following to assist you with your Habitats Regulations Assessment.

1. It must be clearly demonstrated that the proposed SANGS will need to meet the criteria set out in Strategy 47 of the East Devon Local Plan in terms of size, quality and functionality, with a main purpose being for dog walking. We note it falls within EA Flood Zone 2.

2. Creating pedestrian links from the open space for this development to the wider Clyst Valley Regional Park could increase the recreational value of the SANGS land and enhance Green Infrastructure.

3. SANGS and residential development phasing plans are required to demonstrate the SANGS will be functional prior to occupation of the first dwelling.

4. The SANGS management strategy will be necessary, secured in perpetuity.

5. A condition should be included on the permission preventing occupancy of any dwellings until an appropriate quantum of SANGS has been provided (i.e. a Grampian Condition).

Additional enhancements to the SANGS could be delivered to achieve some of the biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirements (see below). In this case, the habitat value of the SANGS will need to be calculated through the biodiversity metric (both baseline and predicted BNG value).

The baseline for the SANGS calculation must include all habitat features of the site that are there to meet the minimum SANGS requirements. BNG contributions can only be claimed for features added that are additional to this. Care should be taken to ensure that any such additional features do not compromise the original purpose of the SANGS (e.g. adding features which may be in conflict with dog-walkers).

SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (SSSIs)

Providing appropriate mitigation is secured to avoid impacts upon the European sites occurring there should be no additional impacts upon the SSSI interest features of the Exe Estuary and East Devon Pebblebed Heaths.

20/1001/MOUT page 74

PROTECTED LANDSCAPES

The application site lies approximately 5km outside of the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Having considered the application, Natural England does not believe that it would impact significantly upon the purposes of designation of the AONB.

PROTECTED SPECIES

We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species. Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. The Standing Advice includes a decision checklist which provides advice to planners on deciding if there is a 'reasonable likelihood' of protected species being present. It also provides detailed advice on the protected species most often affected by development.

You should apply our Standing Advice to this application as it is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation.

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

If you have any specific questions on aspects that are not covered by our Standing Advice for European Protected Species or have difficulty in applying it to this application please contact us at with details at [email protected].

BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN

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

In accordance with the paras 170 & 174 of the NPPF, opportunities to achieve a measurable net gain for biodiversity should be sought through the delivery of this development. Note however this metric does not change existing protected site requirements.

In the Chancellor's 2019 Spring Statement, the government announced that it "…will mandate net gains for biodiversity on new developments in England to deliver an overall increase in biodiversity".

Accordingly and to future proof the proposed development, we advise that the proposals are reviewed in light of this commitment towards the delivery of biodiversity

20/1001/MOUT page 75

net gain. On 29 July 2019, Natural England released the updated and improved Biodiversity Metric 2.0.

If you have any queries relating to the advice in this letter please contact me on [email protected]. Should the applicant wish to discuss the further information required and scope for mitigation with Natural England, we would be happy to provide advice through our Discretionary Advice Service.

Please consult us again once the information requested above has been provided.

Natural England Planning consultation: Additional documents - Hybrid application to include full planning permission for the demolition of an existing pre-fabricated building, refurbishment of 15,441sqm of commercial (Use Class B1a) floorspace, 2,364sqm of leisure space (Use Class D1/D2 and A3) , the development of a new commercial (Use Class B1a/D1) building, extension to Brook House providing ancillary B1c and B8 floorspace, site-wide landscaping, engineering works and the provision of associated car parking spaces. Outline planning permission with all matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 94 residential units, including affordable housing, replacement cricket pavilion, new sports pavilion, reinstatement of associated sports pitches, tennis courts and parkland

Location: Winslade Park, Clyst St Mary, Devon EX5 1DA

Thank you for your consultation on the above application dated 26 August 2020. DESIGNATED SITES [EUROPEAN] - FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED Habitats Regulations Assessment - Recreational Impacts on European Sites The residential development could have potential significant effects on the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC, East Devon Heaths SPA and the Exe Estuary SPA/Ramsar due to the risk of increased recreational pressure caused by that development. It is your Authorities duty to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment and Appropriate Assessment prior to determining the applications;

In line with the South East Devon European Sites Mitigation Strategy (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 further advice on designated sites/landscapes and advice on other issues was set out in our previous letter dated 9 June 2020.

Additional Information required

HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT

Further to our previous letter dated 9 June 2020, the additional information clarifies that it has been agreed with Simon Bates of East Devon District Council that mitigation under SEDEMS will be provided through contributions to off-site mitigation and not

20/1001/MOUT page 76

through provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS). We welcome the plans to deliver informal public open space and biodiversity gains at this site.

Devon County Archaeologist The proposed development site lies within a landscape containing evidence of prehistoric and Romano-British activity. A programme of archaeological geophysical survey has been undertaken across most of the application area and has indicated little in the way of archaeological potential. However, Zone L (shown on the Masterplan) of the proposed development - where 64 new dwellings are proposed - has not been subject to any archaeological field evaluation so the presence and significance of any heritage assets here is unknown. The Historic Environment Team do not consider there to be a requirement to undertaken any additional archaeological investigations to support this planning application, but would advise that any impact of development upon the archaeological resource in Zone L should be mitigated by a programme of archaeological work that should investigate, record and analyse the archaeological evidence that will otherwise be destroyed by the proposed development.

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

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

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

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

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

20/1001/MOUT page 77

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

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

I have been informed that Zone L as shown on the proposed Masterplan of the site is not part of this current planning application. As such, I would like to withdraw my previous advice and offer no comments from the Historic Environment Team on this current planning application.

However, should Zone L be subject to any future planning application I would be grateful if the Historic Environment Team could be consulted for comments by the Planning Authority.

Devon County Archaeologist Dear Sir/Madam,

Application No. 20/1001/MOUT

Winslade Park Clyst St Mary EX5 1DA - Hybrid application to include full planning permission for the demolition of an existing pre-fabricated building, refurbishment of 15,441sqm of commercial (Use Class B1a) floorspace, 2,364sqm of leisure space (Use Class D1/D2 and A3) , the development of a new commercial (Use Class B1a/D1) building, extension to Brook House providing ancillary B1c and B8 floorspace, site- wide landscaping, engineering works and the provision of associated car parking spaces. Outline planning permission with all matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 94 residential units, including affordable housing, replacement

20/1001/MOUT page 78

cricket pavilion, new sports pavilion, reinstatement of associated sports pitches, tennis courts and parkland: Revised plans and documents: Historic Environment

My ref: Arch/DM/ED/35480c

I refer to the above application and your recent re-consultation.

The Historic Environment Team has no additional comments to make on this planning application to those already made.

Development Delivery Project Manager

05.10.2020

I have now reviewed the Viability prepared by Jones Lang LaSalle for the above mentioned site. I comment as follows:

The report appears to be of a robust nature, with a well-reasoned viability approach, with good relevant commentary, a good amount comparable market evidence for both the residential and commercial elements of the scheme and have also included various sensitivity analysis. I have reviewed the costs associated with the proposed scheme and agree with the build costs proposed. The residential rate is fair and corresponds with BCIS Estate Housing and Flats rates for East Devon. The build costs associated with the refurbishment elements of scheme seem reasonable and have been evidenced against BCIS data, benchmarked against tender information and the developers cost consultant. For the commercial elements of the scheme they have used established BCIS rates and cost data provided by the Developers Cost Consultants. Contingency percentage is correct with them using the standard / typical market allowance of 5% and an increased contingency 7.5% for the listed building element. Professional fees of 8% is typical market allowance. The Marketing, letting and disposal costs are within the normal parameters I would have expected. Finance cost 6% is appropriate and the developers profit is within EDDC normal parameters. I have also reviewed the GDV including the market evidence of residential sales values, commercial rental levels evidenced within the report. I have checked these against current market comparable evidence within a 3 mile radius of the site and these all seem to be within acceptable sale values and commercial / office market rental levels.

The only thing that I would mention under the costs section is there is no allowance made for Habitat Mitigation (£354 per dwelling). If you were to include this it would only make the scheme more unviable.

Economic Development

22.09.2020

In Economic Development terms, the importance of the transformation being proposed at Winslade Park cannot be underestimated.

20/1001/MOUT page 79

We are presented with one of the most significant prospects for improved employment opportunity and local economic benefit that our district has seen in recent years.

Some of the particular challenges and opportunities our district economy currently faces will be met through the proposed development of this allocated site. These include our pressing requirement for more skilled employment exacerbated by the recent loss of FlyBe and almost 1,000 of the most skilled roles we could least afford to lose; the need to improve our sustainability through increased levels of self- containment; the chance to secure increased inward investment and provide the right environment for indigenous businesses to grow and improve local prosperity. More immediately, the issue of constrained workspace space supply and availability in the district - particularly modern, flexible, high quality office accommodation will be directly addressed. The speed at which this can be delivered at scale through refurbishment will position the district well to meet increased demand associated with economic recovery and it is noted that very strong interest has already been established with employer tenants.

For some time our focus in Economic Development was on the quantity of jobs facilitated by new development and this proposal certainly delivers well in excess of the Local Plan target of 1 new job per dwelling for major development sites. We have had some success in recent years, securing large scale inward investment from significant sized convenience and online retail employers in the west of the district. However, over the same period, we have seen both our district wage profile and levels of productivity stagnate or decline. We have experienced an increase in typically lower paid part time employment, persistent issues of poverty and low average workplace and resident earnings.

More recently with the rapid increase in unemployment following from the economic impact of the C-19 pandemic, we have seen younger workers (18-24yrs) disproportionately affected by increased levels of redundancies. It is worth noting that the particular mix of employment uses being proposed, along with the wellbeing focus and leisure elements of the scheme will both attract and benefit this demographic.

What is now more widely understood is that it is not simply the number, but the quality of new employment which should be the focus of our attention in considering proposed commercial development. As a district with an aging demographic and an over- reliance on less productive tourism and agricultural employment, we want to promote high skilled roles, productive workplaces, digital engagement and attractive careers to help retain younger workers, improve average earnings and career prospects.

The submitted economic assessment (July 2020) sets out how both a high quantity and quality of new employment will be achieved through the delivery of 15,816m2 of modern, high quality B1(a/b/c), D1 and D2 workspace. This will accommodate more than 1,381 new varied and skilled jobs across higher value sectors in which East Devon is currently underrepresented (such as financial, digital, insurance), generating a gross anticipated £100.12m in additional GVA p/a in the local economy. Further analysis factoring in employment displacement identified a net increase of 945 full and part time jobs, a 0.6% increase in economic output and a £67.43m contribution to the Greater Exeter economy.

20/1001/MOUT page 80

Having seen the delivery of new jobs fall behind the provision of new housing in East Devon since the adoption of our Local Plan, we would welcome a rebalancing that this scheme would unquestionably contribute towards.

We have sought to defend the permitted employment use of this unique allocated site while its buildings fell out of active use and the site became dormant. We could not have anticipated and have been pleasantly surprised to see a development opportunity of this significance emerge comprising such a substantial and compelling series of employment uses which go far beyond the simple reinstatement of the original offices.

We warmly welcome the opportunity to recommend support to a mixed use development which seeks to deliver an increased level of valuable employment use, so far in excess of the enabling residential component.

From an Economic Development perspective, the scale, diverse range and overall quality of the employment offer within this proposed development warrants the strongest possible support.

Green Infrastructure Project Manager – Simon Bates

01.07.2020

Many thanks for consulting me on this application. Overview The Exeter and East Devon Growth Point (2009) “Green Infrastructure Study and Strategy” identifies Winslade Park as a priority for enhancement. We therefore very much welcome the commitment to enhance the biodiversity, landscape and heritage value of the parkland and woodland that forms Zone K of the application, and to make most of Zone K accessible to the public.

The application has the potential to deliver part of the Clyst Valley Trail. The Clyst Valley Trail will form the backbone of the Clyst Valley Regional Park (Strategy 10 of our Local Plan) and is supported by Devon County Council and the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan.

Relevant EDDC  Strategy 5 – Environment Local Plan  Strategy 5B – Sustainable Transport Policies  Strategy 10 – Clyst Valley Regional Park  Strategy 47 - Nature Conservation and Geology

Additional information  A green infrastructure framework plan is missing, so it is required: unclear precisely which areas are to provide Public Open Space and public rights of way, and how they relate to the existing network and the proposed Clyst Valley Trail.

20/1001/MOUT page 81

 The Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) lacks a Habitats Regulations Assessment but adverse impact on European wildlife sites is likely and the development needs to demonstrate clearly how that impact is to be mitigated.

 Confirmation that no additional vehicular access to Church Lane is proposed by this application. Church Lane is a quiet greenway and a cul-de-sac and is a vital part of the sustainable movement network.

Conditions  Minimum 10% biodiversity net gain  Landscaping scheme  Landscape & Ecological Management Plan (LEMP)  Construction & Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) with specific details on soil protection  Detailed layout and design, including pedestrian footpaths and cycleways

S106 Heads of To include commuted sums for delivery of enhancements to Terms sustainable transport, and European wildlife site mitigation.

I support the DCC Highways request for a contribution of £100,000 to be secured via S106 obligation for upgrading the Winslade Park traffic lights as part of the Clyst Valley Trail scheme.

I note DCC have asked for improvements between the village hall and the primary school, and to Footpath No 3, including changes to two pinch points to make them easier for pedestrians and cyclist to negotiate. These are shown on Plan 2 (below) and further commuted sums are required to deliver these schemes.

Sustainable Transport Plans 1 & 2 below are offered to inform the GI framework plan which is presently missing. The Clyst Valley Trail would benefit new residents of Winslade Park by providing a safe, mainly off-road route by bicycle, mobility scooter/wheelchair, and on foot to the award-winning Exe estuary trail at Dart’s Farm. It will also improve bicycle access to Newcourt rail station less than 3 km away for commuters.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me for help with wording conditions and S106 obligations.

Landscape Architect – Chris Harriades

30.06.2020

5.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

20/1001/MOUT page 82

5.1 Acceptability of proposals

Notwithstanding the planning policy conflicts in respect of Zone A, the proposals as submitted are also considered to be in conflict with Local Plan policies D1, D2 and D3. Amendments and further information is required as noted at section 4 above before an final judgement can be made on the overall acceptability of the proposals in terms of landscape and visual impact/ design and the adequacy of green infrastructure provision.

5.2 Landscape conditions

In the event that amended information as noted above is secured and 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) Hard landscape details showing the location, height, extent, design, materials and finishes of all walls, retaining structures, fencing, pavings and edgings, site furniture, external lighting and signage. b) Details of existing and proposed levels, earthworks and detailed drainage scheme incorporating appropriate SuDS features. c) 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 and means of protection. d) Plant schedule indicating the form, size, numbers and density of proposed planting. e) Soft landscape specification covering soil quality, depth, cultivation and amelioration; planting, sowing and turfing; mulching and means of plant support and protection during establishment period. f) Tree pit and staking/ guying details including soil volume calculations for trees in or adjacent to hard paving. g) Measures for protection of existing perimeter trees/ undisturbed ground during construction phase in accordance with BS5837: 2012. Approved protective measures shall be implemented prior to commencement of construction and maintained in sound condition for the duration of the works.

2 The works shall be executed in accordance with the approved drawings and details and shall be completed prior to first use of the proposed building(s) in accordance with an approved phasing programme with the exception of planting which shall be completed no later than the first planting season following first use for that phase.

3 No development shall take place until a detailed Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) for a minimum period of 25 years has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which should include the following details:

Extent, ownership and responsibilities for management and maintenance. Details of how the management and maintenance of open space will be funded for the life of the development.

20/1001/MOUT page 83

Inspection arrangements for existing and proposed trees and hedgerows and monitoring of bio-diversity net-gain. Management and maintenance of trees and hedgerow. Management and maintenance of shrub, herbaceous and grass areas. Management of ecological habitat, maintenance of any ecological mitigation measures and further measures for enhancement of biodiversity value. Management and maintenance of any boundary structures, drainage swales and other infrastructure/ facilities within public areas.

Maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan. 4 Any new planting or grass areas which fail to make satisfactory growth or which dies within five years following completion of the development shall be replaced with plants of similar size and species to the satisfaction of the LPA. (Reason - In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Strategy 3 (Sustainable Development), Strategy 4 (Balanced Communities), Strategy 5 (Environment), Strategy 43 (Open Space Standards), Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and Policy D2 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan. The landscaping scheme is required to be approved before development starts to ensure that it properly integrates into the development from an early stage.)

Landscape Architect – Chris Harriades

09.10.2020

This report forms EDDC’s landscape and green infrastructure response to additional and amended information recently submitted in support of the above application. The report provides a review of landscape related information submitted in relation to adopted policy, relevant guidance, current best practice and existing site context and should be read in conjunction with the submitted information and the previous landscape response dated 26 June 2020.

2 REVIEW OF ADDITOANL/AMENDED DETAILS

2.1 Zone A The retention of the existing Clyst Valley football ground in its current location is welcomed.

While the application for the remaining proposed housing area is outline and proposed layout therefore indicative, there is nothing in the amended plans or descriptions to suggest that the scheme will be anything other than an unremarkable suburban style layout that fails to meet the principles of the National Design Guide and other recognised housing design guidance.

As development of the site is not supported by local or neighbourhood plan policies approval of housing here would be an exception to Local Plan Strategy 26B, which is itself acknowledged in the Local Plan to be an exception site. If approval was to be considered for Zone A housing it should require an exceptional design embodying zero-carbon and sustainable travel principles and life style. .

20/1001/MOUT page 84

2.2 Zone B The reduction in height and breaking up of the building mass into two units is an improvement which will reduce the visual impact of the development in views from the main open space to the north and the A376 to the south.

The provision of cycle storage between the two buildings is also positive.

Parking provision remains excessive in relation to proposed gross floor area (see further comments on parking at section 2.6 below).

The illustrative perspectives provided are helpful in conveying the appearance and impact of the proposed buildings but sections through the centre of each of them should be provided to include the woodland to the south and edge of the sports field to the north.

2.3 Zone C There is still no clarity on how the Zone C open space is intended to operate, its accessibility to the general public and arrangements for booking/ charging for the pitches/ courts.

The proposed NEAP remains in much the same location as in the previous layout. The planning statement addendum confidently asserts the location affords excellent natural surveillance but this is not the case. The location is not overlooked by any buildings and it is questionable whether the adjacent footpath will have much use outside of peak times other than by occasional dog walkers and especially not at night when there would be little to deter vandalism and other nefarious activities from taking place un-noticed.

It appears that no fencing is now proposed around the various pitches but this should be confirmed including requirements for any ball-stop fencing.

A line of close spaced timber bollards is now proposed within the grass verge around the perimeter of the open space to prevent vehicular access. The hundreds of bollards required will have a visual impact on the space and further detail is required for this. Consideration should also be given to providing low trip rail with frequent breaks for pedestrian access instead. In either case posts should be set in hard paving to avoid the time consuming maintenance chore of having to regularly mow/strim around the base of each post.

2.4 Zone D The reduction in scale of the Zone D housing block is welcomed. The submitted CGI image provides some indication of likely appearance and the spatial relationships with its surroundings but is taken from an aerial viewpoint. Accurate sections should also be provided to include the manor house to the south and the woodland strip and adjoining dwellings to the north, one drawn through the centreline of the manor house and the other at the point to the west where the building line first steps in. Sections should show the full canopy extent of the existing trees.

2.5 Zones E-J

20/1001/MOUT page 85

The primary concern here remains the over-provision of parking spaces which will have an adverse visual impact on the site and setting of historical features and encourage excessive car use exacerbating congestion problems on the already overcrowded local road network. In many instances the parking layout also compromises tree root protection areas.

It is noted that Zone J car parking extends substantially beyond the site land allocation within the Local Plan (refer figure 1 above).

In response to previous comments additional tree planting has been introduced into proposed car parking areas. While this is welcome it is noted that due to space restrictions these are entirely surrounded by hard surfacing and will require extensive tree pits extending under paving utilising crated soil or structural soil systems to ensure that new tree planting will thrive and reach expected mature size. This will be costly but could be used positively as part of the SuDS drainage strategy.

2.6 Car parking generally Parking provision serving the commercial buildings remains excessively high. According to the amended Design and Access Statement (page 85) Zone B parking is provided at a ratio of 1 space per 21m2 gross floor area (GFA), while there is even higher provision for Zone E (manor house) at 1 space per 18m2 and Zone H at 1 space per 17m2.

By comparison parking provision at Exeter Science Park is limited to 1 space/35m2 GFA. Given the proximity of the site to Exeter and the good public transport and cycle footpath links to the site there seems no justification for an increase in the commercial parking ratio for this site beyond 1 space /35m2 GFA particularly for a post-COVID age where workers are more likely to be working regularly from home.

2.7 Bus/ coach provision There still does not appear to be any consideration for bus and coach parking/ turning within the scheme. Omitting the parking bays to the east side of Zone B would enable a bus waiting/ turning area to be provided.

2.8 Green Infrastructure There remains a lack of clarity on the extent of freely accessible public open space to be provided with the scheme and this should be clarified.

Provision for cycle storage generally seems to be acceptable. However, confirmation should be provide that charging points will be available for e-bikes.

The DAS notes that shower/ changing facilities will be provided for cyclists at the Manor House but similar provision should be provided for each office block. A SuDS drainage strategy should be provided.

2.9 Other matters It is noted that a new bridge crossing of Gribble Brook is proposed to the southeast of Zone B. This is shown as 6m width which seems excessive given that it leads into a 2m footpath to the south side. It is unclear why such a wide structure is required and

20/1001/MOUT page 86

unless there is sound justification the width should be reduced to 3.5m to allow occasional vehicular maintenance access.

3.0 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS The amended designs are generally an improvement on the original scheme particularly in respect of Zones B, C and D but the extent of car parking remains a key concern. Further information and amendment is required as noted above and in my previous response before the scheme could be considered acceptable in terms of landscape design and impact.

Any decision to approve the application should be subject to landscape conditions as previously noted.

Other Representations

203 representations have been received as a result of this application over the course of 3 consultation periods 178 raise objections, 23 support the proposal and there are two representations.

The reasons for objecting can be summarised as follows:

- Retaining all of the buildings on site and building on a green field is overdevelopment of the site; - Extending the car park in a flood zone, what will happen to the cars at times of flood?; - The public consultation showed considerably different plans than have been submitted for the application; - Development outside the allocation should not be allowed; - Traffic movements created by all the employees and all the houses will lead to gridlock without substantial highway infrastructure improvements; - The traffic ‘rat runs’ will be further exacerbated; - The majority of the field is grade 3a BMV; - Loss of wildlife habitats including bats and deer; - No local need for more housing having already delivered 100 houses in the local area; - Impact on the setting of the grade II* listed manor house not outweighed by benefits; - Amendments have been made but not gone far enough; - How will the community be able to use the facilities?; - Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise." The application to build on a greenfield site in open countryside and on a site subject to flooding is clearly against the policies and strategies of both the NPPF and East Devon Local Plan. There are no material considerations put forward by the applicant that would override this and the application must therefore be determined by these policies and strategies which means it must be refused; - The outline application should not have been accepted as there is not enough detail given; - Poor design of apartment block in Zone D, agree with the conclusions of the conservation officer;

20/1001/MOUT page 87

- Impact from residential development in Zone D on the amenity of nearby residents; - Bungalows should be provided to the boundaries of Zone A; - Excessive impact on highways, health, educational and transport services; - This exceptional, distinctive, historic landscape deserves a quality approach rather than one displaying quantity to safeguard and truly enhance this small, rural East Devon village; - Framework travel plan is not up to scratch; - How will Clyst St Mary roundabout cope?; - The walking and cycling routes to the site need to be improved; - Scale of development is inappropriate in this area; - The local sewerage network is already at capacity; - How does this development comply with the 10 point National Design Guidance?; - 40 units in Zone D is overdevelopment of the site, especially when the public consultation showed 14 houses; - Subdivision of the large office blocks will create more employees than the applicant’s state and therefore increased traffic;

The letters of support praise the redevelopment of redundant buildings and support pubic and school access to the site and its facilities.

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

14/2638/LBC Renovation works to secure Withdrawn 14.10.2015 the continued use of the building for B1(a) purposes. Removal of the modern bridge link between the Manor House and Winslade House.

14/2637/OUT Demolition of Brook House and Refusal 20.05.2016 Clyst House and outline application (seeking to discharge means of access only) for up to 217 new dwellings, 1805 sq metres of B1(A) and D1 commercial floorspace, together with replacement sports facilities comprising two football pitches, a 5-a-side football pitch, a cricket pitch and sports pavilion, and associated development including parking and access.

20/1001/MOUT page 88

14/2640/MFUL Conversion of the building from Refusal 20.05.2016 current B1(a) office use to 61 (C3) residential units and provision of basement car park

14/2641/LBC Conversion of Winslade House Approval 20.05.2016 from B1(a) office to 61 (C3) with residential units and provision conditions of basement car park

16/2460/MOUT Hybrid application for 150 Withdrawn 04.03.2020 dwellings and 0.7ha of employment land (Use Class B1) to include full permission for 67 dwellings (conversion of Winslade House and The Stables) and outline permission seeking means of access only for up to 83 dwellings, new workplace units of 1809 sq. m along with associated infrastructure.

16/2461/LBC Conversion of Winslade House Withdrawn 04.03.2020 and The Stables to 67 dwellings

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 4 (Balanced Communities)

(Strategy 5 (Environment)

Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside)

Strategy 26B (Re-development of Redundant Offices Complex at Winslade Park and Land Adjoining Clyst St Mary

Strategy 34 (District Wide Affordable Housing Provision Targets)

Strategy 43 (Open Space Standards)

20/1001/MOUT page 89

Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs)

Strategy 49 (The Historic Environment)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D2 (Landscape Requirements)

D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

D8 (Re-use of Rural Buildings Outside of Settlements)

EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features)

EN8 (Significance of Heritage Assets and their setting)

EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset)

EN13 (Development of High Quality Agricultural Land)

EN14 (Control of Pollution)

EN21 (River and Coastal Flooding)

EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development)

H2 (Range and Mix of New Housing Development)

H3 (Conversion of Existing Dwellings and Other Buildings to Flats)

E5 (Small Scale Economic Development in Rural Areas)

RC1 (Retention of Land for Sport and Recreation)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development)

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

Strategy 50 (Infrastructure Delivery)

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework)

National Planning Practice Guidance

Other Plans

Bishops Clyst Neighbourhood Plan

20/1001/MOUT page 90

BiC05 (Maintaining Local Character)

BiC06 (Improving Footpaths and Links)

BiC18 (Pedestrian Links to and from New Housing Developments)

BiC19 (Local Green Space)

BiC20 (Protecting Existing Sport Facilities)

Site Location and Description

The site is located to the south of the village of Clyst St Mary, and in recent times has acted as a headquarters for London & Manchester, and subsequently Friends Life, and other office uses. It is commonly known as Winslade Park and comprises a number of relatively modern office buildings (Winslade House, Brook House and Clyst House) a Grade II* listed building (Winslade Park), 35 hectares of land including land used as football and cricket pitches, car parking, recreational land, associated buildings, parkland and former leisure facilities. The principal access to the site is directly from the A376 Exeter to Exmouth road, with accesses from Church Road into car parking.

Proposed Development

This application is a hybrid application and listed building application which proposes some development in outline with all matters reserved except for access and for the remainder of development full planning permission. Listed building consent being sought for works to listed buildings to allow their conversion to modern business use.

The application seeks to provide a modern mixed-use campus comprising modern office and employment facilities in a parkland setting with associated residential development and on-site recreational facilities.

The outline application seeks permission for:

- Up to 94 residential units split over two parts of the site (indicatively shown as Zone A – up to 54 dwellings and Zone D – up to 40 dwellings) - Improved sport pitches (football, cricket and tennis courts on Zone C) - Provision of parkland recreation routes (Zone K)

The full application seeks permission for:

- Mixed use of Winslade Manor and Winslade House (B1, A3, D2) (Zone E) - An extension to the leisure facilities to create improved facilities and a restaurant/café (Zone F) - An extension to Brook House for employment use (Zone G) - Extension to existing car park (Zone J)

Zone B was originally proposed to accommodate additional employment/office development but has been withdrawn from the application.

20/1001/MOUT page 91

Zone H relates to Clyst House and this is proposed to remain in office use, being refurbished internally by the applicant.

There is a very small element of B8 use within a small service building to the east of Clyst House that would serve small vans and would not generate any HGV activity.

The listed building application seeks consent for:

Internal and external works/alterations to Winslade Manor, Winslade House, the stables leisure building and the Terrace, refurbishment of the buildings for office use and the Terrace for amenity space. These works fall within Zones E and F.

ANALYSIS

The main considerations in the determination of this application relate to

- The principle of the proposed development - Loss of agricultural land - Appropriate assessment - Affordable housing/viability - Impact on the setting of the listed building(s) - Works to existing buildings to form office/leisure facilities - Impact on highway safety - Connectivity - Impact upon residential amenity - Flooding/surface water drainage - Landscaping - Ecology - Sports facilities - Clyst Valley Trail - Other issues including planning obligations - Planning balance and conclusion

Principle of the proposed development

The site lies outside of the defined settlement of Clyst St Mary as contained within the Villages Plan SPD. However, part of this site forms an allocation in the EDDC Local Plan under Strategy 26B and as identified on the proposals map. The Strategy states:

Land is allocated on the southern side of Clyst St Mary village, as shown on the Proposals Map for the conversion and redevelopment of redundant office buildings for residential uses with capacity to accommodate around 150 dwellings and to include 0.7 hectares of land (or retained office space equivalent in existing buildings) to provide B1 office employment uses.

The proposed development seeks to retain the majority of the employment buildings on site, build up to 94 residential units, with up to 40 residential units indicatively shown in the car park opposite Winslade Manor and up to 54 residential units indicatively shown on land to the east of the existing Clyst St Mary Football Club pitch. Accordingly,

20/1001/MOUT page 92

the proposal, mainly by way of the proposed residential use of Zone A (although also partly due to the increased employment floorspace and reduced housing numbers compared to the allocation), represents a departure from the East Devon Local Plan and has been advertised as such by way of newspaper advertisements and site notices. There is no Neighbourhood Plan policy that specifically relates to the site or allocation.

With regard to the use of Zone A for housing, this falls to be considered under Strategy 7 of the EDDC Local Plan where development should only be permitted if it is in accordance with another policy contained in the plan. There are no other policies in the EDDC Local Plan or Bishops Clyst Neighbourhood that would support housing of this scale in this location and as such the proposal does not gain any support from policies in the Development Plan.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that:

“where in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material consideration indicates otherwise.”

As such, an assessment is required regarding whether any adverse impacts from the proposal, when considered as a whole, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

The report will therefore examine whether approving this development, which runs contrary to Strategy 26B of the EDDC Local Plan and does not gain support from any other specific Local or Neighbourhood Plan policies, would amount to sustainable development and whether there are other material considerations that weigh in favour of the proposal such that they outweigh any harm caused by the proposals that would justify the grant of planning permission.

The remainder of the report will therefore run through the key issues with a balance made at the end with regard to weighing up any harm and benefits from the proposal.

Loss of agricultural land

Zone A, where some of the residential development is proposed, is currently an agricultural field, where the loss of agricultural land is proposed an assessment must be made as to whether it is the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a). Policy EN13 of the EDDC Local Plan and advice contained in the NPPF suggest that agricultural land falling in Grade 1, 2 or 3a should not be lost where there are sufficient areas of lower grade land available or the benefits of development justify the loss of the high quality land.

An assessment of agricultural land quality, involving a desktop study and a detailed Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) survey has been undertaken (in 2015) to determine the quality of the land in Zone A. A survey of the single field which amounts to approximately 2.5 hectares has found that 1.7 hectares or 68% of the site is limited to subgrade 3(a) land and the remainder 0.6 hectares or 32% is subgrade 3(b) land.

20/1001/MOUT page 93

Whilst it is considered that the loss of 1.5 hectares of the higher quality land is regrettable, where it is not physically connected to land of a similar quality (as in this instance) and as there are large amounts of other land in the locality of higher quality, it is considered that the loss would not significantly harm agricultural interests or the national food supply. Therefore, should the benefits of the proposal outweigh any perceived harm it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with Policy EN13 and advice contained in the NPPF (paragraph 170).

Habitat Regulations and Appropriate Assessment:

Natural England has advised that an Appropriate Assessment must be carried out as the site lies within close proximity of the Exe Estuary and Pebblebed Heaths, this assessment must consider whether the proposal will adequately mitigate any likely significant effects of the aforementioned areas. This report represents the Appropriate Assessment.

The delivery of SANGS is critical within East Devon, Exeter and Teignbridge; they are required to deliver a genuine alternative to visiting the Exe Estuary and Pebblebed Heaths for local residents to exercise, walk dogs, etc.

In protecting land for SANGS, it is critical to ensure that it is deliverable and provides the best use of resources. Work has taken place on delivery of such SANGs across the three authorities. The joint strategy between the authorities proposes 4 SANGS across the area these being at the following locations: o Dawlish Warren o South West Exeter o Cranbrook o Exmouth

The delivery of the mitigation strategy is overseen by the South East Devon Habitat Regulations Partnership which includes representatives from East Devon, Exeter and Teignbridge Councils. Significant progress is being made with delivery of the first two of these spaces with monies having been identified for purchase of these sites and in the case of the Dawlish Warren SANGS work is understood to be underway for its delivery. Negotiations are on-going with the Cranbrook consortium regarding the third SANGS area but it is envisaged that the necessary SANGS area will be delivered as part of the expansion areas. This just leaves the Exmouth SANGS, however Natural England are content that the required mitigation is being delivered across the wider area through the partnership and acknowledge that the Exmouth SANGS can come forward later in the plan period. It is considered to be the least significant of the 4 in mitigation terms because of the relatively modest levels of housing development proposed in the Local Plan for Exmouth compared to the other areas where SANGS are required. This is not however to diminish its importance in terms of delivery of the overall strategy.

The site itself is not considered to be a suitable area for SANGS due to its restricted size and interconnectivity with other such areas.

20/1001/MOUT page 94

Given that SANGS is being provided within the District to mitigate development, and given that the development will contribute financially to the provision of these areas through CIL payments and a financial contribution that can be secured off the back of this application, it is considered that the proposal adequately mitigates any impacts upon the Pebblebed Heaths and Exe Estuary and will not result in any likely significant effects.

Natural England have advised that, on the basis of the appropriate financial contributions being secured to the South-east Devon European Sites Mitigation Strategy (SEDESMS), they concur with your authority's conclusion that the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of Dawlish Warren SAC, the Exe Estuary SPA and Exe Estuary RAMSAR site.

Subject therefore to securing the necessary financial contribution through a S.106 Agreement, the proposal will not have any likely significant effects and is acceptable in this regard.

Affordable housing/viability

The site is not recognised as one of those which would benefit from a reduced level of affordable housing, and the site does not form part of an affordable housing rural exemption scheme, therefore the Local Plan envisages that the site should provide 50% affordable housing. The applicant's agents have provided a viability assessment indicating that it is not viable to provide the 50% target.

This is a hybrid application where full detailed permission is sought for the redevelopment of the existing office and leisure buildings and only outline consent is sought for the sports pitches and sports pavilions, housing and enhancement of the parkland as a recreation route

The application as originally submitted considered that Vacant Building Credit (VBC) was relevant to the scheme and that on this basis the scheme should not provide any affordable houses (save for the 10% of those on zone A as a benefit to the community). VBC is a credit given to developers to incentivise the re-use of brown field land to either bring buildings back into an active use or by demolishing buildings and re-using the sites for housing. However, as the office buildings are being brought back into use as their existing lawful office use (rather than being converted to residential use), the Local Planning Authority question whether vacant building credit is applicable in this instance, especially when the applicant was using the existing office floorspace to offset the provision of affordable housing on greenfield land on another part of the site.

However, as the two parties had differing views on the relevance of vacant building credit, to provide a clear picture on viability the applicant was asked to prepare a viability appraisal for assessment.

The Council's adopted guidance on Planning Obligations provides clear commentary on applications where there is a viability concern, especially at the outline stage, as follows:

20/1001/MOUT page 95

'CIL regulations requires calculation of CIL liability to be based on actual net floor area. This poses a difficulty for any outline application where the actual net floor area is either not provided, or provided in relation to an indicative plan only. As it is the actual (and not an indicative) figure that would be needed to undertake the calculations in relation to CIL, exact costs for calculating CIL, and indeed for developing the scheme remain unknown at outline stage. In these cases the amount of net floor area for the development will not be pinned down until the reserved matters application. This gives rise to issues in relation to proving viability when relying on an indicative scheme at outline stage. This highlights a clear tension around accepting reduced contributions due to viability on outline applications. There are two ways that this issue could be addressed:

1) Accept the use of viability appraisals at outline stage, and require the details of the scheme that justify the viability conclusions to be pinned down. For example, if a scheme was for 9 three bed houses with a total floor space of 891 square metres, would have a viability appraisal prepared on this basis and the outline would pin this down. The completed scheme would then still need to be subject to viability appraisal on completion to assess whether or not any overage payment was due under a section 106 obligation.

2) Accept that at the moment the indicative viability indicates that there may be a viability issue with the scheme but this could only be confirmed at reserved matters stage, when full details of the scheme are known. A Section 106 agreement would be required that sets out the mechanisms by which the current viability appraisal would be tested, adjusted, or redone, as required at reserved matters stage. The Section 106 agreement would also then set out the requirement for a viability appraisal of the completed scheme, and how the assessment of any overage payment would be undertaken.'

As part of the submission, a viability appraisal was submitted indicating that due to costs of refurbishment of the listed buildings, redevelopment of the existing buildings to bring them up to a modern useable standard, site preparation, the upgrading of the existing swimming pool and leisure facilities, provision of football pitches, cricket pitch and tennis courts together with pavilion, and provision of a neighbourhood equipped area for play (NEAP), the scheme could not afford any affordable housing on site. This appraisal has been tested by the Council's Development Delivery Project Manager using up to date values, costs and predicted sales values taking into account the local property market and has been found to be sound. However, the developer is willing to reduce their expected profit levels (projected at 20% prior to the removal of Zone B) to accommodate 10% affordable housing as a benefit to the local community on zone A (5.4 units), which is seen as a benefit to the scheme. This will also, alongside the removal of the offices previously proposed in Zone B, reduce their profit to a more reasonable level below 20%.

Furthermore, the developer has indicated, through their viability appraisal, the floor area of each dwelling type and the number of units of that type to be built and therefore, it is reasonable to take the approach outlined in paragraph 1 above and pin down this floor space in a legal agreement together with an overage clause to ensure that a percentage of any 'super profit' is re-cooped into providing additional affordable

20/1001/MOUT page 96

housing. In discussions with the applicant and their agent, it has been agreed that a review of viability would take place at the end of each agreed phase of development and any monies from any such 'super profit' would enable additional affordable houses to be built on site (rather than through a commuted sum to be built elsewhere in the town/district) in the final phase of development. All of which would need to be agreed in a suitably worded clause in a section 106 agreement.

Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with the Council's adopted Planning Obligations SPD and Strategy 50 of the East Devon Local Plan together with guidance in the NPPF and NPPG.

Impact on the setting of the listed building(s)

Built in the late 18th/ early 19th century, the neo-Palladian country house, Winslade Manor, was designed with a plain restrained appearance with later embellishment through applied architectural details. The interior retains much of its original plan form and features, including doors, staircase and extensive plasterwork. It focal point and architectural climax is the central atrium that cuts through the building with light provided via a glazed dome. Due to the surviving quality of the building's interior and exterior, Winslade Manor is listed at grade II*, due to its more than special interest. The buildings attached to it (Winslade House) are also considered to be Grade II*.

Section 66 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes a duty on Local Planning Authorities to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

The foremost building that is visible on approach when travelling up the long entrance drive is Winslade Manor, the application as originally submitted proposed to erect a new B1/D1 office/service building on an existing car park on approach to the house (as part of the full application) indicated on the proposed site plan as Zone B. Throughout its various iterations of design and layout there were serious concerns expressed by officers and Historic England that the two storey building's location would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the grade II* listed building, through negotiation with the applicant this building has now been withdrawn from the proposal.

Plans to increase the size of Brook House have the potential to impact on the setting of the listed church, the rear of Winslade House and the former stables area (Zone F). However, it is considered that the setting of both these assets have already been compromised by Brook House and its car park such that any extension would lead to less than substantial harm to these assets, the weighing up of this harm against the public benefits of the proposal will be undertaken at the end of this section of the report.

Another part of the site that is listed is the ornamental terrace walk extending 120 metres east-west along the north bank of Grindle Brook. Early 19th Century rendered

20/1001/MOUT page 97

brick on Heavitree and limestone rubble plinth. The walk is laid out along the artificially widened brook which runs here in a wide ornamental meander with arbour to west, low wall with piers at angles, all with fielded panels, with a central projection into the water. The application proposes a number of positive works to this area including the reinstatement of part of the Ornamental Terrace's balustrade and axial path that historically lead down from the house to the river, as well as opening up public access along the river bank. Concern has been expressed by Historic England that the positive works would be undermined by the proximity of the car park to the ornamental terrace and a more robust buffer between the parking and the terrace should be provided. Amended plans have been received indicating a landscaped hedging buffer whose details should be secured through an appropriately worded condition. It is therefore considered that the proposed works are a benefit to the scheme, enhancing the setting of the terrace and walkway without compromising its setting through the provision of parking spaces.

Whilst in outline, it is important to consider the impact that the proposed apartment building(s), indicated on the site plan accompanying the outline application as Zone D, would have on the setting of both Winslade Manor and its attached buildings (Grade II* listed) and the church (Grade II listed). The illustrative plans originally submitted with the application indicated a large building spanning the width of the existing car park to a maximum height of 3 stories and containing 59 apartments, the width of the building through discussion was reduced to provide up to 40 apartments. Historic England, through their consultation responses, indicate that they are content to support the principle of residential development on part of the car park, however, the current arrangement set out in the visualisation is for a substantial three storey linear range. This indicates that a structure of significant scale and mass would be needed to accommodate the quantum of development proposed and therefore would not appear recessive or subservient in views to or from Winslade Manor.

Amended illustrative plans have been provided indicating the apartment building containing up to 40 apartments being split into 3 separate buildings with open space between them to give views through the tree belt behind and reducing the significant mass of building creating a more open and pleasing residential environment that appears less like an office block. There would be at least 70 meters between the nearest part of Winslade House and the apartments and almost 100 metres between Winslade Manor and the apartments. It is acknowledged that there is limited detail contained on the illustrative plans and these details would not be approved until any reserve matters stage. At any reserve matters stage the design, bulk and height of these units will need careful consideration and may necessitate a scheme of less than 40 dwellings depending up the design, layout and impact.

Accordingly, whilst there would be an impact on the setting of the heritage assets, where great weigh should be given to the conservation of Winslade Park whose grade II* listed status gives it high significance, this impact would be a less than substantial harm, in such circumstances Paragraph 196 of the NPPF indicates that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. In this instance the development on zone D and the extension to Brook House represent part of an extensive scheme affecting a number of assets across a large site where there would be significant investment to bring the heritage assets and other vacant building back into their lawful uses together

20/1001/MOUT page 98

with providing extensions to these buildings, upgrading the historic parkland and sports pitches and allowing public access to the site, where the viability is marginal and requires a certain quantum of housing development take place to incentivise the developer into undertaking any of these works. The design of the apartments will be key to the success of any future reserved matters approval in providing the recessive impact that is considered most important should this be achieved then it is considered that the quantum of development proposed in taking the whole quantum of development proposed across Zones A and D in providing up to 94 residential units (houses and apartments) can be achieved without detrimentally impacting upon the setting of Winslade Manor, Winslade House or the church.

The proposal is considered to be acceptable in accordance with Policy EN9 of the EDDC Local Plan, the NPPF and Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Works to existing buildings/leisure facilities

The majority of the existing buildings on site have lawful uses as B1 offices, these uses would be re-instated and the buildings brought up to a modern office standard which weigh in favour of the proposal. The internal works to Winslade Manor and Winslade House, which are listed, are subject to listed building application 20/1003/LBC.

The woks to Winslade Manor are of the foremost importance given that this is the most valuable heritage asset on site because of its internal and external architecture and historic features. The Conservation Officer is content to support the proposals as explained in the schedule of works, save for a few matters that require additional details to be submitted, these will be addressed through appropriately worded conditions on the listed building consent. These refurbishment works to secure the future of the building in office use weigh in favour of the proposal.

The works to Winslade House would be purely functional/cosmetic so that the buildings can more easily be broken down into smaller offices for different companies or retained as one larger office building depending upon what the market requires at the point of letting it to the market and to provide restaurant/café facilities for the employees. The value of Winslade House is from its external design and as such the internal; changes are acceptable and as with Winslade Manor, the investment in the refurbishment of the building to retain it in modern office use is welcomed and weighs in favour of the proposal.

Concerns have been expressed by the Council’s Conservation Officer and Historic England regarding the impact of the extensions to the stables leisure building. The extension would provide for enhanced facilities and catering provision, the height of the extension would be above the height of the existing building however, this would only be discernible when viewed from a long distance. In balancing the impact of the proposed extension of a historic heritage asset whose setting has been diminished over the years through the building of Winslade House and Brook House and whose character is purely locational (used historically as stables in connection with Winslade Manor) rather than though its historic features, it is considered that the enhanced facilities that would be open to employees and the local primary school would have a

20/1001/MOUT page 99

public benefit that would outweigh the less than substantial harm that the extensions would have.

Accordingly, the proposed works and extensions to the listed and non-listed buildings are considered appropriate in compliance with Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended), Policies D1 and EN9 of the EDDC Local Plan and advice contained in the NPPF.

Impact on highway safety

There has been a significant amount of concerns raised by local residents and the parish council regarding the proposal in terms of the amount of traffic it would generate and the impact that this would have on the local and strategic road network. However, it is important to consider the existing lawful use of the site and how much traffic that would generate should it be used to its maximum capacity together with the new/improved facilities and houses proposed to see how much additional traffic would be generated.

Existing situation

The extant B1a (offices) planning permission covers a floor area of 22,369 square metres together with an extant planning permission that provides for 2,127 square metres of D2 (gym/leisure) use, equating to 24,496 square metres, whilst the buildings associated with these uses have not been in an active use for a number of years, the permissions granted remain lawful and could be used to their full potential without the need for any further planning permission. This must therefore form a baseline for consideration of the application.

Proposed use traffic generation

The proposed increase/change in floor area would be as follows: o Zone E - Removal of Temporary Pre Fab building - 407sqm o Zone F - Proposed extension - Use Class D2 - 443sqm o Zone G - Proposed extension - Use Class B1 - 767sqm o Zones A and D 94 residential units.

These figures do not include Zone B - Proposed new commercial building - Use Class B1/D1 - 2,285 square metres as this has now been withdrawn from the application, however, the comments from some consultees will not reflect this as it has been withdrawn at a very advanced stage of the determination of the application.

The applicant has employed a transport consultant, Hydrock, to undertake a transport assessment which has been considered by Highways England and Devon County Highways. Highways England's role is to determine the likely impact of the increase in traffic on the strategic road network, principally the M5 motorway and its junctions with other arterial roads. The applicant's consultant has been in discussion with Highways England through the application to provide additional details and safety reports.

The following advice has been given by Highways England:

20/1001/MOUT page 100

'Highways England's own estimates of traffic generation for the proposed development would suggest that overall trips to the site will increase by +90 in the AM peak hour and +70 in the PM peak hour as a result of the proposed redevelopment’.

Highways England are of the view that the majority of trips generated by the proposed development will pass through M5 Junction 30. However, it is not considered that this scale of increase (compared to the extant use of the site), will have a significant impact on junction performance. Furthermore since zone B has been withdrawn from the proposed development, a further response has been received from Highways England which states the following:

'The removal of the above quantum of development (2656 sqm of B1 Light Industrial Use) will result in a reduction in the number of trips generated by the development to that previously considered by Highways England. We are therefore satisfied that this amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the operation of M5 Junction 30, and that our below recommendation remain appropriate'.

Whilst redevelopment of the Winslade Park site will inevitably add to existing congestion at the motorway junction, we have always accepted that the site has a permitted use and an implied level of traffic generation. In light of the confirmation of extant floor areas, and the revised development proposals, our review now indicates that the increase in traffic associated with the proposed redevelopment of the site is not significant.'

In terms of the access to the main Winslade Park site, the existing traffic lighted junction with the main A376 would remain, an improved access onto the road leading to the Manor House and employment buildings would be formed from the current filed gate to provide access to the houses proposed in the outline application for Zone A and the long access road to the Manor House and other employment buildings would remain, together with access to the proposed residential units in Zone D. The withdrawn area known as Zone B would remain as parking for 176 cars.

There are 901 existing parking spaces on the site which are dedicated to the various employment and leisure activities on site and which are also used for the football pitches, cricket pitch and tennis courts, the majority of these spaces would remain, save for where they would be lost to development, but would be added to in Zone J to ensure that there is sufficient parking available for all types of visitors to the site whether it be for work, leisure or recreation purposes (1012 spaces in total). Concerns have been raised by local residents that the increase in development in the site could lead to increased pressure to park on nearby housing estate roads, however, the parking proposed is considered more than appropriate to cater for the needs of all the visitors involved in the uses on the site; no objections to the amount of parking have been received from DCC Highways Department.

Accordingly, the proposed development is considered acceptable in relation to Policy TC7 of the EDDC Local Plan and advice contained in the NPPF.

Connectivity

20/1001/MOUT page 101

There have been a number of representations received and consultee replies which raise concerns regarding the relationship of the site to the rest of Clyst St Mary and the wider area, particularly with reference to pedestrian links to services in the villages such as the primary school and the convenience store and to public transport links to further afield settlements such as Exeter.

Zone A is proposed to be built immediately adjacent to the built up area boundary of Clyst St Mary where there are links and a pedestrian bridge over the busy A3052 highway to access services.

As the route from Zone A to the footbridge does not benefit from a footway and lighting for the whole of the route (and there being insufficient space to provide a footpath and retain two-way traffic) it is expected that some residents of Zone D will drive to local amenities including the school and village hall. Given this, and given that there is an agreement with the village hall that its car park can be used to drop off children and walk them to the school, the request from DCC Highways to improve the pedestrian link towards the primary school (via a £21,000 contribution) from adjacent to the recent development by Cavanna Homes is considered justified and can be secured through a legal agreement.

Should the parish council wish to use some of the CIL monies that they would receive from the development towards this project that that will be a matter for them to decide upon.

The residents in Zone D would be further away from the settlement, although there is an existing public footpath path to the north of this zone which accessed through the adjacent housing estate and then on towards the main A3052, however, this would be some distance for the main centre of the village and again adds to the justification for the footpath contribution mentioned above. Whilst this is acknowledged this site is allocated for up to 150 homes in the EDDC Local Plan and there is little more that can be done to improve the footpath links to the village form this direction. It is understood that the applicant and their agent have explored the possibility of diverting one of the existing bus routes into and out of the site to improve connectivity, however, until such time as the number of businesses on site increased to a viable level the bus companies cannot commit to a diverted route. This would certainly improve the connectivity of this part of the site with Clyst St Mary and Exeter, although at this stage it is not something that could be insisted upon as reliance lies in the hands of a third party and therefore would not meet the tests of a planning obligation or condition.

The businesses that would operate from the site would also benefit from improved public transport connections, however, as the majority of the buildings are simply being brought back in their lawful use and could operate today without the need for a further grant of planning permission, it would be unreasonable to impose a requirement to divert a bus route into and out of the site. It does seem appropriate, however, to impose a condition requiring the submission of a green travel plan for the entire site to encourage more sustainable forms of transport and initiatives such as car sharing. This has also been requested by Highways England.

Devon County as the Highway Authority have requested that the applicant submit a scheme to improve Clyst St. Mary Footpath 1 that runs through the site. As the

20/1001/MOUT page 102

development will put increased pressure on the use of this footpath it is considered reasonable to secure the submission of improvements (to be agreed with DCC) through any S.106 Agreement.

Overall, whilst recognising the allocation for the site is for significantly higher quantum of residential development which would be more distanced for the settlement, the connectivity to the village of Clyst St Mary is considered acceptable, improved public transport into the site would be welcomed and is something the applicant is actively seeking, therefore is seems appropriate to impose a condition requiring submission of a green travel plan prior to first occupation of any of the employment buildings.

Impact upon the amenity of residents

The main area for impact upon the amenity of residents is through the two housing areas in Zones A and D. Whilst there will be impacts from the employment uses and increased traffic, impact from the employment uses should be no greater than has historically occurred with highway impacts addressed elsewhere in the report and main around traffic numbers rather than noise and disturbance.

Zone A

Residential development on this park of the site will bound the rear of existing dwellings on Clyst Valley Road and Winslade Park Avenue.

As this part of the application is in outline, the exact number of dwellings and layout for this part of the site is unknown at present. However, it is possible to achieve a layout on this part of the site that will protect the amenity of neighbouring residents through a suitable design of dwellings and through ensuring at any reserve matters stage, that adequate separation distances and suitable window positions are proposed.

Given that there is no layout for this part being considered (and as such distances to existing dwellings cannot be assessed), it is not possible to condition that any dwellings adjoining existing dwellings are bungalows/single-storey in height. This can however be considered at the reserve matters stage if necessary and the applicant has noted the benefits that this could achieve. However, should a reserve matters scheme be submitted with suitably designed two-storey dwellings, and/or good separation distances to existing windows and suitable boundary treatment, bungalows may not be necessary.

Zone D

The units within Zone D are again proposed in outline and as such the impact from any final design in terms of height and loss of amenity cannot be fully considered at this stage.

However, given the location of this residential development within the existing car park, with woodland planting behind and distances of approximately 30m to the bottom of the closest gardens and a further 20+ metres to the rear of the closest dwellings on

20/1001/MOUT page 103

Clyst Valley Road, it is clear that a suitable design and layout can be achieve that will not harm the amenity of those residents.

Again this will need carefully consideration at any reserve matters stage, not only to protect residential amenity but to minimise harm to the listed buildings. Should the final design necessitate less than 40 units then this will need to be considered by the applicant.

In addition, any final designs will need to ensure that they adequately protect the amenity of residents, but also ensure that they respect the character of the area as required by policies in the Local and Neighbourhood Plans.

Flooding and drainage

Parts of the application site lie within flood zones 2 and 3 as defined by the Environment Agency's mapping system, in such areas, which are prone to flooding, the Environment Agency advise against development unless the development is a less vulnerable use such as an office or recreational use and the building can be made flood resilient.

The full element of the proposal did propose a new B1 office building in flood zones 2 and 3 (Zone B), however this has now been withdrawn from the proposal. The remaining areas of the proposal that fall within flood zones 2 and 3 would be the extension to the car park in zone J and the parkland walking recreation area in zone K, however these uses are considered to be less vulnerable uses and simply wouldn’t be used in the event of a flood. Concerns have been expressed as to where employees would park in the event of a flood, however, it is also likely that the offices would not be used in the event of a flood due to the close proximity of the Grindle Brook. The Environment Agency raise no objections to the proposed development.

Whilst the access road to the site may be unusable at times of extreme flood events, it is considered that emergency vehicle access can be achieved (as at present) from Church Lane.

The drainage for the existing buildings on site would remain as existing, with the extension to Brook House also draining into the existing drainage system on site. The proposed dwellings in Zone A and Zone D would require new drainage systems and connections, and although submitted in outline, it is important to consider whether a viable drainage solution can be achieved on site prior to granting outline permission, the detail would be secured by condition to be provided at the reserved matters stage.

The drainage details provided, including the greenfield run off rates and infiltration rates that would need to be controlled, have been consulted upon with Devon County Flood Risk department, whilst they has been a number of revised and additional details provided, they are content to support the proposal subject to conditions.

With regard to sewer capacity, SWW have raised no objection to the application and as such, and despite concerns from local residents regarding capacity, a refusal of permission or contribution towards upgraded facilities cannot be secured as part of the application.

20/1001/MOUT page 104

The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in relation to Policies EN19 and EN21 of the EDDC Local Plan and advice contained in the NPPF.

Landscaping

The existing site has been established for a number of years and it is surrounded by very mature landscaping so that when it is viewed from the surroundings it is almost hidden from view, including from when travelling on the A376 highway and from Clyst St Mary Village, however, users of the church and public footpath along Church Lane would gain views of the site.

The findings of the LVA that the likely landscape and visual impacts of the application are limited by virtue of the low lying nature of the site, existing retained tree cover and the surrounding gently rolling agricultural landscape which together provide a strong degree of containment, coupled with a limited PROW network, with few publically accessible viewpoints, is generally accepted.

It is proposed to provide some additional landscaping in and around the listed terrace (as requested by Historic England) and walkway together with some supplemental planting in places around the wider site, especially in Zone K for the parkland recreation route.

The 395 space car park proposed in Zone J is large and results in limited planting provision within it and the northern and eastern sides being pushed close to the existing site boundaries which compromises root protection areas of adjacent trees and hedgerow. A much wider landscape buffer is required to the eastern end particularly, however, the principle of the car park is considered acceptable and therefore it is considered reasonable to seek amendments to the car park with greater landscaping by condition, ultimately whilst this may result in lesser spaces, the views into the site from the countywide and the rural location mean that the landscaping and buffer to the edge of the site are important. This will also secure the 5m buffer required by the Environment Agency.

The proposals provide for the creation of an extensive network of new pathways within the woodland and around the perimeter of the parkland meadow to the south side of Grindle Brook (zone K) which are of considerable community benefit and ecological benefit, especially given that the applicant has stated their intention to open these up to the wider community, this public access would need to be secured through a legal agreement.

The majority of trees on site are to be retained, those affected by the outline permission in Zones A, C, D and K will require tree protection plans and method statements to be agreed at the reserved matters stage and where trees cannot be retained at that stage, suitable replacement and compensatory planting should be provided.

The proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to Policies D2 and D3 of the EDDC Local Plan.

Ecology

20/1001/MOUT page 105

An ecological impact assessment has been undertaken and submitted with the application, the report identifies that the proposed development would have an impact on a number of protected species as follows:

Bats

There have been a number of existing bat roosts identified across the site, the majority of which, in existing buildings and mature trees, would not be affected by the proposed development, however, the brown long-eared bat roost would be impacted upon as a result of the works to Brook House. It is proposed to replace this roost within the same building under a license, the details of the replacement roost can be secured through condition.

There are also numerous record of bats using the site for foraging purposes, specifically along the woodland edge and Grindle Brook, there is a potential for the foraging to be impacted upon as a result of scrub clearance and lighting. The report recommends a number of mitigation measure which can be secured by condition.

Hazel dormice

The report confirms the hazel dormice being present within areas of boundary scrub and woodland within the site, loss of limited areas of scrub in Zone J and paths alongside the Grindle Brook mean that mitigation measures as outlined in the report will be required, these can be secured by an appropriately worded condition.

Reptiles

There is a ‘good’ population of slow worms and ‘low’ population of barred grass snake across the site where there is potential for disturbance during the site preparation and construction works. Mitigation and compensatory habitat is proposed in the report and can be secured by condition.

All other protected species have been surveyed and not been found to be present on site, though there is potential for other species such as otters to be present, the report recognises this and recommends mitigation measures should species be found during works.

Whilst it is understood a that a number of Kingfishers have been spotted around Zone J, these have started using the area due to the lack of recent activity and subject to the revised landscaping scheme necessary for this area and to be secured by condition, they should not be adversely affected by the proposal.

Finally, the Environment Agency originally requested some biodiversity net gain in relation to the development of Zones B and J. With the removal of development from Zone B, and given the need for improved landscaping/layout for Zone J, this is being adequately addressed. The EA have also requested a sensitive design of the bridge over the brook to protect fish and this can be achieved before the bridge is constructed.

20/1001/MOUT page 106

Taking into account the recommendations and mitigation measures outlined in the report which would be secured by condition, the proposal is considered acceptable in relation to Policy EN5 of the EDDC Local Plan.

Sports facilities

It is proposed to retain the existing historic sports facilities on site, including the football pitches, cricket pitch and tennis courts and enhance them so that they can be of beneficial use to both the residents of the proposed dwellings and the wider community. It is also proposed to provide a replacement cricket pavilion and new toilets/changing facilities, details of which would need to be secured through conditions and the funding for their provision and long term maintenance, together with an agreement for their use to be for the wider community secured through an appropriately worded legal agreement; this would also control the phasing of such facilities so that they are provided in a timely manner.

The original proposal on site was to relocate the Clyst Valley Football Club ground onto the site and replace it with housing, however, as objections were received from Sport England due to the loss of existing sports pitches and them not being replaced, this element of the proposal was withdrawn. Sport England has been re-consulted and have the following comments to make:

A scheme to prevent balls leaving the football ground into the housing site would need to be secured through a legal agreement and the costs of fencing or suitable mitigation planting would need to be met by the developer.

A neighbourhood equipped area for play (NEAP) is proposed to the side of one of the spots pitches to accord with Strategy 43 of the EDDC Local Plan, £275,000 is earmarked in the viability assessment to pay for its construction and to equip it, which is considered to be a reasonable amount; this would be secured through a legal agreement together with when it is phased in to the development and made available for community use.

With regard to the swimming pool that will be refurbished within Zone E, the applicant has offered to make this accessible to the school. It may also be made accessible to local residents depending upon availability and levels of use with the new residents and school taking priority.

Accordingly it is considered that the proposal accords with Policy RC1 and Strategy 43 of the EDDC Local Plan and Policy BiC 20 of the Neighbourhood Plan

20/1001/MOUT page 107

Clyst Valley Trail

The applicant is keen to accommodate the Clyst Valley Trail through the site and establish connections to the wider strategic route for its residents and the employees on site, together with encouraging people to use more sustainable modes of transport such as cycling to access the site, at this stage the route is not confirmed but it understood that the site will be required to form important connections. Devon County Council Highways Department requested £100,000 from the applicant towards adding in an additional ‘phase’ in the traffic lights at the entrance to the site where it forms a junction with the A376. However, the Clyst Valley Trail is a strategic project serving a much wider population than just the proposed inhabitants of the site and therefore it would be unreasonable to insist that the applicant pay the whole amount towards the additional ’phase’ of traffic lights. In any event strategic projects are required to bid for funding through the CIL bidding process from the Regulation 123 list and cannot be secured through S.106 agreements off the back of planning applications.

Planning obligations

Contributions towards various types of local infrastructure have been requested by a number of the consultees together with securing public access to the improved recreational/leisure facilities on site, each of the various requests will be considered below.

Highway infrastructure requests:

Devon County Highways Department have requested the following:

- Contribution of £100,000 towards providing a new phase in the traffic lights on the A376 to enable the Clyst Valley Trail to cross the public highway safely - this is not considered to be required to mitigate the impacts of the development proposed, the Clyst Valley Trail is a strategic project that is being undertaken in a piecemeal manner to link Broadclyst to Exmouth via a walking and cycle trail, the proposed development should not have to fund the crossing of the highway which is outside the site and is for the benefit of the wider community of East Devon and Exeter and not just the residents of the proposed dwellings on site. This can be funded through CIL.

- Contribution of £21,000 to improvements to the footpath between the village hall and the school;

- Contribution of £20,000 towards providing a safety screen on the approach to Clyst St Mary roundabout form the A376 - these are strategic road safety measures that are required even without the proposed development taking place, in any event these safety screens have already been implemented.

NHS England has requested the following:

- Contribution towards the cost of care of new residents for 1 year following occupation of each dwelling as there is a lag between housing completions and receiving NHS funding - these contributions are for unplanned development i.e. departures form the development plan, whilst technically this application represents a departure from the

20/1001/MOUT page 108

development plan, the wider site is allocated for 150 homes and only 94 would be provided, the NHS should have worked their funding on planned development in the Local Plan. Furthermore, at this point in time, the request for funding on non allocated sites is justified in principle but the evidence behind the amount requested from the NHS is not in sufficient detail to ascertain how the money will be spent and if the amount requested is correct given that different patients would require care others would not. Accordingly, for both reasons this request is not justified at the present time and does not met the tests for securing a financial contribution.

The matters that are considered to be appropriate to be secured through a Section 106 legal agreement are as follows:

- Habitat mitigation (non-infrastructure contribution) of £354 per dwelling - Community access to sports pitches and parkland - Swimming pool, sports pitches and parkland access for Clyst St Mary Primary School - £275,000 to be spent on the provision of a Neighbourhood Equipped Area For Play (NEAP) - £21,000 contribution towards footway improvement works between the village hall and the school - Maintenance plan for the sports pitches and parkland (in perpetuity) - Provision of replacement cricket pavilion and new changing rooms/toilet block - 10% of houses on Zone A as affordable housing – 5 units provided on site and a contribution/commuted sum for the remainder 0.4 of a dwelling; - Improvements to Clyst St. Mary Footpath 1; - capped floorspace of residential units of 8,800 square metres; - Overage clause; - A scheme to prevent footballs leaving the football ground into Zone A housing.

Planning balance and conclusion

The proposal represents a comprehensive development that seeks to retain the majority of the employment buildings on site, whist erecting new residential development, some of which is on greenfield land, and enhancing the existing sports pitches, sports pavilion and swimming pool/leisure building. To accommodate the housing and retain the employment buildings, the proposal includes development on greenfield land that is not in accordance with the allocation in Strategy 25B of the EDDC Local Plan. As such, the proposal represents a departure from the development plan.

It is therefore considered important to undertake an assessment against the three strands of sustainability to ascertain whether the benefits of the proposal (other material considerations) outweigh the harm arising from the proposed development and its location outside of the allocation and BUAB for Clyst St. Mary.

Economic

The proposal seeks to re-use the majority of the employment buildings on site for the B1 purposes they already have an extant permission for, it is also proposed to include

20/1001/MOUT page 109

some A3, D1, D2 and B8 uses on the site. The Council’s Economic Development Manager comments as follows:

‘In Economic Development terms, the importance of the transformation being proposed at Winslade Park cannot be underestimated.

We are presented with one of the most significant prospects for improved employment opportunity and local economic benefit that our district has seen in recent years.

Furthermore, the proposal would support the construction industry albeit for a limited period of time.

There would be an economic dis-benefit of losing 1.5 hectares of grade 3(a) agricultural land (BMV), however, for the reasons outline in the report, this is likely to only have a limited impact on the nation’s agricultural supply and land for the growth of food to enter the supply.

Overall, however, the proposed development can be seen to have a significant economic benefits that weigh in favour of the proposal.

Social

The application proposes to provide 5 affordable houses and a commuted sum for the 0.4 of a unit which would have some benefit to the local population, it is not the amount that the policy expects but the overall offer has been justified through submission of an economic viability assessment.

It is proposed to allow the local community to have use of the enhanced sports pitches, cricket pavilion, changing rooms/toilets and parkland with recreation routes together with access by primary school children to all of these facilities and the upgraded swimming pool.

Accordingly, it is considered that there would be significant social benefits to the local community through this proposal.

Environmental

The use of unallocated greenfield land to provide housing where it is in agricultural use and can contribute towards the nation’s food supply is a dis-benefit of the proposal. Increasing the development on site by not demolishing the employment buildings would in turn increase the level of traffic entering and leaving the site on a daily basis together with an increase in pollution from the private motor vehicles.

20/1001/MOUT page 110

The proposal has been found to have an impact on the setting of a grade II* listed building and other designated heritage assets which are afforded special protection and should not be impacted upon unless there are clear economic benefits that outweigh the harm, these will be balanced at the end of this section of the report.

A further dis-benefit of the proposal is the expansion of Zone J car parking into the flood zone and loss of associated vegetation (although new planning can be secured).

However, these are also environmental benefits to the scheme, firstly, the retention of the majority of the employment buildings has the benefit of retaining all of the embodied carbon within the buildings, the allocation for the site envisages the demolition of the non-listed buildings to make way for housing. Secondly, the proposal seeks to bring the heritage assets back into an active use and preserves their historic character for future generations to experience and enjoy.

And whilst the application proposed residential development on a greenfield site outside of any BUAB, the site for the proposed housing is in itself well located close to the wider allocation and development at Clyst St. Mary such that its location will minimise the use of the car and be fairly environmentally sustainable.

In conclusion taking the above into account, the overriding benefits of the proposal through providing a wealth of employment opportunities to keep pace with the housing growth that has taken place over recent years, employment provision that is likely to attract skilled workers which would help grow the local economy together with bringing back into use of heritage assets that have been redundant for a number of years and providing enhanced sports and leisure facilities to the local community and primary school (access to be secured by a legal agreement) are considered to outweigh any harm caused by the proposal and outweighs the fact that the proposal represents a departure from local plan policy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Adopt the appropriate assessment attached to this report 2. Approve subject to the following matters to be secured by a Section 106 legal agreement:

20/1001/MOUT page 111

- capped floorspace of residential units of 8,800 square metres; - Overage clause; - A scheme to prevent footballs leaving the football ground into Zone A housing.

For the outline element of the proposal:

3. Approve subject to the following conditions:

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

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

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

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

5. As part of any reserved matters application a Construction and Environment Management Plan (CEMP) (to include schemes for the suppression of dust and air quality measuring and mitigation has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not proceed otherwise than in strict accordance with the CEMP as may be agreed unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To ameliorate and mitigate, at an early stage, against the impact of the development on the local community in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan)

20/1001/MOUT page 112

6. 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. (Reason - To ameliorate and mitigate against the impact of the development on the local community in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan)

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

8. As part of any reserved matters application a detailed Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) for a minimum period of 25 years shall be submitted and should include the following details: Extent, ownership and responsibilities for management and maintenance. Details of how the management and maintenance of open space will be funded for the life of the development. Inspection arrangements for existing and proposed trees and hedgerows and monitoring of bio-diversity net-gain. Management and maintenance of trees and hedgerow. Management and maintenance of shrub, herbaceous and grass areas. Management of ecological habitat, maintenance of any ecological mitigation measures and further measures for enhancement of biodiversity value. Management and maintenance of any boundary structures, drainage swales and other infrastructure/ facilities within public areas.

Maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan.

(Reason - In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Strategy 3 (Sustainable Development), Strategy 4 (Balanced Communities), Strategy 5 (Environment), Strategy 43 (Open Space Standards), Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and Policy D2 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan.

20/1001/MOUT page 113

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

11. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) and Arboricultural Method Statements (AMS) for the protection of all retained trees, hedges and shrubs on or adjacent to the site , shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

The layout and design of the development shall be informed by and take account of the constraints identified in the survey and report.

The tree survey and report shall adhere to the principles embodied in BS 5837:2012 and the AMS shall indicate exactly how and when the trees will be protected during the development process.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Provision shall be made for the supervision of the tree protection by a suitably qualified and experienced arboriculturalist and details shall be included within the AMS.

The AMS shall provide for the keeping of a monitoring log to record site visits and inspections along with: the reasons for such visits; the findings of the inspection and any necessary actions; all variations or departures from the approved details and any resultant remedial action or mitigation measures. On completion of the development, the completed site monitoring log shall be signed off by the supervising arboriculturalist and submitted to the Planning Authority for approval and final discharge of the condition.

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

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

20/1001/MOUT page 114

13. Tree Pruning / Felling Specification/ ground condition amelioration Prior to the commencement of any works on site (including demolition and site clearance or tree works), a detailed and timetabled specification for all necessary arboricultural work to retained trees shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The specification will accord with the principles given in BS 3998:. All tree felling and pruning works shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved specification and the principles of British Standard 3998:2010 - Recommendations for Tree Works and in accordance with the agreed timetable of operations or such other works at such other times as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (Reason: To ensure the continued well being of the trees in the interests of the amenity of the area locality in accordance with Policy D3 (Trees and Development Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan)

14. Each new dwelling or flat with one bedroom shall be provided with at least one parking space (excluding garages), each new dwelling or flat with two or more bedrooms shall be provided with at least two parking spaces (excluding garages). (Reason: To ensure there is sufficient parking provision in accordance with Policy TC9 (Parking provision in New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan.

15. a. No occupation shall take place in Zone A and Zone D until: (i) A detailed assessment of ground conditions of the land proposed in Zone C for the playing field land as shown on drawing number.. shall be undertaken (including drainage and topography) to identify constraints which could affect playing field quality; and (ii) Based on the results of this assessment to be carried out pursuant to (a) above of this condition, a detailed scheme to ensure that the playing fields will be provided to an acceptable quality (including appropriate drainage where necessary) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority after consultation with Sport England. b. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme within a timescale to be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority after consultation with Sport England. Reason: To ensure that site surveys are undertaken for new or replacement playing fields and that any ground condition constraints can be and are mitigated to ensure provision of an adequate quality playing field and to accord with Policy RC1 (Retention of Land for Sport and Recreation) of the East Devon Local Plan.

16. The playing fields and pitches in Zone C shall be constructed and laid out in accordance details that shall be submitted at the reserved matters stage and with the standards and methodologies set out in the guidance note "Natural Turf for Sport" (Sport England, 2011), and shall be made available for use in accordance with an agreed timeframe as provided for in the legal agreement accompanying this application Reason: To ensure the quality of pitches is satisfactory and they are available for use in an appropriate timeframe and to accord with Policy RC1 (Retention of

20/1001/MOUT page 115

Land for Sport and Recreation) of the East Devon Local Plan

17. Prior to the bringing into use of the playing fields and tennis courts a Management and Maintenance Scheme for the facility including management responsibilities, a maintenance schedule and a mechanism for review shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority after consultation with Sport England. The measures set out in the approved scheme shall be complied with in full, with effect from commencement of occupation of Zone A and Zone D. Reason: To ensure that new facility/ies is capable of being managed and maintained to deliver playing fields and tennis courts which are fit for purpose, sustainable and to ensure sufficient benefit of the development to sport (National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) para 97) and to accord with Policy RC1 (Retention of Land for Sport and Recreation) of the East Devon Local Plan

18. No occupation in Zone A and Zone D until a community use agreement Prepared in consultation with Sport England has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and a copy of the completed approved agreement has been provided to the Local Planning Authority. The agreement shall apply to the football pitches, cricket pitch, tennis courts, replacement pavilion and changing facilities and include details of pricing policy, hours of use, access by users, management responsibilities and a mechanism for review. The development shall not be used otherwise than in strict compliance with the approve agreement." Reason: To secure well managed safe community access to the sports facility/facilities, to ensure sufficient benefit to the development of sport and to accord with Policy RC1 (Retention of Land for Sport and Recreation) of the East Devon Local Plan.

19. The reserved matters application(s) shall be submitted in accordance with the recommendations of Section 5 of the Ecological Impact Assessment undertaken by Burton Reid Associates ref BR0417/EcIA/C dated October 2020 and the development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the recommendation set out therein. Reason: To ensure that the protected species found to be on site/have the potential to be on site are dealt with in an appropriate and sensitive manner to safeguard their future and to replace lost habitats in accordance with Policy EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan.

20. The reserved matter application(s) shall be submitted in accordance with the methodology and recommendation set out in the Flood Risk Assessment prepared by Hydrock (ref. 13528-HYD-XX-XX-RP-FR-001, dated April 2020). (Reason -To ensure the development complies with the guidance as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework).

21. The following information shall be submitted at the reserved matters stage:

(a) Soakaway test results in accordance with BRE 365 and groundwater monitoring results in line with DCC groundwater monitoring policy.

20/1001/MOUT page 116

(b) Evidence that there is a low risk of groundwater re-emergence downslope of the site from any proposed soakaways or infiltration basins/tanks.

(c) A detailed drainage design based upon the approved Flood Risk Assessment Winslade Park, Clyst St Mary 13528-HYD-XX-XX-RP-FR-0001 dated 2nd April P02 and Drainage Strategy Sheet 3 WIN-HYD-XX-XX-DR-C- 1002 P08, Drainage Strategy Sheet 2 WIN-HYD-XX-XX-DR-C-1002 P09 and Drainage Strategy Sheet 1 WIN-HYD-XX-XX-DR-C-1002 P06 and the results of the information submitted in relation to (a) and (b) above

(d) Detailed proposals for the management of surface water and silt runoff from the site during construction of the development hereby permitted.

(f) Proposals for the adoption and maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage system.

(g) A plan indicating how exceedance flows will be safely managed at the site.

(h) A detailed assessment of the condition and capacity of the existing surface water drainage system that will be affected by the proposals. The assessment should identify and commit to, any repair and/or improvement works to secure the proper function of the surface water drainage receptor.

No building shall be occupied until the works have been approved and implemented in accordance with the details under (a) - (h) above.

Reason: The above conditions are required to ensure the proposed surface water drainage system will operate effectively and will not cause an increase in flood risk either on the site, adjacent land or downstream in line with SuDS for Devon Guidance (2017), Policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) and national policies, including NPPF and PPG.

Note for the 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.

Plans relating to this application:

L09.01 P2 Location Plan 14.08.20 EXISTING

L02.02 P2 Location Plan 14.08.20 EXISTING

20/1001/MOUT page 117

L09.03 P1 Location Plan 14.08.20 EXISTING

L01.01 P8 Proposed Site Plan 19.10.20

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

For the full element of the proposed development

4. 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 development shall not proceed other than in strict accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment prepared by Hydrock (ref. 13528-HYD-XX-XX-RP- FR-001, dated April 2020). (Reason -To ensure the development complies with the guidance as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework).

4. No development shall take place on the Brook House extension or leisure facilities in the stables until a revised Construction and Environment Management Plan (CEMP) (to include schemes for the suppression of dust and air quality measuring and mitigation has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not proceed otherwise than in strict accordance with the CEMP as may be agreed unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To ameliorate and mitigate, at an early stage, against the impact of the development on the local community in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan)

5. 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. (Reason - To ameliorate and mitigate against the impact of the development on the local community in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan)

6. Notwithstanding the details provided on drawing numbers LL-374-101-D

20/1001/MOUT page 118

received on 19.10.2020, LL-374-108-B received on 19.10.2020, L.01.17 P4 received on 14.08.2020 and L.01.18 P4 received on 14.08.2020 a detailed landscaping scheme for the extension to the car park in Zone J shall be submitted to and approved in writing before any works to the car park are undertaken. The scheme shall include additional tree planting between parking bays than that shown on the aforementioned plan and include a comprehensive planting buffer between the parking spaces and open countryside. The landscaping scheme approved shall be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of the development of the car park extension unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or other plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and D2 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan)

7. Within 6 months of the date of this permission a green travel plan shall be submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The green travel plan should include (but not be limited to) the following matters:

 Reduced use of workplace car parking  Improved access to public transport information for all staff and visitors  Improved financial benefits for cyclists (e.g. mileage allowance, purchase loans etc)  Review of car allowances & loans to release resources for greener options  Green pool vehicles (i.e. cleaner fuels & pool bikes)  Increased tele-working & tele-conferencing  Vehicle and emissions reduction policies (inc. regular emissions testing)  Public transport promotion and initiatives (inc. interest-free season ticket/travel card loans)  Cycle prioritisation and provision of facilities (e.g. secure parking, showers, lockers)  Encourage walking and provision of route information  An agreed procedure for monitoring progress towards targets.

The businesses operating from the site shall thereafter work to the principle contained in the green travel plan. The businesses operating from the site shall thereafter work to the principle contained in the green travel plan. Reason: To ensure that the site is operated with sustainable transport in mind in accordance with Policy TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan

20/1001/MOUT page 119

8. Development shall proceed in accordance with the recommendations of Section 5 of the Ecological Impact Assessment undertaken by Burton Reid Associates ref BR0417/EcIA/C dated October 2020. Reason: To ensure that the protected species found to be on site/have the potential to be on site are dealt with in an appropriate and sensitive manner to safeguard their future and to replace lost habitats in accordance with Policy EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan.

9. The playing fields and pitches in Zone C shall be constructed and laid out in accordance details that shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and with the standards and methodologies set out in the guidance note "Natural Turf for Sport" (Sport England, 2011), and shall be made available for use in accordance with an agreed timeframe as provided for in the legal agreement accompanying this application Reason: To ensure the quality of pitches is satisfactory and they are available for use in an appropriate timeframe and to accord with Policy RC1 (Retention of Land for Sport and Recreation) of the East Devon Local Plan.

10. Prior to the commencement of development in Zones F, G and J, the following information shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

(a) Soakaway test results in accordance with BRE 365 and groundwater monitoring results in line with DCC groundwater monitoring policy.

(b) Evidence that there is a low risk of groundwater re-emergence downslope of the site from any proposed soakaways or infiltration basins/tanks.

(c) A detailed drainage design based upon the approved Flood Risk Assessment Winslade Park, Clyst St Mary 13528-HYD-XX-XX-RP-FR-0001 dated 2nd April P02 and Drainage Strategy Sheet 3 WIN-HYD-XX-XX-DR-C- 1002 P08, Drainage Strategy Sheet 2 WIN-HYD-XX-XX-DR-C-1002 P09 and Drainage Strategy Sheet 1 WIN-HYD-XX-XX-DR-C-1002 P06 and the results of the information submitted in relation to (a) and (b) above

(d) Detailed proposals for the management of surface water and silt runoff from the site during construction of the development hereby permitted.

(f) Proposals for the adoption and maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage system.

(g) A plan indicating how exceedance flows will be safely managed at the site.

(h) A detailed assessment of the condition and capacity of the existing surface water drainage system that will be affected by the proposals. The assessment should identify and commit to, any repair and/or improvement works to secure the proper function of the surface water drainage receptor.

20/1001/MOUT page 120

No building within Zones F, G or J shall be occupied until the works have been approved and implemented in accordance with the details under (a) - (h) above.

Reason: The above conditions are required to ensure the proposed surface water drainage system will operate effectively and will not cause an increase in flood risk either on the site, adjacent land or downstream in line with SuDS for Devon Guidance (2017), Policy EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) and national policies, including NPPF and PPG.

Note for the applicant:

Plans relating to this application:

RP-3-0001 General 18.08.20 Correspondence

L01.12 P5 Proposed Site Plan 14.08.20 HOUSE

L01.13 P4 LYST Proposed Site Plan 14.08.20

L01.14 P4 Proposed Site Plan 14.08.20 BROOK

L01.15 P4 Proposed Site Plan 14.08.20 STABLES

L01.17 P4 ZONE Proposed Site Plan 14.08.20 J

L01.18 P4 ZONE Proposed Site Plan 14.08.20 J EAST

L09.01 P2 Location Plan 14.08.20 EXISTING

L02.02 P2 Location Plan 14.08.20 EXISTING

L09.03 P1 Location Plan 14.08.20 EXISTING

20/1001/MOUT page 121

L02.02 4 Proposed Floor Plans 14.08.20 GROUND

L43.01-2 Proposed Floor Plans 14.08.20 GROUND

L02.04 -3 Proposed roof plans 14.08.20

L02.03-4 Proposed Floor Plans 14.08.20 SECOND

MANOR ROOM General 14.08.20 DATA SHEETS Correspondence

L01.02-3 Proposed Site Plan 14.08.20

L32.00 -6 DOOR Other Plans 14.08.20 SCHEDULE

L32.02-2 Other Plans 14.08.20 WINDOW SCHEDULE

MANOR General 14.08.20 SCHEDULE OF Correspondence WORKS

WINSLADE General 14.08.20 SCHEDULE OF Correspondence WORKS

A23.01 P2 Other Plans 14.08.20 SUSP FLOOR

A31.03 P2 REPL Other Plans 14.08.20 WINDOW

A34.02 P2 Other Plans 14.08.20 TERRACE FALL

A36.01 P2 Other Plans 14.08.20 SIGNAGE

A45.01 SO P2 Sections 14.08.20 CEILING SECTION

L01.02 P8 Proposed Site Plan 19.10.20

20/1001/MOUT page 122

L09.10 zone key Proposed Site Plan 19.10.20 plan P5

L34.01-3 Other Plans 19.10.20

L01.06-3 Other Plans 19.10.20

L04.04-2 Other Plans 19.10.20

P2 Schedule of Works 19.10.20

A24.01 P3 Other Plans 19.10.20

L02-010 SO P6 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L02-020 SO P6 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L02-030 SO P6 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L02-040 SO P6 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L03.01 SO P4 Sections 19.10.20

L04.02 SO P5 Proposed Elevation 19.10.20

L04.03 SO P5 Proposed Elevation 19.10.20

L04.04 SO P5 Proposed Elevation 19.10.20

L04.07 SO P5 Proposed Elevation 19.10.20

L06-010 SO P6 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L06-020 SO P6 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L06-030 SO P6 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L06-040 SO P6 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L06-160 SO P6 Proposed Elevation 19.10.20

L45-01 SO P4 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L45-02 SO P4 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L45-03 SO P4 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L45-04 SO P4 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

LL-374-100 D Landscaping 19.10.20

20/1001/MOUT page 123

LL-374-101 D Landscaping 19.10.20

LL-374-106 D Landscaping 19.10.20

LL-374-109 C Landscaping 19.10.20

L06.050 SO P4 Proposed roof plans 14.08.20 DEM OLITION

L06.060 SO P4 Other Plans 14.08.20 DEM TEMP BLDG

L06.100 SO P4 Proposed Elevation 14.08.20 BLOCK A

L06.110 SO P4 Proposed Elevation 14.08.20 BLOCK B SOUTH

L06.120 SO P4 Proposed Elevation 14.08.20 BLOCK B EAST 01

L06.130 SO P4 Proposed Elevation 14.08.20 BLOCK B EAST 02

L06.140 SO P4 Proposed Elevation 14.08.20 BLOCK C 01

L06.150 SO P4 Proposed Elevation 14.08.20 BLOCK C 02

L06.170 SO P4 Proposed Elevation 14.08.20 DEM TEMP BLDG

L06.200 SO P3 Sections 14.08.20 DEM AA+BB

LL-374-108 B Landscaping 14.08.20 MASTERPLAN ZONE J

LL-374-114 D Landscaping 19.10.20

20/1001/MOUT page 124

LL-374-200 B Landscaping 14.08.20 PARKING QUANTUMS

L06.20 P2 : Sections 06.05.20 AA+BB

L06.30 P2 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 demolition lower ground ceiling

L06.31 P2 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 demolition ground floor ceiling

L06.32 P2 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 demolition first floor ceiling

L06.33 P2 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 demolition second floor ceiling

L09.20 P3 : Sections 06.05.20 existing AA+BB

L02.01 P4 : lower Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 ground

L02.02 P4 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 ground

L02.03 P4 : first Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20

L02.04 P3 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 second

L02.05 P3 Proposed roof plans 06.05.20

L03.01 P2 : Sections 06.05.20 proposed AA+BB

L01.04 B Proposed Site Plan 06.05.20

L02.20 C : lower Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 ground

20/1001/MOUT page 125

L02.21 C : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 ground

L02.22 C : first Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20

L02.23 B Proposed roof plans 06.05.20

L03.01 B : A-A Sections 06.05.20

L03.02 B : B-B Sections 06.05.20

L04.01 B : north Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L04.02 B : south Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L04.03 B: east Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L04.04 B : west Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L04.20 B : Proposed Elevation 06.05.20 demolition 01-06

L04.30 B : 01-06 Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L02.01 B : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 ground

L02.02 B : first Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20

L02.03 B : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 second

L02.04 B : roof Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 space

L02.05 B Proposed roof plans 06.05.20

L01.04 B Proposed Site Plan 06.05.20

L03.01 B : A-A Sections 06.05.20

L03.02 B : B-B Sections 06.05.20

L04.01 B : north Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L04.02 B : east Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L04.03 B : south Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L04.04 B : west Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

20/1001/MOUT page 126

L02.04 3 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 demolition lower ground

L02.05 4 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 demolition ground

L02.06 3 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 demolition first

L02.08 4 : lower Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 ground

L02.09 6 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 ground

L02.10 4 : first Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20

L02.11 3 Proposed roof plans 06.05.20

L02.12 3 : Other Plans 06.05.20 proposed+demoli tion views

L02.13 3 : north Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L02.14 3 : east Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L02.15 3 : south Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L02.16 3 : west Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L02.17 3 : Sections 06.05.20 sections 1

L02.18 2 : Sections 06.05.20 sections 2

L02.19 3 : Proposed Elevation 06.05.20 internal courtyard winslade stables Schedule of Works 06.05.20

A31.02-1 : typical Other Plans 06.05.20 sliding sash basement window detail

20/1001/MOUT page 127

A32.01-1 : Other Plans 06.05.20 external door detail

A34.01_1 : fall Other Plans 06.05.20 protection handrail

A34.01_2 : fall Other Plans 06.05.20 protection handrail typical elevations

A49.01-1 : Other Plans 06.05.20 architrave+heatin g grill GF window detail

L02.02-3 : first Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 floor

L02.03-3 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 second

L02.01-3 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 ground

L02.04-2 Proposed roof plans 06.05.20

A34.03-1 : Other Plans 06.05.20 flooring typical details

L02.10-2 : Other Plans 06.05.20 disabled access

L04.00-2 : north Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L04.01-2 : east Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L04.02-2 : south Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L04.03-2 : west Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L05.01-1 : AA Sections 06.05.20

L05.02-1 : BB Sections 06.05.20

20/1001/MOUT page 128

L06.01 P4 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 demolition lower ground

L06.02 P4 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 demolition ground

L06.03 P4 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 demolition first

L06.04 P4 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 demolition second

L06.05 P3 : Proposed roof plans 06.05.20 demolition

Drainage Strategy Sheet 3 WIN-HYD-XX-XX-DR-C-1002 P08 received 11/11/2020

Drainage Strategy Sheet 2 WIN-HYD-XX-XX-DR-C-1002 P09 received 11/11/2020

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

Application 20/1003/LBC (listed building consent)

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

1. The works to which this consent relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this consent is granted. (Reason - To comply with Sections 18 and 74 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.)

2. The works 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. Where partitions are to be removed in accordance with the approved works, the work shall be made good to match the original. (Reason - To safeguard the architectural and historic character of the building in accordance Policy EN9 - Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

20/1001/MOUT page 129

4. Where new partitions are constructed in accordance with the approved works they shall be scribed around (not cut into) existing cornices, skirtings or other features. (Reason - To safeguard the architectural and historic character of the building in accordance with Policy EN9 - Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

5. Any damage caused by or during the course of the carrying out of the works hereby permitted shall be made good in matching materials after the works are complete. (Reason - To safeguard the architectural and historic character of the building in accordance with Policy EN9 - Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

6. Before any work is undertaken to remove any part of the building, the applicant shall take such steps and carry out such works as shall, during the process of the works permitted by this consent, secure the safety and the stability of that part of the building which is to be retained. Such steps and works shall, where necessary, include, in relation to any part of the building to be retained, measures as follows:-

a) to strengthen any wall or vertical surface; b) to support any wall, roof or horizontal surface; c) to provide protection for the building against the weather during the progress of the works. Details of any additional necessary repairs required as a result of the works, including methodology, specification or schedule shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before continuing with the works. (Reason - To safeguard the architectural and historic character of the building in accordance with Policy EN9 - Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

7. The render to Winslade Manor shall be repaired using a suitable mix, the specification of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. In addition, the render shall be finished with a suitable microporous paint, the details of which, including colour, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to painting. (Reason - To safeguard the architectural and historic character of the building in accordance with Policy EN9 - Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

8. The railings and rainwater goods shall be painted in a colour to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of these works. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - To safeguard the architectural and historic character of the building in accordance with Policy EN9 - Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

20/1001/MOUT page 130

9. Before the relevant parts of the works begin on the items specified below, the following details and specification for these items shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

o Repairs to the roof of Winslade Manor, including the details of the replacement central domed rooflight; o Structural Engineers Report to accompany the chosen materials, framing etc for the domed rooflight; o Signage for Winslade House above fascia, including method of fixing.

The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and specification. (Reason - In the interests of the architectural and historic character of the building in accordance with Policy EN9 - Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

10. The repairs and renovation works shall be carried out as detailed within the revised 'Schedule of Works' for Winslade Manor & Winslade House submitted as part of the application and hereby approved unless the written consent of the Local Planning Authority is obtained to any variation. (Reason - To safeguard the architectural and historic character of the building in accordance with Policy EN9 - Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

Note for the 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 listed building concerns have been appropriately resolved.

Plans relating to this application:

L34.01-3 Other Plans 19.10.20

L01.06-3 Other Plans 19.10.20

L04.04-2 Other Plans 19.10.20

P2 revised Schedule of Works 19.10.20

A24-01 P3 Other Plans 19.10.20

L02-010 SO P6 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L02-020 SO P6 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L02-030 SO P6 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L02-040 SO P6 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

20/1001/MOUT page 131

L03-01 SO P4 Sections 19.10.20

L04-02 SO P5 Proposed Elevation 19.10.20

L04-03 SO P5 Proposed Elevation 19.10.20

L04-04 SO P5 Proposed Elevation 19.10.20

L04-07 SO P5 Proposed Elevation 19.10.20

L06-010 SO P6 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L06-020 SO P6 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L06-030 SO P6 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L06-040 SO P6 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L06-160 SO P6 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L45-01-SO P4 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L45-02-SO P4 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L45-03-SO P4 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

L45-04-SO P4 Proposed Floor Plans 19.10.20

AMENDED Design and Access 19.10.20 Statement

D40790/PY/A Additional Information 19.10.20

L02.01 4 ground Proposed Floor Plans 14.08.20

L02.00 7 lower Proposed Floor Plans 14.08.20 ground

L07.00 2 Proposed Floor Plans 14.08.20 demolition LGF

L02.04 3 Proposed roof plans 14.08.20

L02.03 4 second Proposed Floor Plans 14.08.20 floor

L01.02 3 Proposed Site Plan 14.08.20

20/1001/MOUT page 132

L32.02 2 window Other Plans 14.08.20 schedule schedule of General 14.08.20 works Correspondence schedule of General 14.08.20 works Correspondence

A23.01 P2 Other Plans 14.08.20 suspended floor/window

A31-03 P2 Other Plans 14.08.20 replacement window glazing

A34-02 2 terrace Other Plans 14.08.20 fall protction

A36.01 P2 Other Plans 14.08.20 signage

A45.01 SO P2 Sections 14.08.20 proposed ceiling

L02.020 SO P4 Proposed roof plans 14.08.20

L04.01 SO P4 Proposed Elevation 14.08.20 block A

L04.05 SO P4 Proposed Elevation 14.08.20 block C 01

L04.06 SO P4 Proposed Elevation 14.08.20 block C 02

L06.050 SO P4 Proposed roof plans 14.08.20

L06.060 SO P4 Proposed Elevation 14.08.20 dem temp bldg

L06.100 SO P4 Proposed Elevation 14.08.20 Block A

L06.110 SO P4 Proposed Elevation 14.08.20 Block B south

20/1001/MOUT page 133

L06.120 SO P4 Proposed Elevation 14.08.20 Block B east 01

L06.130 SO P4 Proposed Elevation 14.08.20 Block B east 02

L06.140 SO P4 Proposed Elevation 14.08.20 Block C 01

L06.150 SO P4 Proposed Elevation 14.08.20 Block C 02

L06.170 SO P4 Proposed Elevation 14.08.20 dem temp bldg

L06.200 SO P3 Sections 14.08.20 dem AA+BB

L01.11 Proposed Site Plan 14.08.20 Manor_P5

L01.12 Proposed Site Plan 14.08.20 House_P5

L01.15 Proposed Site Plan 14.08.20 Stables_P4

LL-374-100 C Landscaping 14.08.20

LL-374-101 C Landscaping 14.08.20

LL-374-105 C Landscaping 14.08.20

LL-374-106 C Landscaping 14.08.20

L09.01 Location Plan 21.04.20

L01.02 P4 : Proposed Site Plan 06.05.20 proposed detailed

L09.12 P1 : zone Proposed Site Plan 06.05.20 E Winslade House

A31.02-1 : typical Other Plans 06.05.20 sliding sash basement window detail

20/1001/MOUT page 134

A32.01-1 : Other Plans 06.05.20 external door detail

A34.01_1 : fall Other Plans 06.05.20 protection handrail

A34.01_2 : fall Other Plans 06.05.20 protection handrail typical elevations

A49.01-1 : Other Plans 06.05.20 architrave+heatin g grill GF window detail

L02.02-3 : first Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 floor

A34.03-1 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 flooring typical details

L02.10-2 : Other Plans 06.05.20 disabled access

L04.00-2 : north Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L04.01-2 : east Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L04.02-2 : south Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L04.03-2 : west Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L05.01-1 : AA Sections 06.05.20

L05.02-1 : BB Sections 06.05.20 winslade manor General 06.05.20 archive Correspondence

The Stables Schedule of Works 21.04.20

LL-374-106 : Landscaping 06.05.20 composite landscaping masterplan zone E (south)

20/1001/MOUT page 135

L02.04 3 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 demolition lower ground

L02.05 4 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 demolition ground

L02.06 3 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 demolition first

L02.07 3 : Proposed roof plans 06.05.20 demolition

L02.08 4 : lower Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 ground

L02.09 6 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 ground

L02.10 4 : first Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20

L02.11 3 Proposed roof plans 06.05.20

L02.12 3 : Other Plans 06.05.20 proposed+demoli tion views

L02.13 3 : north Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L02.14 3 : east Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L02.15 3 : south Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L02.16 3 : west Proposed Elevation 06.05.20

L02.17 3 : Sections 06.05.20 sections 1

L02.18 2 : Sections 06.05.20 sections 2

L02.19 3 : Proposed Elevation 06.05.20 internal courtyard

L02.04 P3 : Proposed Floor Plans 06.05.20 second

List of Background Papers

20/1001/MOUT page 136

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

20/1001/MOUT page 137 Appropriate Assessment

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

Application Reference 20/1001/MOUT

Brief description of Hybrid application to include full planning permission for the demolition of proposal an existing pre-fabricated building, refurbishment of 21,131sqm of commercial (Use Class B1a and D2) floorspace, 2,364sqm of leisure space (Use Class D1/D2 and A3), extension to Brook House providing ancillary B1c and B8 floorspace, site-wide landscaping, engineering works and the provision of associated car parking spaces. Outline planning permission with all matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 94 residential units, including affordable housing, replacement cricket pavilion, new toilets/changing facility, reinstatement of associated sports pitches, tennis courts and parkland Location Winslade Park Clyst St Mary EX5 1DA 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 Qualifying Features of the Yes - additional housing within 10km of the SPA/SAC will increase European site be recreation impacts on the interest features. affected by the proposal?

Consider both construction and operational stages.

Conclusion of Screening

20/1001/MOUT page 138

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

An Appropriate Assessment of the plan or proposal is necessary.

Local Authority Officer G Spiller Date: 04 November 2020

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

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

Mitigation of in- The Joint Approach sets out a mechanism by which developers can make combination effects. 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 Joint approach standard mitigation contribution required included in the  Residential units £354.00 x 94 = £33,276 proposal. Are the proposed Yes - the Joint Approach contribution offered is considered to be mitigation measures sufficient. sufficient to overcome the likely significant effects?

20/1001/MOUT page 139

Conclusion List of mitigation measures and Total Joint Approach contribution of £33,276 will be secured through safeguards Section 106 agreement.

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

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

Local Authority Officer G Spiller Date: 04 November 2020

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

Appendix 1. List of interest features:

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

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

SPA Conservation Objectives With regard to the SPA and the individual species and/or assemblage of species for which the site has been classified (the ‘Qualifying Features’ listed below), and subject to natural change;

20/1001/MOUT page 140

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

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

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

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

20/1001/MOUT page 141

List of interest features:

East Devon Heaths SPA:

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

Objectives:

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

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC:

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

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

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

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

S1044. Coenagrion mercuriale; Southern damselfly

Objectives:

20/1001/MOUT page 142

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

Exe Estuary SPA

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

Objectives:

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

Exe Estuary Ramsar

Principal Features (updated 1999)

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

20/1001/MOUT page 143

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)

20/1001/MOUT page 144 Agenda Item 9

Ward Woodbury And Lympstone

Reference 20/1855/FUL

Applicant John Lomax

Location Land Adjoining The Workshop Longmeadow Road Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5LF

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

RECOMMENDATION: Approval retrospective (no conds)

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 145

Committee Date: 2nd December 2020

Woodbury And Target Date: Lympstone 20/1855/FUL 03.11.2020 (Lympstone)

Applicant: John Lomax

Location: Land Adjoining The Workshop Longmeadow Road

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

RECOMMENDATION: Approval retrospective (no conds)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application has been referred to Committee following a Chair Delegation meeting due to the level of objection to the application and the pollution concerns raised.

This application relates to an area of flat land to the south of a property known as The Workshop, in Lympstone. The site is accessed via the curtilage of the aforementioned dwelling which, in turn, is accessed off Longmeadow Road. Neighbouring dwellings are situated to the north of the site, and public footpath to the east. The site is located in the open countryside, and is also within land designated as a Green Wedge in the East Devon Local Plan. It is also within a flood zone identified by the Environment Agency, which relates to the near-by Wotton Brook.

Retrospective planning permission is sought for the retention of a sewage treatment package. This is located entirely underground, and discharges into the aforementioned watercourse.

The key considerations in the determination of this application relate to the principle of the proposal and the environmental impact of the development. Many objections to the proposal raising pollution concerns have been received, with some drawing the Council's attention to Policy EN19 of the East Devon local Plan. Also relevant is Policy EN18. However, despite these policies being aimed more at new development, the principles of them can be applied to the proposal. With this in mind, a key consultee in this instance is the Environment Agency (EA), which has no objections to the proposal.

The EA also refers to the view that plant such as that proposed should only be used where it is not reasonable to connect to the public sewer. The application is

20/1855/FUL page 146

supported by a statement from the applicant, and confirmed as being reasonable by Building Control, which are considered to represent a constraint on the practicality of connecting to the main sewer. In such circumstances, the Local Plan is clear, in paragraph 22.28 that the use of a private sewer may be acceptable.

In terms of principle, the site is located in the open countryside and is not within the domestic curtilage of The Workshop. The Local Plan details a number of circumstances where development is not permitted in the countryside. However, the nature of the development is such that it is considered it would not be contrary to any of these

The Council is aware that the Wotton Brook leads into the Exe Estuary, which is an area subject to a number of significant environmental designations, and that the site is also within a flood zone. However, given the lack of objection from the EA (who has inspected the plant and confirmed that there is no pollution), it is unreasonable for the Council to argue that the proposal would harm these designations.

Given the above comments, and taking into account the lack of objection to the scheme by the EA, it is considered that it would not be reasonable for the Council to object to either the principle or the environmental impact of the development.

There are no policies in the Lympstone Neighbourhood Plan which are would preclude the development.

The proposal is not considered to give rise to any concerns in addition to those mentioned above.

Given the above comments, it is recommended that this application is approved.

CONSULTATIONS

Parish/Town Council Recommendation: OBJECT

Lympstone Parish Council strongly object to the application for the following reasons:

Foul sewage should always be discharged into the main sewer where it can be, as far as practical, guaranteed to be properly treated. The statement made by the resident about what needs to be done to connect to a sewer is untrue as there is a suitable accessible sewer pipe within easy reach of the site. The previously approved planning condition to the building of a dwelling stated, "that of pumped sewage to the main". Government planning legislation clearly states "if within 30 metres of the main" must connect especially in a flood plain area. The applicant's original planning application showed that he was going to connect to the main sewer, not install a Klargester. Klargester states that a tank should NOT be installed on a flood plain. Had the applicant made this clear from the outset then the public would have been able to have made a more informed decision rather than be misinformed.

20/1855/FUL page 147

EDDC cannot justify their reliance on a resident to treat their sewage and waste water themselves when the discharge is into a brook where children play. It appears that no test has been made of the brook water below the discharged water from this site. Consideration or permission of Riparian owner's rights lower down the area has neither been sought or granted. Great concern over health matters is of paramount importance and should be challenged.

Furthermore, any guarantees given by the resident are worthless should there be any expensive breakdown in their treatment process or in the event the property is sold.

Members believe and have noted that the applicants submitted application form has anomalies and urges EDDC admin and planning team to check and challenge these.

Woodbury And Lympstone - Cllr Geoff Jung 20/1855/FUL Workshop Longmeadow Road Lympstone.

I have viewed the documents submitted for the planning application for 20/1855/FUL for the Installation of a sewage treatment package (retrospective application) on land adjoining the Workshop Longmeadow Road Lympstone. I note there are a substantial number of objections to the retrospective application. I note that the East Devon Local Plan states: 'Private systems may ' be used for new development in areas affected by drainage restrictions preventing connection to the main sewer. However, the installation of a private sewage treatment system will only be possible on plots of adequate size and if detailed assessment of the site and local environment shows adverse effects will not arise'. (East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policy EN19, explanatory note para 22.28) The Documents provided by the applicant states that there a several drainage restrictions which are sufficient to prevent connection to the mains sewer. However, in view of the many local concerns I would ask for an independent analysis to ensure this is correct. Therefore, at this present time I cannot support the application, but I reserve my final views on the application until I am in full possession of all the relevant arguments for and against.

Further comments 12.11.20:

I am writing in reference to planning application 20.1855.FUL I would like to thank the officer for their comprehensive report and the comments from Building Control and the Environment Agency. On the one hand the Environment Agency is saying that: “Ammonia is an indicator of sewage pollution. Ammonia tests have been carried out at various places on site and all readings were zero. The watercourse has been checked for signs of pollution and no evidence of any such pollution was found.” However, 50 residents are concerned that this outflow is impacting on the Wotton Brook, the Exe Estuary and wildlife.

20/1855/FUL page 148

I can totally understand residents' concerns of a sewage system discharge entering a small watercourse, but expert consultees both claim they do not foresee a problem. I can see from the previous list of planning applications and appeals that this specific site has been very contentious and a concern to residents for many years, and this retrospective application only adds further concerns of residents. I asked for independent analysis to consider that there is sufficient justification that the sewage could not be connected to the main sewage system. The report concludes there are sufficient reasons. Therefore, in planning terms there are no legitimate reasons to refuse, as there is no detrimental effect to the amenity, or occupiers to other dwellings, no impact to trees, the highway or rights of way or the conservation area. I therefore, bearing in mind the local residents justifiable concerns have to reluctantly adhere to the advice of the 2 consultees and the planning officer and withdraw my earlier comment of not supporting the application. Environment Agency Environment Agency position We have no objections to the proposed planning application. However, the applicant will need to satisfy themselves that they have the necessary permits in place to operate the package treatment plant. Further advice on this is provided below.

Advice - Environmental Permitting: Flood risk activity permit We note that the treatment plant will be installed below ground and that the unit is designed to work in floodplain locations. However, the installation links to an outfall pipe discharging into the Main River Wotton Brook. Therefore, the applicant will need to demonstrate that suitable environmental permitting approvals are in place from the Environment Agency for the installation of the outfall. It is envisaged that this could be shown through compliance with the following exemption criteria: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environmental-permitting-regulations- exempt-flood-risk-activities/exempt-flood-risk-activities-environmental- permits#outfall-pipes-less-than-300mm-diameter-through-a-headwall-fra12

Advice - Environmental Permitting: Foul drainage discharge The foul drainage system will require an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010, unless it satisfies the General Binding Rules for small sewage discharges in England. The General Binding Rules can be found online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/small-sewage-discharges-in-england- general-binding-rules.

It is the responsibility of the operator to ascertain whether the treatment plant meets these rules. The General Binding Rules require the operator to obtain any necessary planning and building control approvals which we understand are being sought via this retrospective planning application.

If the proposed foul discharge will not satisfy the General Binding Rules, an Environmental Permit will be required. If this is the case the applicant is advised to

20/1855/FUL page 149

contact our National Permitting Service on 03708 506 506 for further advice and to discuss the issues likely to be raised. You should be aware that the permit may not be granted, particularly if the discharge is located within an area served by a mains sewer. Additional 'Environmental Permitting Guidance' can be accessed online at: https://www.gov.uk/permits-you-need-for-septic-tanks.

Further comments:

Further to our response dated 28 September 2020, we have been contacted by a member of the public regarding this application.

We would like to take this opportunity to highlight that the first presumption must be to provide a system of foul drainage discharging into a public sewer to be treated at a public sewage treatment works. Only where having taken into account the cost and/or practicability it can be shown to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that connection to a public sewer is not feasible, should non-mains foul sewage disposal solutions be considered.

As you will be aware, we were only a statutory consultee for this application because it involved work adjacent to the main river. We are not a statutory consultee for non- major applications involving non-mains drainage. It will be for your authority to decide whether this is appropriate in this location.

We have provided guidance to Local Planning Authorities on non-mains drainage from non-major development to help them determine planning applications in the absence of consultation with the Environment Agency. The guidance is available online at https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200204/local_authorities/154/advice_for_local_ authorities_on_non-mains_drainage_from_non-major_development.

Please consider this advice before determining this application.

Building Control

From the description it appears the request is reasonable. Using a pumped system to get the waste to the sewer main is another option but given the distance involved this seems like a reasonable alternative and both would be potentially acceptable under B. Regs subject to EA approval. The obvious concern is that the site is subject to risk of flooding so we would need to be satisfied that the system can cope without causing pollution under such conditions but if the EA are happy with the treatment plant then we are unlikely to have any objections under B. Regs. They should also submit a Regularisation application if they haven’t already.

I would however recommend consulting with the EA for confirmation.

Other Representations A total of fifty third party representations relating to this application have been received. Of those, 49 are objections, in which the following concerns are raised:

- Impact on the Wotton Brook, the Exe Estuary and wildlife. - The applicant has not justified the proposal.

20/1855/FUL page 150

- The dwelling should not have been permitted.

There has also been one comment supporting the application. This is on the basis that the current sewer in Longmeadow Road is at capacity, and that an uphill connection to that could present problems.

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

09/2021/FUL Replacement garage and Approved 09.11.2009 workshop 11/1556/FUL Construction of replacement Approval 06.10.2011 garage and workshop including with change of use of agricultural conditions land (revised scheme to planning permission 09/2021/FUL) 13/1262/VAR Variation of Condition 3 of Approval 29.08.2013 planning application with 11/1566/FUL to remove conditions requirement for replacement garage and workshop to be used only in conjunction with and ancillary to, the use of Heathfield as a single dwelling. 15/1010/FUL Construction of detached Withdrawn 27.07.2015 dwelling 16/2740/FUL Change of use from workshop Refused 22.03.2017 and garage to single dwelling 17/1168/FUL Change of Use from workshop Refused 10.08.2017 and garage to single dwelling (resubmission of application 16/2740/FUL) 18/2743/FUL Construction of single storey Approval 13.02.2019 extension with conditions

20/1855/FUL page 151

19/1557/CPL Certificate of lawfulness for the CPL 11.09.2019 provision of a porous hard Refuse surface to be used for any Part 1 purpose incidental to the enjoyment of The Workshop, Longmeadow Road, Lympstone EX8 5LF a dwellinghouse at any point outlined in red on the attached plan.

POLICIES

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

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

EN14 (Control of Pollution)

EN18 (Maintenance of Water Quality and Quantity)

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

EN21 (River and Coastal Flooding)

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

Lympstone Neighbourhood Plan Policy 14

Site Location and Description

Proposed Development

Retrospective planning permission is sought for the retention of a sewage treatment package. This is located entirely underground, and discharges into the aforementioned watercourse.

ANALYSIS

20/1855/FUL page 152

The key considerations in the determination of this application relate to the principle of the proposal and the environmental impact of the development. The latter, in particular, is in terms of water pollution, as the treatment plant discharges into the Wotton Brook. Many objections to the proposal raising that concern have been received, with some drawing the Council's attention to Policy EN19 of the East Devon local Plan. Entitled 'Adequacy of Foul Sewers and Adequacy of Sewage Treatment Systems', this Policy states the following:

"New development will not be permitted unless a suitable foul sewage treatment system of adequate capacity and design is available or will be provided in time to serve the development. Development where private sewage treatment systems are proposed will not be permitted unless ground conditions are satisfactory and the plot is of sufficient size to provide an adequate subsoil drainage system or an alternative treatment system."

Also relevant is Policy EN18, entitled 'Maintenance of Water Quality and Quantity' of the Local plan, which states:

"The Council will require developers to take appropriate measures to ensure that development does not adversely affect the quality or quantity of either surface or groundwater. Development that would result in adverse impacts or potential for pollution will be restricted within Source Protection Zones."

It is notable, however, that these policies, and the text leading to them in the Local Plan, are directed mainly at new development, such as the erection of new dwellings. In this instance, the application is only for the retention of the treatment system and not the related dwelling. Despite this, it is considered that the general principles of the above-mentioned policies can be applied to the proposal. With this in mind, a key consultee in this instance is the Environment Agency (EA). The EA has assessed the proposal and has confirmed to the Council that it has no objections to the proposal by stating that they have "no objections to the proposed planning application". Although the EA then draws attention to the fact that the applicant will need to ensure that various permits are in place; such permits are not part of the planning process, however.

The EA also refers to the view that plant such as that proposed should only be used where it is not reasonable to connect to the public sewer. The application is supported by a statement from the applicant, in which he lists a number of constraints on connecting to mains sewer; in particular:

- The distance between the property served by the system and the mains sewer being around 60 metres; - The height difference between the property and the mains sewer meaning gravity would not be sufficient for waste to reach the mains sewer; - Multiple pumps would be required and these would be on land outside of the control of the applicant in multiple ownerships making the connection, and future maintenance through inspection chambers difficult to get agreement for in terms of both construction and on-going maintenance;

20/1855/FUL page 153

- The presence of the culverted Wotton Brook tributary running between the dwelling and the main sewer connection point – it would be impossible to connect below the culvert or to construct something over the culvert.

These factors are considered to represent a constraint on the practicality of connecting to the main sewer. In such circumstances, the Local Plan is clear, in paragraph 22.28 that in such circumstances the use of a private sewer may be acceptable.

The reasons put forward by the applicant for not being able to reasonably connect to the mains sewer have been put to Building Control for an independent assessment and Building Control have confirmed that the request for a treatment plant is reasonable in this instance.

In terms of the location of the plant, the site is located in the open countryside, and is not within the domestic curtilage of The Workshop. Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) and Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the Local Plan detail a number of circumstances where development is not permitted in the countryside, or not permitted in general. These relate mainly to the visual impact of a development, or its impact on the occupiers of other properties or the surrounding environment. Given the lack of objection from the EA, it is considered that it would not be reasonable to argue that the development causes an environmental harm. Furthermore, the nature of the development is such that it is mainly underground, which means it is not reasonable to argue that there is visual harm.

It is noted that the Wotton Brook leads into the Exe Estuary, which is an area subject to a number of significant environmental designations. Clearly this is an important factor. However, as mentioned above, the EA has not raised any pollution concerns regarding the development having inspected it and confirmed no pollution leaks. Consequently, it is unreasonable for the Council to argue that any such harm would arise.

The site is located in a flood zone. However, the EA has not objected to the proposal on those grounds and the nature of the development is such that it would not result in the loss of flood plain area. Therefore, the impact on flood risk is considered to be minimal.

In terms of other matters, it is considered that:

- The location and nature of the development is such that it would not be detrimental to the amenity of the occupiers of other dwellings. - The proposal would not have a detrimental impact on any trees. - The development has no impact on any highway or right of way. - No listed buildings or conservation area are impacted by the development.

There is a 'made' Neighbourhood Plan for the Lympstone Parish, and the site falls within the area covered by that. However, the plan does not contain any policies which

20/1855/FUL page 154

directly relate to the proposal. Although it is noted that Policy 14 states that development must not result in an increased flood risk; it is considered that the proposal would not result in an increased flood risk, as detailed above.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE

1. 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: 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:

Flood Risk Assessment 28.08.20 foul sewage General 28.08.20 assessment Correspondence

1753/01H + Location Plan 28.08.20 block

DS1147P-04 Other Plans 08.09.20

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

20/1855/FUL page 155 Agenda Item 10

Ward Axminster

Reference 20/1841/FUL

Applicant Mr S H Jaffar

Location 28A Foxhill Axminster EX13 5LT

Proposal Enlargement of and alterations to parking layby approved under planning permission 16/2868/FUL to enable the parking of 2 no. cars.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 156

Committee Date: 2nd December 2020

Axminster Target Date: (Axminster) 20/1841/FUL 21.10.2020

Applicant: Mr S H Jaffar

Location: 28A Foxhill Axminster

Proposal: Enlargement of and alterations to parking layby approved under planning permission 16/2868/FUL to enable the parking of 2 no. cars

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is referred to the Development Management Committee as the comments of Ward Members conflict with the officer recommendation.

Following planning consent issued under reference 16/2868/FUL which secured a layby for the parking of 2 cars amendments are now sought to enlarge this area, with subsequent alterations to a retaining wall. The development under 16/2868/FUL has been carried out and features a post and rail safety fence.

Adhering to guidance within Manual for Streets it would appear reasonable for the 2 parking bays to be of a greater length and the resulting visual impact of this increased size is not considered to be demonstrably harmful to the street scene, when compared to the existing configuration.

Accordingly the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Axminster - Cllr Andrew Moulding I am in favour of this application in principle.

However, it would seem that a splayed ingress and egress from the parking spaces should be provided in order to overcame highway problems whilst entering the parking bays.

20/1841/FUL page 157

I would also enquire whether calculations relating to the construction of the retaining walls are provided to ensure that the stability of adjacent buildings are maintained. I appreciate that this is a building regs matter - but would seek assurance that these checks are made.

Further comments:

I agree the recommendation.

Axminster - Cllr Ian Hall I recommend refusal as I believe that this section already has ample room for two vehicles (dependant on the size of vehicles)

Further comments:

I stand by my original comments and recommend refusal.

Axminster - Cllr Sarah Jackson The application doesn't appear to make any major changes to the available space but instead appears aimed at flattening the grassed area behind/above the parking bay with a change to position to the access steps. However, I regret that I cannot currently support the application as submitted for the following reasons: o I note that the conditions (relating to Local Plan Strategy D1) set by the Planning Authority for the original application (16/2868/FUL) are yet to be met by the applicant. This application strays further still from the original finish planned. I am not satisfied that this new proposal is in keeping with the surrounding buildings and landscape. o The previous application conditions also included a rail fence to be installed as a safety measure to prevent a fall from the land above. This is now even more critical given the newly proposed height of the bay wall, but this rail fence does not appear in the accompanying drawings for the new proposal. o I have further concerns with regards to highway safety and visibility. I would like to seek assurances from Highways that this has been properly considered. The height of the wall has been significantly increased which will be compounded by the addition of the necessary safety fence. This could well obstruct the Southern view of road users, and the view to the North for vehicles pulling out onto the highway (one way) to exit the parking layby. Vehicles do travel at considerable speed along this section of road and any degradation of visibility is a serious safety issue.

I also note the concerns raised by local residents about the construction of the proposed wall. I sympathise entirely with their concerns as this new plan would require the wall to be structurally sound enough to retain significantly more weight, but I recognise that this issue is one for the attention of Building Control rather than Planning

Further comments:

20/1841/FUL page 158

Further to an email and a WhatsApp from the applicant I decided to undertake a site visit in relation to application (20/1841/FUL).

After measuring and reviewing the existing build-out, I should like to submit the following comments but also seek your guidance on how we proceed with this application given my concerns / observations below. I have suggested that the applicant contact the planning team in regards to their application and submission of more accurate plans/possible change of application type (if appropriate) Please could you advise:

Further comments following a site visit.

The original approved application (16/2868/FUL) consented for a design as per plan TW16/69/02A ie for a low stone wall with steps rising from the asphalt on the left of the layby (as viewed from opposite pavement) for an additional 6 risers into the grass bank behind. No safety fence / rail was shown although a rail fence and stone facing were planning conditions.

This new application is therefore clearly retrospective and the applicant is seeking to obtain consent for further alterations above and beyond what was built in contravention of the original consent (including conditions) with the justification that this is necessary to allow the parking of TWO vehicles which, in my opinion, is perfectly possible at the current time.

Question for officers: is this not a retrospective VAR application (amending the design and height) rather than a new FUL which regularises what is NOW on site and also seeks to enlarge the development?

That original design was in keeping with the garden / highway walls surrounding the new waiting bay and on the wall of the property to the south ie 1 Hillhead Terrace. From the scale of that plan, the wall was to be approximately 0.7m high which mirrored the walls nearby and the section of wall to be removed. A condition was set that this wall should be stone faced to remain in keeping.

What was built instead was a concrete block wall with the steps on the right of the waiting bay with the southern end of the wall being some 1m high, and the northern end some 1.5m high (due to the fall of the land S>N. A simple post and rail fence has been created too although not seemingly finished with boarding etc. This fence does not appear in any of the plans at present. Furthermore, the removal of the tree adjacent to 1 Hillhead Terrace (to accommodate the new steps) is something I believe should be investigated as there may be implications for the foundations of that property.

Proposed replacement of the stone facing with rendered blockwork would not be in keeping with the surrounding streetscene and would harden the appearance of the

20/1841/FUL page 159

wall and make it stand out even more than it currently does. The proposed (existing) wall is extremely utilitarian and does not blend in at all.

The top of the wall is rough concrete and I fail to see how the coping stones that are shown on plan TW16/69/02d (the latest submission) could be installed as the posts holding the rails up are set into the block wall itself. This leads me to my next observation, which relates to the steps at the southern end of the bay. These are shown as 3 or 4 risers high on the plans but are in fact some 8 risers high, connecting the path at the top level, to the waiting bay below. A consequence of this is that members of the public are now using the private access path in front of 28a and 28b to reach the lower street level. I am lead to understand that this is causing a great deal of frustration to the occupants of 28b.

Additionally, I am concerned that the plans do not properly show the correct level of the existing wall height in relation to the grass bank behind. As mentioned above, the drop between the path in front of 28a and 28b is some 1.2m higher than the top of the existing wall. However, the plans show only a slight fall in height as the grass bank descends to the waiting bay. So my question is this; does the applicant wish to raise the wall height still further to create this flat plateau, or are the plans unrepresentative of the actual site conditions.

Finally, having stood in the waiting bay and monitored traffic from within, I do have grave concerns that the “squaring off” of the bay as applied for on amended plan “d” would result in the loss of the visibility splay which affords some element of highway safety to this waiting bay. Removal of this (simply to enlarge the waiting bay up to the land ownership boundary) would, I believe, have some negative highway safety consequences.

In summary, it is extremely difficult to properly consider these plans when they do not appear to relate accurately to the site conditions, elevation or topography.

I look forward to your advice on this, many thanks.

Parish/Town Council AXMINSTER TOWN COUNCIL SUPPORTS THIS APPLICATION IN PRINCIPLE BUT SUBJECT TO A CONDITION BEING IMPOSED THAT THE BLOCK WALLING IS FACED WITH NATURAL STONE TO MATCH THAT OF THE WALL LEADING UP TO THE PARKING BAY AND THAT OF THE COTTAGES BEYOND IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN AND RESPECT THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THIS STAGE OF THE TOWN'S DEVELOPMENT.

Other Representations One letter of objection has been received to date (in summary);

- Danger to road users of the highway. - Excavation could result in subsidence of ground conditions.

20/1841/FUL page 160

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

16/2868/FUL Proposed extension and Approve 13.04.2017 creation of parking layby

POLICIES

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

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development)

Strategy 6 (Development within Built Up Area Boundaries)

Strategy 20 (Development at Axminster)

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

Manual for Streets

Proposed Development

Under the previous planning consent this allowed for a 15m by 3.5m parking bay with angled splays at each end. The proposal now for consideration seeks to change these dimensions by enlarging the parking bay by squaring off one end through the encroachment further into existing earth bank (complete with retaining wall).

ANALYSIS

The main issues with the application concern highway safety and the impact on the character and appearance of the area as well as the impact on neighbour amenity.

Highway Safety

It has been put forward by the applicant that the dimensions permitted under the previous planning consent do not afford suitable parking for 2 vehicles. Although justification for increased sizes of modern vehicles has been put forward this is mostly anecdotal. Rather it would appear reasonable to use parking standards within the government produced Manual for Streets document. This document suggest for parallel parking bays 6.0 m in length and 2.0m in width and so in line with this document a total length of 12.0 m (at a depth of 2.0m) would be reasonable. The current layby provides a 2m depth for a length of approximately 10m. As such, and which the actual length of the layby measured parallel to the road would remain 15

20/1841/FUL page 161

metres, the additional excavation into the existing earth bank would appear to be justified to create the 12m length and therefore adequate space for two reasonably sized cars.

In terms of highway safety the road in this location is one way and as such while the road bends around the terraced cottages to the south so that no traffic would be coming down the hill in this direction. As such there is a relatively straight road to the north where it is considered again that there is sufficient visibility to ensure that cars could enter and exit the layby without causing conflict with other road users. It is of note that a similar situation occurs with on street parking that exists further to the north on the same road.

Similarly to the previous consent there are no highway issues raised.

Character of the area

In terms of the character and appearance of the area, the scheme would cause some intrusion into the grassed bank the area when viewed directly from the lane opposite, although this is not harmful. From longer distance street scene views the current grassed bank with low stone wall forms an attractive finish and pleasing send of relief within the wider area. As such it plays a meaningful role in the local character.

However the layby is to the very south of this green embankment and in the more sensitive longer distance views any cars parked within the layby would be read against the built form of the terraced houses beyond. In this sense while the intrusion caused is regrettable it is not considered to cause significant harm to the street scene.

As the development stands today the retaining wall is constructed of block work which has not been rendered. Given the pallet of surrounding materials it would be preferable for the use of natural stone on this retaining wall, and indeed this was requested by the Town Council. However, it is noted that under the previous planning consent the use of natural stone was not stipulated within a condition. Instead a condition ensuring that material to match the existing dwelling was used which although could have related to the extension to the main property would nevertheless seem to indicate that render would be applied to the block work. For the avoidance of doubt the finishing off shall be in render and a condition shall secure this.

The development constructed to date features a small post and rail fence above the retaining wall, as per the stipulation of the 2016 planning consent. This condition shall again be utilised in order to ensure that a suitable protective barrier is in place once more.

Other Matters

Whilst concern has been raised with regard to the stability of the bank there is no evidence submitted that the existing development has resulted in stability issues. Again this would be principally a building control issue.

The originally approved plans showed less steps than have been constructed and this was not reflected in the originally approved plans. Amended plans to show the as

20/1841/FUL page 162

construction position have been requested and the number of steps is not considered to be material in planning terms. It is further understood that the introduction of the steps have led to people using the private path to the front of numbers 28a and 28b to access the street and that this is causing frustration for the occupants of number 28b. However, if the path to the front of number 28a is private, then civil action will need to be taken by the owners to prevent people using the private path.

Conclusion

The proposal would result in amendments to the existing configuration which would not materially harm the street scene. Further, and in line with the government’s Manual for Streets document, enlarging the existing spaces to accommodate 2 car parking spaces would appear to be justified and safe.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

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 block work of the retaining wall shall be finished with render before the extended car parking area hereby approved is first used. (Reason - To ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the existing building in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, Part 2 Class A (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), and where safety fencing/railing is required to prevent a fall from the regraded bank, this shall only take the form of a simple post and rail timber fence, be no more than 1.1m in height and not positioned in the area between the proposed access steps and the edge of Musbury Road. (Reason - To protect the character of the area whilst maintaining the safety of users of the surrounding land and also to ensure that visibility of other road users is not impaired in accordance with Policy D1 (design and Local Distinctiveness) and TC7 (Adequacy of Road network and site access) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan).

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Informative:

20/1841/FUL page 163

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:

Proposed Block Plan 26.08.20

Location Plan 26.08.20

TW16/69/02D Combined Plans 26.08.20

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

20/1841/FUL page 164 Agenda Item 11

Ward Seaton

Reference 20/1399/FUL

Applicant Mr Richard Drysdale

Location Seaton Jurassic The Underfleet Seaton EX12 2WD Proposal Extension to existing external area to visitor centre to include change of use of part of existing car park; raising of site levels to provide level access path; creation of play and interpretation features (to include 3 metre high earth mound) and seating areas; creation of footpath link to north.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

page 165

Committee Date: 2nd December 2020

Seaton Target Date: (Seaton) 20/1399/FUL 16.11.2020

Applicant: Mr Richard Drysdale

Location: Seaton Jurassic The Underfleet

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

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is before committee because there are financial implications for the Council, in that EDDC owns the land to which the application relates, and there is an objection to the development.

Seaton Jurassic is an established visitor attraction located close to the town centre and adjacent to another visitor attraction, Seaton Tramway. At present the site consists of the visitor centre buildings and an outside area to the north of these adjoining the EDDC Underfleet car park. The proposal looks to extend the outside areas associated with Seaton Jurassic to the east, incorporating part of the existing car park, and then northwards on an area of vacant land between the car park and tramline. To the north of the area to be enclosed as part of Seaton Jurassic, a pathway is proposed across the existing grassed picnic area to link through the play area to the north to Sheep’s Marsh.

The proposed development is supported in principle by policies of the Local Plan and would enhance the visitor experience for one of the town’s principal tourist attractions, as well as providing improvements to an existing area of public open space.

In terms of impacts the development is small scale and would be visually well related to existing development, it is not considered likely to give rise to harm to residential amenity.

20/1399/FUL page 166

The proposal lies in a high risk flood zone but the nature of the development is considered to be ‘water compatible’ and would not give rise to flood risk concerns on, or off site.

The proposal would result in the loss of 18 no. parking spaces but this loss was planned, as a second phase of development, as part of the original approval for Seaton Jurassic and has subsequently been compensated for by the creation of additional parking spaces to the other side of The Underfleet.

In all other respects the application is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council Seaton Town Council have no objections to this application as Members thought it would be a welcome addition to Seaton Jurassic.

Technical Consultations

Environment Agency We have no objections to the proposal.

I have consulted internally with one of our flood risk engineers and we provide the following advice:

The site is located in flood zone 3, identified by Environment Agency flood maps as having a high probability of flooding. The proposed development, including the land raising / landscaping does not increase flood risk elsewhere. The change in elevations are located on a level lower than that of the existing tramway embankment and are within a tidal flood zone. There is therefore no reduction in flood storage capacity. We have no flood risk concerns for the erection of the proposed fencing.

Other Representations

4 no. representations of support (including from Seaton Visitors Centre Trust) and 1 no. objection (from the operators of Seaton Tramway) have been received, those comments are summarised as follows:

Reasons for support:

 The extension to Seaton Jurassic will enhance the visitor experience, increase community interest and also awareness of environmental concerns.  The proposal will increase the offer of Seaton Jurassic and help its viability.  Proposal further highlights Seaton's natural heritage for residents and visitors alike, support conservation and address issues of climate change.

20/1399/FUL page 167

 The application as another step towards EDDCs initiative linking Seaton to Sheep's Marsh and onwards.  The loss of parking spaces is offset by the new car park on the opposite side of the Underfleet.  The proposed fencing would replace unsightly old fence round a dumping area and trams would be visible above this.  Any new signage should be focused on directing visitors to the town centre.

Objections:

 Reduction in car parking spaces reducing provision for visitors to both, on top of those lost when the centre was first constructed.  Proposed fencing would obscure views of tramway  Signage should be proposed to direct visitors to Seaton Jurassic and Seaton Tramway  Access from the site to the tramway must be maintained.

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

10/1587/FUL Demolition of existing Tourist Approval 14.06.2013 Information Centre, land-fill with operations and other conditions infrastructure improvements including extinguishing existing car park access and forming a new highways junction and car park access; erection of new- build Jurassic Coast Interpretation Centre and associated external works.

14/2493/VAR Demolition of existing tourist Approval 21.01.2015 information centre, land-fill with operations and other conditions infrastructure improvements including extinguishing existing car park access, formation of new highways junction and car park access, erection of new build Jurassic Coast Interpretation Centre and associated external works (amendments to application 10/1587/FUL)

20/1399/FUL page 168

19/1409/FUL Installation of three sculptures Approval - 06.09.2019 standard time limit

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 5 (Environment)

Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries)

Strategy 3 (Sustainable Development)

Strategy 25 (Development at Seaton)

Strategy 33 (Promotion of Tourism in East Devon)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D2 (Landscape Requirements)

D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

EN21 (River and Coastal Flooding)

EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development)

E20 (Provision of Visitor Attractions)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development)

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

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

Site Location and Description

Seaton Jurassic is located on land to the east of The Underfleet and between this and the tramway line that runs long its eastern border, separating the site from the Tesco superstore and housing development to this side. The application site relates to land to the east and north of the Seaton Jurassic site. At present the site area is partly used for car parking as part of the EDDC Underfleet car park, partly as adjoining incidental amenity open space and partly forming part of the play area to the north of the car park. Further to the south beyond the Seaton Jurassic visitor centre lies the Seaton Tramway Terminus.

20/1399/FUL page 169

The site is level, lies within the built-up area boundary of the town and is designated as Flood Zone 3.

Background

Planning permission was granted for a visitor centre in 2013 under application 10/1587/FUL and a variation to this permission was subsequently agreed under application 14/2493/VAR. Both permissions included all of the car park within the application site area and proposed alterations to the layout and access to the car park, both also indicated an area of car parking to the northeast of the visitor centre as forming part of a second phase of development of the site.

Proposed Development

The application proposes an extension to the existing external area to the visitor centre as part of a second phase of development. Site levels would be partially raised and access paths created through the site to link with existing play area to the north of the car park. Within the site areas for play, interpretation features and seating would be created. The proposal includes change of use of part of the existing car park with the resulting loss of 18 no. car parking spaces.

ANALYSIS

The main issues in the determination of the application are considered to be:

- The principle of the development - Flood Risk - Parking and Highway Issues - Impact on the character and appearance of the area - Tourism/Economic benefits - Other Issues

The principle of the development

The application involves extensions to the outside areas associated with an existing visitor attraction. It takes place within the defined built-up area boundary of the town. and as such the principle of the development, subject to consideration of other relevant factors, finds support under Strategies 6 (Development within Built up Area Boundaries) and 25 (Development at Seaton) of the East Devon Local Plan, the latter of which specifically looks to promote Seaton’s role as a green tourism destination. In addition, the proposal is also considered to find support from Strategy 33 (Promotion of Tourism in East Devon).

Policy E20 (Provision of Visitor Attractions) of the Local Plan provides more direct policy support for development of this nature, stating the provision of new tourist attractions, or extensions to existing tourist attractions, will be permitted subject to a number of listed criteria being met. Those criteria require the development to be acceptable in terms of terms of landscape impact and in relation to features of natural, cultural or heritage interest; to relate sensitively to its surrounding and include

20/1399/FUL page 170

landscaping where necessary to mitigate adverse impacts; the locality being capable of accommodating increased visitors numbers without adverse impact; being accessible by a variety of modes of transport and acceptable in terms of amenity impact. These criteria, together with other relevant planning considerations, are considered under the following sub-headings.

Flood Risk

The whole of the application site, as well as land to the north and south of it, lies within Flood Zone 3 (this being a site having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding (>1%), or a 1 in 200 or greater annual probability of flooding from the sea (>0.5%) in any year.). In this case the site is determined to be in Flood Zone 3a and the flood risk is tidal relating to extreme surge tide events and wave overtopping of the Esplanade.

Planning guidance in relation to flood risk requires a sequential approach to development seeking first of all to site development in areas at lowest risk of flooding before sites in areas at higher risk are considered. In this instance as an extension to an existing site there are no alternatives to the site location. However, the nature of the development is considered to fall within a ‘water compatible’ use and is therefore an appropriate use in accordance with Table 3 (Flood Risk Vulnerability and Flood Zone Compatibility) of the National Planning Practice Guidance on Flood Risk and Coastal Change.

The application is accompanied by a site specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) this concludes that the risk of flooding is very low due to the nature of the proposed use and the flood compatible nature of the development. The addition of a small amount of fill is not considered to be an issue as this is not within a surface water flow path and is lower than the adjoining tramway embankment. It is not considered that the proposal would lead to an increase in flood risk off-site and the Environment Agency has confirmed that they have no objection to the proposal.

Parking and Highway Issues

The proposal would result in the loss of 18 no. existing car parking spaces and the operators of Seaton Tramway have objected to the application on this basis, considering such loss to be harmful to both visitor attractions by reducing the availability of parking facilities.

Under both application 10/1587/FUL and 14/2493/VAR the area of car parking in question was included within the application site as an area for development under a second phase. Whilst no details were provided at the time, it was clear that the area in question would be lost from the adjoining car park. In fact, under application 14/2493/VAR a greater extent of car parking was shown to be lost than is currently proposed.

In addition to the above and since the previous application (14/2493/VAR) was approved, permission has been granted for an additional public car park on land to the west side of the Underfleet. That permission (14/2293/FUL) created an additional 69

20/1399/FUL page 171

parking spaces and was promoted on the basis of providing alternative provision for, at least some of, the spaces lost through the creation of Seaton Jurassic.

On the basis of the above, it is clear that the loss of parking provision in the area proposed has already been sanctioned under earlier permissions for the development of the site. The current proposals would actually retain more parking spaces than was previously proposed and furthermore additional parking provision has previously been provided nearby, as such there is no objection to the loss of car parking provision as proposed.

In addition, it is understood that EDDC as the owners and operators of the car park will monitor demand for parking and any impact from the loss of the 18 spaces and consider the provision of further spaces in the future if required and justified.

Impact on the character and appearance of the area

The application on the whole proposes low key development that would be well related to and in keeping with the existing development at Seaton Jurassic. The most visible change would be at the southern end of the site where the existing boundary fencing would be extended further to the east to enclose an area of existing car parking and rough overgrown land in order to provide an extension to the existing outside area associated with the visitor centre. The development would involve raising of the site levels by 0.45 metres to provide level access across the site and the use of landscape planting and different surfacing materials to provide a visual interpretation of different landscapes forming part of the Jurassic coastline. In addition to the fencing, the construction on an earth mound feature in the southeast corner of the site (‘Living Landscapes’ Area) would be visible from outside of the site.

To the north of the ‘Living Landscapes’ Area a pathway would lead north, parallel to the tramway and would terminate at the northern side of the existing play area. Alongside the path would be a variety of interactive features and interpretation panels relating to the topic of climate change. The path itself would be at natural ground level and the features within this area would also be generally small in scale and feature natural materials.

Overall, the proposed visual impact of the development is considered to be limited and in keeping in relation to surrounding development which includes the existing visitor centre and an existing play area. Indeed the proposal is likely to add some visual interest to an area which currently lacks identity.

Tourism/Economic benefits

The development represents an extension to an existing tourist/visitor attraction and would assist in consolidating Seaton Jurassic’s role as one of the town’s key visitor attractions. In this way the proposal would help to promote the town’s role as an important green tourism destination and is likely to provide knock on benefits to other tourism related businesses in the town. Given the scale of the development these benefits are likely to be limited but nonetheless weigh in favour of the proposal.

Other Issues

20/1399/FUL page 172

In relation to accessibility, the site is located close to the town centre and where access to it by a variety of modes of transport is available.

There are a number of residential properties on higher land to the east of the site. These properties are separated from the site by the tramline and a distance of a minimum of 25 metres. Given the existing uses of the site the low key nature of the development it is not considered that any harmful impact on residential amenity would arise.

A small area of land in the southeast corner of the site is indicated as being set aside for a future second tramline, however this does not form part of the current application. The operators of the tramway have in addition to comments on loss of parking raised concerns about the proposed fencing to the site obscuring views of the tramway. The fencing indicated is between 1.7 and 2 metres in height and therefore is likely to prevent views of trams using the line which would be seen above this, it should be noted however that maintaining views of adjoining land is not in itself a planning issue and erection of the fencing as proposed is of itself considered to represent permitted development. In addition, it is understood that the applicant has spoken to the Tramway about this and will liaise with them when the fencing is erected.

With regards to the suggestion that directional signage be provided to guide visitors to Seaton Jurassic and Seaton Tramway this does not form part of the current application, nor is this considered to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Nevertheless, should the applicant propose such signage there is no objection in principle to this subject to design and any necessary consent being sought.

There is a line of trees at the eastern end of the play area to the north of the site and which the proposed footpath would run close to. Given the nature of the development proposed in the vicinity of these trees, it is not considered that these trees would be affected by the construction of the footpath or landscape features proposed. Nevertheless, a Tree Protection Plan is considered necessary to ensure they are appropriately protected during the construction phase and in accordance with policy D3 of the Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

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.)

20/1399/FUL page 173

3. Prior to the initial use of the site for the purposes hereby approved the following further landscaping details shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

- details of the tree planting, indicatively shown on 'Proposed Site Plan drawing', to include: layout, species mix, size and number - details of any other areas of planting - details of any other hard landscape features

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.)

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

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

(a) No burning shall take place in a position where flames could extend to within 5m of any part of any tree to be retained. (b) No trenches for services or foul/surface water drainage shall be dug within the crown spreads of any retained trees (or within half the height of the trees, whichever is the greater) unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such installations shall be in accordance with the advice given in Volume 4: National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) Guidelines For The Planning, Installation And Maintenance Of Utility Apparatus In Proximity To Trees (Issue 2) 2007. (c) No changes in ground levels or excavations shall take place within the crown spreads of retained trees (or within half the height of the trees, whichever is the greater) unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(Reason - A pre-commencement condition is required to ensure retention and protection of trees on the site during and after construction. The condition is

20/1399/FUL page 174

required in interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 – Design and Local Distinctiveness and D3 – Trees and Development Sites of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Plans relating to this application:

LIVING SEA Proposed Elevation 17.09.20 ELEVATION

LIVING Proposed Elevation 17.09.20 LANDSCAPE ELEVATION

LANDSCAPING Other Plans 17.09.20 FEATURES

FEATURES Proposed Elevation 17.09.20 LIVING LANDSCAPE AREA

Proposed Site Plan 21.09.20

Location Plan 21.09.20

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

20/1399/FUL page 175 Agenda Item 12

Ward Exe Valley

Reference 20/1258/FUL

Applicant Mr Ben Blackburn (Drum Construction)

Location Lower Southmoor Farm Brampford Speke Exeter EX5 5DY

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

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment outlined within the Committee Report be adopted; and, 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions.

page 176

Committee Date: 2nd December 2020

Exe Valley Target Date: (Brampford Speke) 20/1258/FUL 19.08.2020

Applicant: Mr Ben Blackburn (Drum Construction)

Location: Lower Southmoor Farm Brampford Speke

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

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment outlined within the Committee Report be adopted; and, 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before Members as the officer recommendation is contrary to the view of the Ward Member.

Planning permission is sought for the removal of an agricultural barn within the open countryside and its replacement with two dwellings with associated parking and gardens.

Proposals for isolated dwellings within the open countryside are usually resisted, however consent granted under the prior notification 20/0129/PDQ application permits the existing barn to be converted into two large residential dwellings, and is deemed to be a material planning consideration. The case of Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, heard at the Court of Appeal, concluded that the availability of permitted development rights can properly be taken into account as a fall-back position where some alternative form of development scheme is then proposed. In this respect there is considered to be a realistic fall- back position through the previous approval enabling the applicant to apply for the two dwellings as an alternative development.

Although alternative provision of two dwellings is therefore acceptable in principle, the visual and other impacts from the revised proposal require consideration. It is considered that whilst the proposed new dwellings would be of a different form and design to the conversion of the barn, there would be some marginal betterment arising from the development through a better conceived design and visual impact, which would lead to a marginal enhancement to the

20/1258/FUL page 177

character of the area rather than the visual impact from a conversion of a building that was not designed for residential purposes.

Overall the design, scale and impact of the proposed development is considered to be reasonable, and given the fall-back position and in view of case law, the application is considered to be acceptable and recommended for approval.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Exe Valley - Cllr Fabian King

This application has generated concern in the Brampford Speke community represented by the Brampford Speke Parish Council because the Applicant has not engaged with them I am concerned that a class Q consent was granted some 5 months ago to convert the barn into two attached dwellings. However, the current application requires that barn to be removed and two new independent dwellings to be erected in separate locations some distance from the current barn. This development relies on the permission (granted in March 2020) for the re-use of a rural building outside of settlements, Policy D8, where section 2 states it 'will be permitted where the building is structurally sound and capable of conversion, alteration or reconstruction.' The current application is not faithful to the basis of that Initial granted permission and the policy condition it relies upon. I have been requested to call this application in to the Planning Committee for their consideration, which I do so here in this comment. Furthermore I am requesting that the Parish Council submit their own comments as a Statutory Consultee.

I do not support this application as it currently rests upon a false premise of reusing an existing rural building, which it does not. Furthermore it does not offer any substantial benefit to the community of Brampford Speke.

Further comments on Amended Plans:

I do not believe that the new design makes any improvement on the situation which gave rise to the original objection.

The Parish Council do not agree that the new design is a betterment of the original Class Q.

Furthermore, the proposed design is contrary to Policy D8 ' Re-use of Rural Buildings Outside of Settlements and the Parish Council has set out the convincing reasons why this is so.

I fully support the Parish Council's objections and I join in objecting on my own account.

20/1258/FUL page 178

A further comment: I confirm my request for this application to be called in if Planning West is inclined to approve it.

Parish/Town Council

Brampford Speke Parish Council objects to this application to replace a barn at Southmoor Farm with existing Class Q consent with 2 detached dwellings.

The Parish Council understands that the fall-back position if this proposed development is not approved is that the existing Class Q consent of two attached dwellings converted from the original barn would be built out. It is the Parish Council's view that the proposed development is not a betterment of the original Class Q in terms of design, footprint and affordability of the new units for local residents. The fall-back position is a material consideration and should carry greater weight than the new proposal, unless the Planning Authority can show that the new development is a betterment of the original design. The Parish Council do not believe that the new proposal is a betterment of the original design.

The proposal involves the demolition of a building which has been established through an earlier approval as capable of conversion to form two attached dwellings. The Parish Council feel that it has not been demonstrated through this application that the removal of the existing building and embedded energy which would go into the construction of two new detached dwellings would offer any environmental betterment than the original Class Q design which was awarded.

The proposed detached dwellings, having regard for their scale, design, materials and extensive use of glazing, would introduce an incongruous form of development in an exposed and isolated rural location, detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. The Parish Council argue that the new proposal is not a betterment of the original Class Q, and if planning permission were to be granted, it would set a precedent for development of large unaffordable dwellings in exclusive developments in the open countryside.

The developer has not engaged with the Parish Council for any of the planning applications nor have they sought the views of local residents. It appears to be an attempt to bulldoze through a large exclusive development on the edge of the village in open countryside which would not be complimentary to the village. The original Class Q, although not perfect, is much more aligned to the local landscape and is of the size and scale of the original barn.

The Parish Council also feel that the development is contrary to Policy D8 ' Re-use of Rural Buildings Outside of Settlements and is therefore a material consideration due to:

' The new use is not sympathetic to, and will not enhance the rural setting and character of the building because the original barn will be demolished ' The existing building (barn) is structurally sound and capable of conversion without the need for substantial extension, alteration or reconstruction and therefore demolition and replacement with two detached dwelling is not required

20/1258/FUL page 179

' The form, bulk and general design of the new proposed buildings are not in keeping with its surroundings, local building styles and materials

Further comments on amended plans:

Brampford Speke Parish Council objects to this application to replace a barn at Southmoor Farm with Class Q consent with 2 detached dwellings.

The original Class Q consent 20/0129/PDQ was awarded in March 2020 and gives permission for 2 attached dwellings to be constructed by way of a conversion of the original barn. This application is to demolish the barn completely and replace with an exclusive development of 2 detached large high value dwellings. The Parish Council has concerns that a completely different proposal has been submitted in less than 4 months after the original Class Q was awarded.

The Parish Council believes that the developer never had any intention of building out the original and has used Class Q to circumvent the planning process to build a small development in open countryside. The proposed floor plans of the new buildings are dated January 2020, before the Class Q was awarded under permitted development rights and show that the original plans were never intended to be built.

The developer did not attend the Parish Council site meeting for the original Class Q application and has not engaged with the Parish Council with regard to the new development.

The Parish Council understands that under Class Q, as long as it is 'reasonably necessary', a developer can undertake partial demolition. As the barn was constructed in 2013 and not in disrepair the Parish Council would argue that it is not necessary to demolish it and replace it with 2 detached dwellings and that the original Class Q permission would cause less harm.

The 2014 regulations state that developers cannot extend the building beyond its existing external dimensions and the garden area cannot be any bigger than the footprint of the building itself. The landscape planning submitted clearly show that the garden areas of the two new dwellings are of a much larger scale than the original footprint of the barn.

The Parish Council also feel that the development in contrary to Policy D8 ' Re-use of Rural Buildings Outside of Settlements due to:

20/1258/FUL page 180

' The new use is not sympathetic to, and will not enhance the rural setting and character of the building because the original barn will be demolished ' The building is structurally sound and capable of conversion without the need for substantial extension, alteration or reconstruction and therefore demolition and replacement with two detached dwelling is not required ' The form, bulk and general design of the new proposed buildings are not in keeping with its surroundings, local building styles and materials

Technical Consultations

None received

Other Representations

Four representations have been received raising the following objections (summarised)

 New housing within the open countryside contrary to local and national planning policy  The application under which the barn was granted was subject to a removal condition and there is therefore no fall-back position  Curtilage of the new dwellings is excessive  Additional traffic using the lane  Proposed dwellings are not well integrated into the rural and agricultural context  No similar buildings in the locality  Amended plans do not overcome previous concerns

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

20/0129/PDQ Prior approval for proposed Prior 09.03.2020 change of use of agricultural Approval building to 2 no larger not dwellings (Use Class C3) and required associated operational development under Class Q(a) and Q(b) 05/0373/AGR Agricultural grain store Approved 10.02.2005

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies

Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside)

20/1258/FUL page 181

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D2 (Landscape Requirements)

H6 (Replacement of Existing Dwellings in the Countryside)

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

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

Site Location and Description

The application site comprises an agricultural building and part of an agricultural field within the countryside, located around 750m from the southern edge of the village of Brampford Speke.

The site is generally level and currently houses a large agricultural storage barn.

Access to the site is proposed using an existing farm entrance from the unnamed lane which provides access to the farm buildings, a further dwelling and the farm and farmhouse at Lower Woodrow, and a South West Water sewage works and pumping station.

Proposed Development

The existing building has received permission to be converted into two dwellings under application 20/0129/PDQ. This application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing barn on the site and the construction of two new dwellings to replace this.

It is proposed that 2 detached two storey properties (4 and 5-bed), occupying part of the footprint of the existing building are constructed, together with associated garden areas.

The existing building has a floor area of 449 square metres, with the new dwellings occupying a total footprint of around 235 square metres, although due to the proposed creation of two storey dwellings the total internal floor space proposed is 467 square metres.

The new properties are two storey buildings with rendered walls at ground floor with timber boarding to the first floor, under a pitched slate roof.

The layout proposed includes parking to the front of the dwellings with access taken from the existing farm entrance onto the lane. Private gardens are proposed to be enclosed by post and rail fencing from the remainder of the larger agricultural field. This results in much larger garden areas than approved via the previous application.

20/1258/FUL page 182

This application has been submitted on the basis of having a ‘fall back’ position under Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

ANALYSIS

The main considerations in the determination of this application relate to the principle of the proposed development, and any impact on the character of the surrounding area, on residential or other amenity, or on highway safety.

Principle

The principle of a residential use on this site has been established through the prior notification process, whereby the existing barn on this site can be converted under permitted development to one large 4-bed and one large 5-bed dwelling. This is the ‘fall back’ position (PDQ application).

The issue of whether there is a ‘fall back’ position in this instance has been questioned due to the nature of the consent under which the barn was originally constructed and restrictions or conditions relating to this.

It is understood that the barn was constructed under a Part 6 agricultural notification application (EDDC reference 05/0373/AGR). The submissions were approved by notice dated 16 March 2005. No conditions were included on the decision notice.

The Officer delegated report recommended that the application be approved subject to 2 conditions being attached. The first of these related to the building being removed when no longer required for agricultural purposes. However as the application was for an agricultural notification, as opposed to being a full planning application, it was not possible to add conditions to the notification decision and the conditions could not, and were not, added to the final decision.

Where prior approval is not required, as in this instance, the development must be undertaken in accordance with the details submitted with the application; and within 5 years of the submission of the application.

There is, however provision within Part 6 of the General Permitted Development Order that requires a building to be removed should it no longer be required for agricultural purposes in certain circumstances.

Condition A2 (5) states that

(5) Where development consists of works for the erection, significant extension or significant alteration of a building and—

(a)the use of the building or extension for the purposes of agriculture within the unit permanently ceases within 10 years from the date on which the development was substantially completed; and (b)planning permission has not been granted on an application, or has not been deemed to be granted under Part 3 of the Act, for development for purposes

20/1258/FUL page 183

other than agriculture, within 3 years from the date on which the use of the building or extension for the purposes of agriculture within the unit permanently ceased, then, unless the local planning authority have otherwise agreed in writing, the building or, in the case of development consisting of an extension, the extension, must be removed from the land and the land must, so far as is practicable, be restored to its condition before the development took place, or to such condition as may have been agreed in writing between the local planning authority and the developer.”

In this instance it is not considered that the above provisions would apply to the existing barn, as the use of the barn for agricultural purposes has been in place for more than 10 years.

With the above in mind the barn to which the PDQ application related, is considered to be lawful and met the requirements of the prior notification process.

The case of Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, heard at the Court of Appeal, concluded that the availability of permitted development rights can properly be taken into account as a fall-back position where some alternative form of development scheme is then proposed.

It appears that the reasoning is that, whilst prescriptive permitted development rights allow for piecemeal development that would accord with a strict interpretation of the regulations, often a revised scheme to replace the building(s) would provide for a better conceived design and layout (or at least no worse) which would provide an enhancement to the character of the area (or no more harmful impact), rather than working with a building that was not designed for residential purposes. As such, a fall- back development is a material consideration to such a proposal. In light of the fall- back position, the principle of development is acceptable in this instance.

In addition to the support from the above court case, Policy H6 of the Local Plan allows the replacement of existing dwellings in the countryside. This policy would support the principle of the approved dwellings (once constructed) being demolished and re- constructed on the site. As this policy would support the principle of the development once constructed, it is considered that this policy alongside the fall-back consent provide some further in-principle policy support for the proposal.

However, whilst the principle of development may be acceptable, the impacts of replacing the agricultural building with new buildings must be judged carefully and the following criteria to Policy H6 are a useful starting position for that assessment:

 The replacement dwelling is located on, or adjacent to, the footprint of the existing dwelling, or elsewhere within the curtilage of the building where a clear planning or environmental benefit will be achieved;  The replacement does not detract from the appearance and character of the landscape;  The dwelling to be replaced is not of architectural importance (whether Listed or not) or important in terms of contributing to landscape character or quality or local distinctiveness.

20/1258/FUL page 184

Visual Impact

The application proposes to demolish the existing building, which has been found to be structurally and physically capable of conversion to residential accommodation, and construct two new dwellings. The appearance of the proposed dwellings would be quite different from that previously permitted under the conversion of the barn, with different materials and designs appearing more like traditional houses. Having said this the design of the buildings are such that they have the proportions and scale of more traditional farm buildings, with less bulk and mass than the existing modern large span building currently on the site. This is demonstrated though the substantial reduction in the footprint of the proposed new buildings compared to the barn being replaced, although it is appreciated that the proposed dwellings have an upper floor.

The ridge height of the dwellings would be similar to the barn, with the orientation of the buildings such that from the lane they would be mostly viewed as a single entity. The total footprint of the proposed dwellings would result in an overall reduction in site coverage, and although the total floorspace of the buildings is slightly greater than the barn, it is considered that the proposed dwellings would present visually as less bulky than the existing barn.

The amended design is considered to have a more sympathetic appearance than the conversion of the existing barn, which by its nature of being a conversion of a building with an industrial appearance, would appear contrived and somewhat alien in this rural setting. The design and positioning of the proposed dwellings is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the appearance or character of the area given that they would remain essentially on the footprint of the existing building and are not considered to be prominent or visually intrusive in public views.

The materials to be used in the construction of the dwellings are considered to be reflective of more traditional farm buildings, with natural slate roofing, render and timber cladding. Whilst not the same as that proposed under the prior notification (profiled sheeting for the walls and roof) the proposed materials are considered to result in an aesthetic improvement. Submission of samples of the materials would need to be secured by condition.

The garden/domestic area would be enlarged from that allowed for under the PDQ legislation, which only permits a curtilage no larger than the size of the existing building. However the suggested garden curtilage is essentially that already associated with the existing farm enclosure with a modest extension into the field on the north western side of the site. The use of post and rail fencing would offer a permeable boundary to the north of the site, with the western boundary contained by existing hedging which it is proposed to retain. Given the relatively open nature of the site to the north and east, it is consider to be reasonable to restrict permitted development rights relating to curtilage structures to ensure that there is not a proliferation of unreasonably domestic paraphernalia generated on the site.

In light of the above, and whilst the concerns expressed by the Parish Council and third parties are understood, it is considered on balance that the proposal will result in

20/1258/FUL page 185

the following improvements to the visual amenity of the area over the approved conversion such that a grant of planning permission is recommended:

 Reduced footprint of development;  Less bulky visual impact;  Removal of a contrived design and its subsequent visual impact;  Introduction of a design that is more akin to the conversion of agricultural barns  Use of materials more sympathetic to the appearance of the area;

In light of the reduced footprint of development, location of the dwellings in a similar position to the barn, and the marginally improved visual appearance compared with the approved conversion, it is considered that the proposal also complies with the criteria to Policy H6.

Highway safety

Parking is proposed to the front of the buildings, with a shared access point and ‘grasscrete’ resin surfacing which is considered to be appropriate in this situation.

As the proposal will not generate any greater levels of traffic than the fall-back permission, there are no highway safety concerns with the current proposal.

Residential Amenity

The application site is located away from other residential properties and given that there is already the fall back of 2 dwellings on the site through the conversion of the existing barn, it is not considered that there will be any further impact on amenity in terms of noise or disturbance such that any detriment will arise from the use.

Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment

The nature of this application and its location close to the Exe Estuary and/or Pebblebed Healths and their European Habitat designations is such that the proposal requires a Habitat Regulations Assessment. This section of the report forms the Appropriate Assessment required as a result of the Habitat Regulations Assessment and Likely Significant Effects from the proposal. In partnership with Natural England, the council and its neighbouring authorities of Exeter City Council and Teignbridge District Council have determined that housing and tourist accommodation developments in their areas will in-combination have a detrimental impact on the Exe Estuary through impacts from recreational use. The impacts are highest from developments within 10 kilometres of these designations. It is therefore essential that mitigation is secured to make such developments permissible. This mitigation is secured via a combination of funding secured via the Community Infrastructure Levy and contributions collected from residential developments within 10km of the designations. This development will be CIL liable and the financial contribution has been secured. On this basis, and as the joint authorities are work in partnership to deliver the required mitigation in accordance with the South-East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy, this proposal will not give rise to likely significant effects.

Other matters

20/1258/FUL page 186

The Parish Council have raised an issue regarding the proposal resulting in the provision of two large dwellings that will be unaffordable to the majority of local residents. Whilst this may be the case, this is not something that could be used to justify refusal, particularly as the fall-back position has consented two large 4 and 5 bed dwellings of a similar square meterage.

The Parish Councils comments regarding a conversion being more energy efficient and sustainable than a new build is also understood, but equally there can be energy efficiency and other environmental gains through the provision of a new build development to the latest building standards. It is not considered however that this weighs heavily in the balance given the lack of comparable information.

With regard to the process and concerns that the applicant has always intended to seek the fall-back position before applying for these two dwellings, this is irrelevant to the planning consideration and even if this is the case, the applicant is within their rights to do so.

In addition, whilst the local planning authority encourage applicants to consult with neighbours and Town/Parish Councils before submitting planning applications, applicants are not required to do so for proposals of this scale.

Finally, with regard to the enlarged gardens, it is the case that the garden areas approved as part of the original application as restricted under the relevant legislation to be no larger than the footprint of the development. However, it is not unusual, or unreasonable, for people to apply for larger gardens and as long as the visual impact from this is acceptable, such applications should usually be approved.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment outlined within the Committee Report be adopted.

2. That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

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 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) no works within the Schedule 2 Part 1 Classes A, B, C, D, E, F, G or H for the enlargement, improvement or other alterations and structures within the curtilage to the dwellings hereby permitted,

20/1258/FUL page 187

other than works that do not materially affect the external appearance of the buildings, shall be undertaken. (Reason - The proposal is justified as a fall back from Part 3 Class Q of the Town and County Planning (General Permitted Development) Order which does not permit any changes without the need for planning permission as it may cause detriment 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. 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.)

5. 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.)

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:

DC/GF1RP1/C Proposed Floor Plans 09.10.20 Rev 1

20/1258/FUL page 188

DC/FF1RP1/D Proposed Floor Plans 09.10.20 Rev 1

D1/PEL1/E Rev 1 Proposed Elevation 09.10.20

DC/PFP21/F Rev Proposed Floor Plans 09.10.20 1

DC/FFP221/G Proposed Floor Plans 09.10.20 Rev 1

DC/PEL11/H Rev Proposed Elevation 09.10.20 1

DC/PEL111/1 Proposed Elevation 09.10.20 Rev 1

DCLFB/SLP1/A Combined Plans 09.10.20 Rev 1

DCLSFB/SLP1/B Landscaping 09.10.20 Rev 1

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

20/1258/FUL page 189 Agenda Item 13

Ward Coly Valley

Reference 20/1234/FUL

Applicant Mr W Rich

Location Land South Of Chilcombe Cross Northleigh

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

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to conditions and completion of a S.106 legal agreement

page 190

Committee Date: 2nd December 2020

Coly Valley Target Date: (Northleigh) 20/1234/FUL 01.09.2020

Applicant: Mr W Rich

Location: Land South Of Chilcombe Cross Northleigh

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

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to conditions and completion of a S.106 legal agreement

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is before committee as the proposed development represents a departure from the policies of the Local Plan. There is no Neighbourhood Plan covering the area.

The site is located in open countryside and whilst there is some existing residential development just to the south east of the site, the site is separated from the main built form of Northleigh. Neither Northleigh nor either of the other settlements within the parish group (Southleigh or Farway) have a defined built- up area boundary, nor do they have the level of services necessary for them to meet the requirements of Strategy 35 of the Local Plan. This being the case the proposal is not supported by any explicit policies of the Local Plan, as required by Strategy 7. However, Strategy 27 of the Local Plan does make reference to other means of promoting community led development, including through establishing Community Land Trusts.

The application is promoted by the Upper Coly Valley Community Land Trust and follows a site search selection process to identify a suitable site to deliver against an established affordable housing need within the parish group and which the Local Plan otherwise makes no provision for meeting. The application would provide 6 no. affordable housing units to meet this need and this is considered to weigh strongly in favour of the scheme.

On the other hand the site’s location within the East Devon AONB and in a location where future residents are likely to be heavily reliant on private transport to meet most of their everyday needs weighs strongly against the proposal in terms of accessibility.

20/1234/FUL page 191

In landscape terms, given the open nature of the site, the proposal is likely to result in some landscape and visual harm even though the proposal includes extensive landscaping proposals such that this harm would reduce over time as planting establishes.

In other respects the development would require contaminated land on the site, resulting from its former landfill use, to be appropriately dealt with and for drainage to be appropriately managed. These matters could be dealt with by condition, as could details relating to the landscaping and ecological management of the site and design details/materials. In the event of an approval the affordable housing and management of onsite open space could be secured by a s.106 agreement.

This is an unusual situation as in most circumstances at least one of the settlements with a group of parishes would have the necessary services for consideration under Strategy 35 of the Local Plan but that this is not the case here. It is therefore with this in mind and very much on balance that the benefits of the proposal in delivering the affordable housing needs of the grouped parishes, that would otherwise go unmet, are considered to outweigh the identified environmental impacts of the scheme.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Clerk To Northleigh Parish Council The Northleigh Parish council have discussed the application and councillors have no objections to the proposal. (Chairman Willy Rich refrained from comments after declaring an interest.)

Cllr P Arnott – Coly Valley Ward – Ward Member I wish to support this necessary and well-considered scheme for much-needed affordable homes. The Coly Valley has some villages which - although remote from larger settlements and lacking some infrastructure available in these places - do need such housing as desperately as elsewhere. Northleigh and the Upper Coly Valley are just such locations, and I applaud the work of the community land trust in bringing this plan forward.

Cllr H Parr - Coly Valley Ward – Ward Member Thank you for this draft report- I support this application and agree with the recommendation. The scheme is put forward by the CLT and is for affordable housing to rent. It has the support of the Housing Strategy Officer. There are no objections to the scheme from the Parish Council, County Highways, or Environmental Health, subject to a Condition being applied, and the proposed replacement tree planting will in time mitigate landscape impacts. The scheme will deliver much needed affordable housing to meet the established local housing need of the parishes of Farway, Northleigh and Southleigh, and could support Farway Primary School.

20/1234/FUL page 192

Technical Consultations

Devon County Highway Authority Observations: The application involves the creation of a secondary access, in addition to the existing access being moved slightly north-west. Bucknole Road will remain a 30mph speed limit and though the visibility distance will be slightly short of our standard of 43m, however due to the geometery of the lane, I do not believe traffic speeds will reach 30mph.

The layout includes dedicated off-carriageway parking spaces, in addition for room to turn and re-enter the carriageway in a forward facing motion. This being the case for both the proposed dwellings and existing informal parking area.

The creation of these 6 dwellings will cause a a slight increase in trip generation of traffic on the local highway network however I do not believe this will be detrimental to the local highway network.

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 Officer 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. The application is similar to a previous recent application, reference 19/2391/FUL, which was withdrawn following consultee comments.

2 LOCATION, SUMMARY PROPOSALS, SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT

2.1 Location and brief description of proposals

The site is situated in open country at Chilcombe Cross to the northwest of Northleigh village. The proposals comprise the construction of six affordable dwellings, arranged as three semi-detached units, two double storey and one single storey, together with the creation of a new site access off the adjacent county road to the north and associated car parking and open space.

2.2 Site description and context

20/1234/FUL page 193

The site is a roughly triangular parcel of land extending to 0.57Ha bounded by Chilcombe Lane and Bucknole Hill Road, both of which are minor, narrow county roads to the northwestern and northeastern boundaries respectively.

To the east of the site is an informal car park beyond which is a line of prominently set former council homes known as Hillrise fronting Bucknole Hill Road. The site is currently used as rough grazing accessed via a bridle gate from the adjacent car park and is understood to previously have been used as a waste tip and more recently as a play area. Surrounding land-use is predominantly agricultural pasture land. The main village of Northleigh lies 420m to the east.

Boundaries comprise Devon hedgebanks with a short section of post and rail fencing to the car park boundary. The site is situated on a low ridgeline at an altitude of approximately 112m AOD within surrounding undulating landform rising to high scarp ridges to the north, west and south. The site itself slopes moderately steeply to its southwest corner.

There are a number of trees on the site boundaries and a small tree group within the south west corner.

The site lies within the East Devon AONB. Warren Copse and Warren Hill County Wildlife Site is situated to the northwest of the site and Summerdown County Wildlife Site lies 900m to the north. There are no other conservation designations within or in close proximity to the site.

There is presently no formal public access within the site. A public footpath, Northleigh footpath 6, which forms part of the East Devon Way long distance footpath, lies 70m to the south. Northleigh footpath 5 is situated some 325m to the northeast.

Notwithstanding the existing buildings to the east of the site there are fine, medium/ long distance views from and over the site towards surrounding ridges.

Hedgerow along the road boundaries presently limits views into the site from adjoining roads but there are direct views into it from Northleigh footpath 6 to the south, from the road junction to the northwest, and from the parish council car park to the east. There are mid-distance views towards or over the site at a number of locations from the surrounding road and public rights of way network. There are also views over the site from the end house at Hillrise and from a number of outlying residential properties.

3 REVIEW OF SUBMITTED INFORMATION

3.1 Landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) 3.1.1 Landscape impacts

Para. 16.3 states that there will be 25m of hedgerow loss to Bucknole Hill Road, however, allowing for the proposed enlargement of the existing car park entrance and associated visibility splay requirements for both entrances it is likely that a 70m stretch of hedgerow will need to be removed together with 6 hedgerow trees. This together with the creation of the new access will open up the site and views of the new dwellings and will have a high adverse impact on the character of this section of Bucknole Hill

20/1234/FUL page 194

Road initially, reducing to some degree in the medium/ long term as proposed replacement hedgerow planting and trees mature.

The landscape impact of the construction works and subsequent use of the site on surrounding tranquillity and landscape quality has not been considered in the assessment. This should have included assessment of the direct increase in vehicle noise and movements on surrounding narrow quiet lanes and the indirect effect of damage to verges and hedgerow from construction traffic.

3.1.2 Visual impacts

I accept the findings of the LVIA that generally in medium and long distance views to the site the visual impact of the proposed development is likely to be low or negligible. However in close range views around the site the visual impacts are likely to be higher than indicated particular for the following view points: VP1 east of the existing carpark entrance – The proposed loss of existing foreground trees and hedgerow coupled with a widening of the car park entrance will open up views to the site and the visual impact is therefore likely to be Medium to High rather than Medium. VP4 and VP5 from Footpath 6 (East Devon Way) in field to south of application site – In these views it will be possible to see all or most of plots 1-2 and most of plots 3-4 as well. The visual impact should be considered moderate/ high rather than low.

VP6 from Northleigh Footpath 6 – It is likely that the upper parts of plots 1-2 and possibly 3-4 will be visible and the visual impact should be considered low rather than negligible.

Additionally in views from Bucknole Hill Road the potential loss of Tree 3 to ash dieback should be anticipated in the short term and will further open up views of the development.

3.2 Layout 3.2.1 Changes from previous application

The proposed layout is largely unchanged from the previous application, the main changes being revised planting proposals, the relocation of the proposed sewage treatment plant and the inclusion of alterations to the access to the existing carpark on the eastern side of the site.

Amendments to the planting proposals are more appropriate to the rural setting of the site and therefore an improvement on the previous scheme.

There is a discrepancy between the Site Plan and Tree Plan which show three small trees close to the western site boundary to be removed and the Landscape Plan which shows them retrained. As there seems to be no justification for their removal the Site Plan and Tree plan should be amended accordingly.

It is disappointing that there does not appear to have been a reconsideration of the proposed site entrance as suggested in my previous response. This is one of the largest landscape and visual impacts of the proposal entailing the loss of three trees and approximately 50m of hedgebank which, together with the widening of the existing car park entrance with additional tree loss, will result in a notable change in character

20/1234/FUL page 195

of Bucknole Hill Road adjacent to the site. The submitted highway visibility splay drawing indicates that a 2.4 x 38m visibility splay is attainable at each entrance and therefore the use of the improved existing car park entrance to serve the proposed development also should be acceptable to the highway authority. A possible alternative site layout showing how this could work in principle is indicated in figure 1 below. This is intended for illustrative purposes and there is scope to refine this to achieve a less formal layout than indicated.

The only constraint to the alternative layout is the proposed sewage treatment plant which may need to be relocated to the northwest of the parking bays to plot 1 or into the field to the south.

3.2.2 Garden boundaries

Boundaries dividing rear garden plots are proposed to be 1.8m high close board fence. As rear gardens will be clearly visible from Northleigh Public Footpath 6 (East Devon Way) to the south, high close board fences should be limited to privacy screens the length of proposed patio areas with remainder of the boundaries replaced with post and wire mesh and hedgerow.

3.2.3 Sheds and cycle storage Provision should be made for well designed, discretely positioned and secure sheds for storage of garden equipment and cycles for each plot which should be indicated on the layout drawings or alternatively a communal cycle store could be considered.

3.3 Drainage

3.3.1 Storm drainage

It is disappointing that given the available space on site a surface storage solution for storm water cannot be provided in the form a pond or swale which would provide biodiversity and amenity benefit rather than the proposed underground storage tank.

The proposed outflow from the storm water attenuation tank is run through fields to the south of the site and then to a road gully to the south west which then discharges to a watercourse to the west side of Chilcombe Road. This entails new pipework crossing three hedgelines and possibly the RPA of a mature tree (refer figure 2 below). The impacts of the drainage run on the tree and hedgerow does not appear to have been considered in the arboricultural report and further consideration of the drainage alignment is required to demonstrate that the tree and hedgerows will not be adversely affected. Any unavoidable intrusions into their RPAs would require production of a satisfactory arboricultural method statement.

In order to reduce mains water demand and help attenuate storm flows all dwellings should be provided with a water-butt in their rear gardens to collect roof run-off for garden watering.

4 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Acceptability of proposals

20/1234/FUL page 196

It is accepted that impacts on the wider landscape and medium to long distance views from publicly accessible land are generally limited. However the proposed scheme is considered likely to give rives to localised moderate - high adverse landscape and visual effects.

The necessity of creating a new access on to the highway is questioned and the modification of the existing car park entrance appears to provide an alternative access that would significantly reduce the impacts of the development on the frontage of the site with Bucknole Hill Road.

In other respects the site layout and landscape design proposals are considered appropriate and subject to the LPA satisfying itself as to the genuine need for the development and receipt of satisfactory amendments and clarifications as noted at section 3 above the scheme could be considered acceptable in terms of landscape and visual impact and design.

4.2 Landscape conditions

In the event that amended information as noted above is secured and 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 and groundworks details covering earthworks, walls, retaining structures, fencing, pavings and edgings, site furniture and signage. b) Details of existing and proposed levels and drainage scheme incorporating appropriate SuDS features. c) Details of locations, heights and specifications of proposed external lighting. d) Details of proposed external building and landscape materials and colour finishes. e) A soil resources plan prepared in accordance with Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable use of Soils on Construction Sites – DEFRA September 2009. f) A full set of soft landscape details including planting plans showing locations and number of new tree, shrub and herbaceous planting, type and extent of new grass areas, existing vegetation to be retained and removed and means of protection/ support together with a plant schedule indicating the form, size, numbers and density of proposed planting. g) Soft landscape specification/ notes covering soil quality, depth, cultivation and amelioration; planting, sowing and turfing; mulching and means of plant support and protection during establishment period. h) Measures for protection of existing perimeter trees/ undisturbed ground during construction phase in accordance with BS5837: 2012. Approved protective measures

20/1234/FUL page 197

shall be implemented prior to commencement of construction and maintained in sound condition for the duration of the works.

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

3 No development shall take place until a landscape management for a minimum period of 10 years has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which should include the following details:

 Extent, ownership and responsibilities for management and maintenance.  Details of how the management and maintenance of open space will be funded for the life of the development.  Inspection 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 infrastructure/ facilities within public areas. Maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan.

4 Any new planting or grass areas which fail to make satisfactory growth or dies within five years following completion of the development shall be replaced with plants of similar size and species to the satisfaction of the LPA.

(Reason - In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Strategy 3 (Sustainable Development), Strategy 4 (Balanced Communities), Strategy 5 (Environment), Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and Policy D2 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan. The landscaping scheme is required to be approved before development starts to ensure that it properly integrates into the development from an early stage.)

EDDC Trees Although I have no objection in principle to the development I do have concerns on arboricultural grounds on the drainage and tree loss. -there appears to be no arboricultural survey/TPP/AMS to justify healthy tree loss yet te retention of poorer trees - the landscaping plan is not acceptabel on the replanting and proximity of the trees or the location of specific species. - The trees on site are now protected by means of Tree Protection Order 20/0043/TPO.

Further comments:

I have read the tree report the tree report which only seems to identify the trees to be retained and not the whole site, which are again the poorer short lived trees, the proposal has not taken into account my previous comments, the landscaping scheme does not tally with the tree survey and even if the scheme was acceptable has planted trees too close and even within groups of retained trees, There is no TPP or AMS.

20/1234/FUL page 198

Environmental Health There are no concerns with the development, in principle, from an Environmental Health perspective. However, steps should be taken to prevent adverse impacts during construction:- Condition A Construction and Environment Management Plan (CEMP) 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: Dust, 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.

Contaminated Land Officer I have considered the following documents in relation to this application:

Bucknole Hill Road, Northleigh, Preliminary Geoenvironmental and Geotechnical Assessment, TEC, March 2018. Annex B: 20 April 2020 - TEC summary of contamination proposals, Design and Access Statement, Proposed Affordable Housing Development, LAND OFF BUCKNOLE HILL LANE, NORTHLEIGH - PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING

We acknowledge from the design and access statement that a remedial solution could likely be developed to mitigate the contamination issues at this site. However, our concerns remain regarding the viability of the project given the extent of characterisation and remediation that is likely required to ensure it is acceptable for the proposed end use. The intrusive investigation to date has demonstrated that a significant area of infill is present in the in the vicinity of the proposed properties, which is yet to be comprehensively assessed. Chemical testing has thus far been limited to 1 sample point site within the footprint of the houses and at this locality the excavation was terminated within the made ground. More extensive investigation (including gas monitoring), to further develop the risk assessment, should be carried out prior to remedial measures being proposed. In the event that permission is granted, we recommend that the following condition (CT3) be applied to any consent:

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

1. Site Characterisation

20/1234/FUL page 199

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

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

(ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination

20/1234/FUL page 200

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

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

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

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

Housing Strategy Officer Melissa Wall This application for 6 affordable dwellings has been submitted by the Upper Coly Valley Community Land Trust. EDDC have been supporting the community land trust (CLT) through the provision of grant funding from the monies we received in 2016 from DCLG to support community led housing. The grant funding has enabled feasibility work and consultants fees in order to progress to application stage.

In 2014 a housing needs survey was carried out for the parishes of Southleigh, Farway, Widworthy and Northleigh. This identified a need for 6 homes. After the survey the parish of Widworthy decided to pursue its own CLT and provision of affordable homes in Wilmington. The remaining parishes also formed a CLT known as the Upper Coly Valley CLT. The rural housing enablers at Devon Communities Together have been working with the CLT to determine housing need in the parishes. A fresher survey was undertaken which revealed a need for 5 units. Further engagement resulted in a further need for 2 making the total need for 7 properties for rent. All those that responded have been fully assessed for eligibility and meet the local connection criteria.

The need identified is for 5 x 1 bedroom houses and 2 x 2 bedroom houses all for rent. The application is proposing to provide 2 x 1 bedroom single storey units, 3 x 2

20/1234/FUL page 201

bedroom houses and 1 x 3 bedroom house. Whilst the need was predominately for 1 bedroom units, in a rural location too many 1 bedroom units is not sustainable and does not create a balanced scheme. The proposed mix is more balanced and allows for families to grow and stay in the village. It is proposed in the Local Lettings Plan that this scheme will allow under-occupation meaning that the occupiers can have a spare bedroom subject to affordability.

The proposed site whilst located slightly out of the village is next to 7 EDDC owned properties. There will be a reliance on cars as public transport in rural areas is in decline but the use of cars is the case for most of rural East Devon and those with a local connection will be fully aware of that. Affordable housing in rural locations will have a positive impact and help support local businesses and demand for local services.

The CLT has partnered with Teign Housing who will develop the properties and lease them from the CLT. Teign will be responsible for managing and maintaining the units and allocating them to local people through Devon Home Choice. A local lettings plan will be put in place to ensure transparency on how the properties will be allocated and this forms part of the application.

Other Representations

5 no. representations have been received in relation to the application, of these 4 no. raise objections to the scheme and 1 no. is in support.

Summary of objections:

- Additional traffic using narrow lanes in states of poor repair. - Development of greenfield site within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. - There are other more suitable sites within other parishes in the parish group - The site is not sustainable for access to local services i.e. primary school - The site lacks provision for visitor parking - Safety concerns relating to vehicles accessing and turning within the site. - Lack of employment opportunities in the area to meet the needs of future residents - The suitability of the site in terms of accessibility to services and likely reliance on private transport is questioned. - Lack of surface water run-off options - Issues with existing septic tank serving neighboring properties.

Summary of reasons for support:

- There is a lack of affordable housing in the area (Coly Valley) - Provision of affordable housing outweighs traffic concerns

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

20/1234/FUL page 202

84/P0608 Filling of land and use as Approval 28.08.1984 recreation area with conditions

91/P1763 Renewal of permission to tip County 31.12.1991 roadside waste Matter

19/2391/FUL Proposed residential Withdrawn 15.01.2020 development comprising 6 no. affordable dwellings

POLICIES

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

Strategy 3 (Sustainable Development)

Strategy 5 (Environment)

Strategy 4 (Balanced Communities)

Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside)

Strategy 27 (Development at the Small Towns and Larger Villages)

Strategy 35 (Exception Mixed market and Affordable Housing at Villages, Small Towns and Outside Built-up Area Boundaries)

Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs)

Strategy 48 (Local Distinctiveness in the Built Environment)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

D2 (Landscape Requirements)

D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features)

EN16 (Contaminated Land)

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

EN18 (Maintenance of Water Quality and Quantity)

EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development)

20/1234/FUL page 203

RC1 (Retention of Land for Sport and Recreation)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development)

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

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

Site Location and Description

The application site is broadly rectangular in area and is located at the northern end of a wider triangular parcel of land of which it forms part. The land on site is laid to grass with a small copse of trees to the southwest and outside of the site area. The land on site is somewhat uneven but generally falls from northeast to southwest. The site boundaries are formed by: native hedgerow where they bound local roads to the northeast and northwest; by a mix of post and rail and electric fencing to the southeast, where it adjoins a small public car park, and to the south is undefined. There are a number of trees within the boundary hedgerows and to the east of the site.

There is a small development of (ex) local authority housing beyond the car park to the southeast, however the site is located in open countryside. The site respectively lies approximately 370 metres to the northwest and 600 metres to the northeast from the built edge of the settlements of Northeligh and Farway, neither village has a built- up area boundary defined by the East Devon Villages Plan. The nearest settlement with a defined built up area boundary being Honiton, approximately 3 miles away.

The site lies on a raised saddle of land within a wider undulating landscape forming part of the designated East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Background

The application is promoted by the Upper Coly Valley Community Land Trust as a means of securing the future of Northleigh as a balanced, sustainable community by allowing, ‘ …young people and families to contribute towards the viability and vitality of the services in the local community.’

The submitted Design and Access Statement advises that the application follows a search for sites aimed to meet the housing needs identified in Housing Needs surveys carried out firstly in 2014 and updated in 2017 and 2019.

The initial survey identified a need for 6 no. affordable dwellings to meet the combined housing needs of the parishes of Farway, Northleigh, Southleigh and Widworthy. With the exception of Widworthy the other parishes are grouped in the East Devon Local Plan for the purposes of assessing housing need.

20/1234/FUL page 204

It is advised that Farway parish determined that they did not wish to have affordable housing in the village and therefore site searches excluded that parish. A total of 16 no. sites were identified across the remaining three parishes and assessed against a number of criteria (including: proximity to existing development, highway safety; landscape and amenity impacts, and; other relevant environmental, economic and social impacts). A number of sites were dismissed as a result of that process but others were considered to be appropriate, including the application site. In 2016 Widworthy Parish Council decided to form their own CLT, around the same time, it is suggested, updated housing need figures showed an increase in need. The housing need figures from 2017 referred to indicated 12 households in housing need across the 3 parishes (5 of which were resident in Northleigh). The most recent figures from Devon Communities Together, dating from August 2019, indicate a need for 7 affordable homes in the three parishes of Northleigh, Farway and Southleigh.

Following on from the 2017 housing needs data CLT applied for funding, purchased the site from Northleigh Parish Council and have agreed a partnership with an affordable housing provider.

An application was submitted for a similar scheme to that now proposed in 2019 (19/2391/FUL). That scheme was withdrawn prior to determination in an attempt to address issues that arose through the consultation process.

Proposed development

The application seeks to provide a total of 6 no. affordable dwellings for rent comprising of 2 no. 1 bed bungalows, 3 no. 2 bed dwellings and 1 no. 3 bed dwelling. The dwellings would be arranged in an L shape served by a single access road and with an area of open space in the northwest corner of the site. Each property would be served by 2 no. parking spaces and a new communal sewage treatment plant and surface water drainage system is proposed.

ANALYSIS

It is considered that the main issues in the determination of the application relate to:

- The principle of the proposed development (including provision of affordable housing) - Effect on the character and appearance of the area, the wider landscape and AONB - Contaminated Land Issues - Arboricultural Impacts - Ecological/Biodiversity impacts - Highways Issues - Surface Water/Foul Drainage - S.106 Requirements and other issues - Planning balance and consideration of whether the proposal would constitute sustainable development

The principle of the proposed development (including provision of affordable housing)

20/1234/FUL page 205

The site lies outside of the principal built form of development that comprises the settlement of Northleigh, although there is a small development of local authority housing just to the southeast. Northleigh does not have a defined settlement boundary in the East Devon Villages Plan (EDVP). The application therefore falls to be considered as development in the open countryside under Strategy 7 of the East Devon Local Plan (EDLP).

Strategy 7 states development will only be permitted where it is in accordance with a specific Local or Neighbourhood Plan policy that explicitly permits such development. There is no Neighbourhood Plan in force that cover the area nor is one currently being produced.

Strategy 27 of the EDLP does offer some potential high level and qualified support for community led development stating that,

‘If communities wish to promote development other than that which is supported through this strategy and other strategies in the Plan (at the settlements listed above or any other settlement) they will need to produce a Neighbourhood Plan or promote community led development (for example Community Land Trusts (CLTs)) justifying how and why, in a local context, the development will promote the objectives of sustainable development.’

This recognition of the potential for community led development to be brought forward is acknowledged by Strategy 27 but falls short of the explicit policy support required by Strategy 7.

Strategy 35 of the Local Plan potentially offers policy support for schemes proposing affordable housing led development. However that policy is not considered to offer any support for the current proposal as it requires development, proposed in villages without a built up area boundary, to be ‘physically very well related to the built form of the village’. In addition, there is a requirement for the village to have a range of community services and facilities (including four or more of a school, pub, village hall, shop/post office, doctor’s surgery, place of worship or public transport service). The application site is not considered to be well related to the built form of the village and Northleigh does not have the number of services required by this policy.

In terms of potential policy support in the NPPF, para. 77 states that planning policies and decisions should, “… be responsive to local circumstances and support housing development that reflect local needs” and that LPA’s should, “ support opportunities to bring forward rural exception sites that will provide affordable housing to meet identified local needs…”. Para. 78 in relation to supporting sustainable development in rural areas, states that housing should be,”…located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities” and that where there are groups of smaller settlements, “development in one village may support services in a village nearby.” This could be applied to the application scheme where development at the site could seek to support services in nearby settlements i.e. the primary school in Farway.

There is therefore recognition in both Local and National Planning policies that there will be circumstances where it will not be possible to deliver affordable housing to meet local needs within existing settlements that are considered to be sustainable i.e. they

20/1234/FUL page 206

have had a built-up area boundary defined. Strategy 35 of the EDLP looks to make provision for such housing and groups parishes for the purposes of assessing housing need, Farway, Northleigh and Southleigh are so grouped.

Within the submitted D&A Statement the applicant has set out how the current site was selected from other potential sites within the grouped parishes. Farway parish appears to have excluded itself from this site search and therefore it is not clear whether or not there might be alternative sites within that parish that may be preferable to that under consideration. In relation to Southleigh parish a number of alternative sites were considered with some determined to have less landscape impact than others. Following the site search the current application site was selected. Whilst the reasoning for the application site being preferred or other potential sites not pursued is not entirely clear it is recognized that the current application site is the only option that has come forward that seeks to meet the identified need.

However, in terms of facilities, none of the settlements within the grouped parishes have the required 4 no. named services/facilities required by Strategy 35 – indeed as a group they only have 3 of the listed community facilities - and therefore neither the application site nor any of the alternative sites, considered as part of the site selection process, would meet the requirements of Strategy 35. There are therefore no policies of the plan that would specifically support the provision of affordable housing on the application site or elsewhere in any of the grouped parishes. This appears to be acknowledged by the applicant, however they refer to an unnamed scheme elsewhere in the district where the LPA are considered to have taken a different view. Without further details it is not possible to comment on this but it may be that support was found through policies of a made Neighbourhood Plan.

In the absence of any other specific policy compliance the application is considered to represent a departure from the Development Plan.

Provision of Affordable Housing

A 2014 housing needs survey was carried out for the parishes of Southleigh, Farway, Widworthy and Northleigh. This identified a need for 6 homes. Following the survey the parish of Widworthy decided to pursue its own CLT with a view to securing the provision of affordable homes in Wilmington, subsequently two applications were made that together would have met the identified affordable housing need for that parish but to date neither have been brought forward. The remaining parishes in the group, formed a separate CLT known as the Upper Coly Valley CLT.

The original housing needs survey was updated in 2017 with the findings identifying a need for 5 no. households in need of housing and eligible for housing at the proposed site in terms of being in need and meeting the local connection. Of those identified as being eligible 4 expressed interest in the application site, all 5 households has a need for 1 bedroom properties.

A further refresher survey was carried out in 2020 which identified a need from a further 2 no. households both requiring 2 bedroom properties. It is understood that all of the need was for rented properties. The combined need for the grouped parishes is therefore for 7 no. affordable units. The need identified is for 5 x 1 bedroom houses

20/1234/FUL page 207

and 2 x 2 bedroom houses. Against this need the application seeks to provide for 2 x 1 bed properties, 3 x 2 bed properties and 1 x 3 bed property. It is therefore clear that the proposed provision does not directly align with the identified need. The Council’s Housing Strategy Officer has however suggested that in rural locations too many 1 bedroom units would not be sustainable and would not create a balanced scheme. They have suggested that the proposed mix would result in a more balanced scheme which would allow for families to grow and stay in the village whilst still meeting the current need. It is proposed in the Local Lettings Plan that this scheme will allow under- occupation meaning that the occupiers can have a spare bedroom subject to affordability.

In the absence of any alternative scheme that is likely to meet this identified need (at least within the combined parishes) the provision of affordable housing against this need weighs strongly in favour of the scheme. The support in this regard though needs to be balanced against other aspects of sustainable development.

Effect on the character and appearance of the area, the wider landscape and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Strategy 7 of the EDLP seeks to ensure that development in the open countryside does not harm distinctive landscape, amenity or environmental qualities within which it is located, including adverse disruption of a public view. Strategy 46 requires development to be undertaken in a sympathetic manner which helps to conserve and enhance the quality and local distinctiveness of the natural and historic landscape character and within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty reflects the requirement of the NPPF in that great weight must be given to conserving and enhancing their natural beauty.

The application site is currently undeveloped and occupies an elevated site where public views of it are afforded from a number of mid-range viewpoints and where the site’s development is likely, at least until landscape planting establishes, to increase its prominence.

At the time of the previous application, several shortcomings in the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) and plans were identified in terms of the scope of the LVIA and proposed means of mitigation. The site was identified as having a high sensitivity to change and the scheme, at the time, was considered to fail to properly address the landscape or visual effects of the development. The findings (of the submitted LVIA at that time) that the scheme would have a negligible visual impact was not accepted and instead it was considered that the scheme would result in a high/moderate adverse impact in the immediate vicinity of the site and a moderate adverse impact in views from the north/northwest. In particular that the scheme was found to have skyline impacts, from some viewpoints; to visually extend the linear form of development when viewed in association with the Hillside properties to the southeast, and to result in the loss of existing landscape features. The proposed form and layout of the development was considered to be overly urban and it was suggested that other sites, identified as part of the site selection process, were considered to have less landscape impact.

20/1234/FUL page 208

The submitted D&A Statement sets out how the current proposal has sought to address the aforementioned issues through updating of the LVIA and the provision of additional landscape planting, the layout of the development itself is unchanged. Following proposed mitigatory planting the LVIA continues to conclude that the impacts of the development can be made acceptable in landscape terms. Whilst the proposed landscaping proposals would, once established, help to mitigate the landscape and visual impacts of the development these would take time to become effective and would not entirely offset the harmful impacts. Although the landscape impacts of the development could therefore be reduced to an extent and are likely to decrease further over time, harm would still arise. This is reflected in the latest comments from the Landscape Officer, who again acknowledges the visual impact from the proposals, but also confirms that the planting scheme now proposed is more appropriate and that, subject to a justification for the need for the proposal, and subject to conditions, the proposal will minimize its visual impact as much as is possible.

In addition to the wider landscape impacts it is important to consider how the design and appearance of the development would impact on its immediate surroundings. Clearly the residential development of the site would have an impact on its current undeveloped character and the opening up of the site frontage to provide access would increase views into the site of the proposed development and where existing boundary hedgerow currently prevents this. Whilst the proposals for native planting are noted these would take time to establish and would not fully screen the development in close-range views. The proposed layout has not, in terms of the footprint of the building and access, evolved from the previous scheme and there remain concerns that the layout is more suburban than rural in character. In terms of the form and external appearance of the buildings the standardised appearance of the units is somewhat disappointing. The proposed single storey units are in particular not reflective of traditional local design although it is noted that these are informed, at least in part, by seeking to meet the identified need for smaller units.

Policy D1 of the EDLP requires development to, amongst other things, respect the key characteristics and special qualities of the area and to ensure that matters including scale, massing, density, height and materials relate well to their context. In these respects there remains some concern with the layout of the development on site and in terms of materials proposed. Whilst the use of natural slate to the roofs of the houses is considered appropriate and light coloured render, in principle, to relate well to the site’s context its use performs less well in achieving a visually recessive wall finish which is one of the identified mitigation measures of the LVIA.

Overall, there remain some concerns with the appropriateness of the layout and form of the development and its wider landscape impact. It is accepted that over time the impact of the development would be likely to reduce, as landscape planting becomes fully established but nevertheless some harm would remain (as is inevitable from building houses in the AONB) and this would need to be balanced against the benefits of the scheme.

Contaminated land issues

The application is accompanied by a Preliminary Geoenvironmental and Geotechnical Assessment Report carried out by Tweedie Evans Consulting (March 2018). The

20/1234/FUL page 209

report identifies the potential for the site to have formerly be uses as a landfill site and as such to comprise potentially contaminated land and areas of made ground. The development is likely to disturb the site and increase the potential for pollutants to be released with potentially hazardous impacts to human health and controlled waters. Trial pit investigations on site have led to the conclusion that the main potential Significant Pollutant Linkages identified are considered to be: “…Human health (including construction workers and future site end users) – localised exposure to potential contaminants (PAHs and asbestos fibres) within made ground at the site through the ingestion, inhalations and dermal contact pathways” (para,11.1.7 of Tweedie Evans Report). In addition, the potential for ground gas to exist is noted.

The report sets out some preliminary recommendations to deal with the contamination risks which include removal of contaminated soil and importation of clean top soil, as well as a suitable cover system to prevent leekage of contaminants, specialist foundation design and suspended floor design is also referenced as being required, although a detailed remediation strategy is acknowledged to be required. A detailed drainage design is also identified as being necessary as soakage test data indicates that soakaway is unlikely to be appropriate.

The development of the site therefore has the potential to result in polluting effects that could be harmful to human health. Policies EN14 and EN16 of the EDLP respectively cover the control of pollution and land contamination. Policy EN14 states that permission will not be granted for permission that would result in unacceptable levels of various named pollutant impacts to local resident of the wider environment. Such impacts include, gas or particulates, underground waters and or noise/vibration. The development and method of construction has the potential to cause such pollutant impacts, however it has been suggested that such impacts could suitably controlled by a combination of a full contaminated site characterisation and remediation strategy as well as control over construction techniques/operations and site drainage. In terms of Contaminated Land the policy requires that an assessment is required that identifies and characterises the contamination, any risks associated with this and appropriate remediation measures. In relation to former landfill sites it must be demonstrated that there will be no harm to future occupiers from leachate or landfill gas.

The Council’s contaminated land officer has considered the submitted information and has acknowledged that a remedial solution could be developed to mitigate the contamination issues at this site. However, they have expressed concerns regarding the potential impact on the viability of the site given the extent of characterisation and remediation that is likely to be required to ensure it is acceptable for the proposed end use. Whilst this concern is acknowledged and has previously been expressed to the applicant, it is accepted that the cost of such provision is not, of itself, a reason to object to the proposal, albeit this could ultimately impact on the ability to deliver the site. It is acknowledged that a technical solution could be found to address the contamination issues and that these matters could be subject of a pre-commencement condition requiring further site characterisation to be carried out followed by the implementation of a full remediation strategy and ongoing monitoring of the site.

Arboricultural impacts

20/1234/FUL page 210

There are a number of trees on/adjoining the site and these are of varying quality, species and size, there are also sections of native hedgerow forming the site boundaries to the northwest and northeast adjacent to the local roads. An area Tree Preservation Order covers the entire site.

Policy D3 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that there is no net loss in the quality of trees or hedgerows resulting from an approved development. In this instance the arboricultural survey submitted with the application identifies a number of trees/sections of hedgerow that would be affected by the development. Such works would include the felling of a young ash tree, the removal of an approximate 15 metre section of hedgerow on the site frontage to form access and visibility and removal of part of a group of young trees to the southwest side of the site to enable drainage works. The Council’s arboricultural officer has advised that there is no objection in principle to the development but has raised concerns on the lack of supporting information to justify the loss of healthy trees and with regard to the replacement tree planting and landscaping proposals. An arboricultural report, impact assessment and revised landscaping proposals have subsequently been submitted. The application is also accompanied by a Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural method Statement.

The amended landscaping scheme for the site proposes the planting of significant numbers of new trees as follows: on the site frontage, forward of the proposed houses; to the south east and southwest within a proposed native hedgerow forming the boundary of the housing site, and; further to the south with the area of land in the same ownership but outside of the housing site. This proposed replacement tree planting would clearly take some time to establish and in the meantime the proposed loss of tree cover would result in some harm, however in the longer term the proposed replacement planting is considered to provide more than adequate compensation for the tree cover that would be lost. The Tree Preservation Order in place is an area order and therefore would continue to provide protection for both retained and new trees on site.

Ecological/biodiversity impacts

The application site comprises mainly of grassland, described as species-poor in the Ecological assessment accompanying the application. However, the report identifies some areas with a more species diverse sward. The boundary hedges are found to be of varying ecological value, with the boundary hedge to the north providing the most diverse habitat but with limited connectivity to other habitats of similar value. In terms of habitat loss the development of the site would result in the loss of the grass sward and removal of a section of the boundary hedge, additionally a number of trees are indicated for removal to the southeast side of the site, at the existing car park access and southwest of the site where the drainage field is proposed. In order to avoid harmful impacts of the aforementioned habitat loss, or to provide acceptable mitigation a number of measures are proposed these include: avoiding hedgerow removal in bird nesting season; providing bird nesting and bat roosting opportunities within the new development and maintaining as much of the tree coverage as possible, together with new tree planting. Subject to conditions requiring the provision of the suggested mitigation measures it is considered that the biodiversity value of the site can be maintained and enhanced and that the requirements of policy EN5 of the Local Plan can be met.

20/1234/FUL page 211

Highways issues

The site is proposed to be accessed, by a new vehicular access, from the local lane to the northeast of the site. This lane forms part of the network of local lanes that connect the village and surrounding areas with the wider strategic road network. It is also proposed to improve the visibility from the existing access that serves the car park area to the southeast of the site to ensure that inter-visibility between both access points is acceptable.

Internally the new access would provide a turning head to allow vehicles to access and egress the site in forward gear. The access would be tarmac surfaced with the turning head, courtyard and parking areas indicted to be block paving. Provision is made for the parking of 2 no. vehicles per property, with space for additional visitor parking.

Devon County Council as the Local Highways Authority (LHA) has advised that whilst the visibility distance would be slightly short of the standard 43m requirement (for 30 mph zones) that due to the geometry of the lane it is considered unlikely that traffic speeds would reach 30mph and as such have raised no objections to the proposed development. They have also commented that whilst they consider the proposal would result in a slight increase in trip generation on the local highway network this would not be detrimental to said network. On this basis it is considered that the proposal would accord with the requirements of policies TC7 and TC9 of the EDLP.

Surface water/foul drainage

The application is accompanied by a Drainage Strategy and Flood Risk Statement prepared by Craddys. The report confirms that there are no existing private surface or foul water drains within the site or any such public infrastructure in close proximity to the site, evidence is produced to support this position.

In terms of surface water drainage percolation tests have demonstrated that soakaway is not an appropriate method for the site, as such an alternative means of dealing with surface water drainage is proposed involving the storage of surface water in below ground cellular storage crates located to the southwest of the site. It is proposed that the storage crates would outfall, via below ground pipework, to an existing off-site stream located 112m to the south west of the site and would be attenuated to be no greater than the existing greenfield run-off rate. The surface water drainage system would be designed to have enough capacity for all storm durations including an appropriate allowance for climate change. The submitted details do not specifically address why above ground surface water storage i.e. in swales would not be suitable for this site and as such there may be other methods of managing surface water that would provide greater benefits, particularly in terms of biodiversity or environmental enhancements. It is recognised however that although there may be a preference for alternative means of surface water storage that the requirement to incorporate SUDs schemes applies only to major development schemes and it is only on such schemes that Devon County Council (in their capacity and the Local Lead Flood Authority) are consultees. Policy EN22 of the EDLP requires new development to fully consider the surface water implications of development, provide appropriate remedial measures

20/1234/FUL page 212

and ongoing management of any proposed infrastructure. The submitted scheme has demonstrated how surface water would be appropriately managed and set out the ongoing management responsibilities for the infrastructure, which would remain with the CLT, it is considered that the requirement of the policy is met in this respect.

In relation to foul drainage, again there is no public infrastructure nearby to serve the site and as such a private system is proposed. A Package Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) is proposed to be located just south of the development site serving the proposed units and with outfall to the stream southwest of the site. A permit to facilitate the outfall to this stream would be a separate requirement to planning permission. The proposed means of dealing with foul drainage is considered to be appropriate in accordance with policy EN19 of the EDLP.

In terms of flood risk the site is in Flood Zone 1 and falls below the site area threshold for requiring a flood risk assessment (FRA), nevertheless the submitted report has considered potential flood risks and concludes the development is appropriate in this regard.

Other issues

It is understood that part of the site has previously provided a play area and there is evidence in the form of aerial photographs, dating from May 2010, of an area toward the east side of the site, adjacent to the car park, where play equipment is evident. In later photographs from 2015 this area is back to grass and undemarcated from the rest of the site. This matter was raised with the applicant in relation to the previous application (19/2391/FUL). The application now provides some further detail with regards to this issue. It is stated that ‘The Nothleigh playground’ was erected in the early 1990s using Rural Aid Grant funding and was inspected annually for insurance purposes. It is advised that the playground failed an annual inspection in 2013 and the equipment was subsequently dismantled and removed, due to a lack of funding it has not been replaced. It is further suggested that the (remainder of the) field is and would remain available for public use/recreational purposes and would retain sufficient space for future play equipment provision should grant funding be available in the future.

Policy RC1 of the EDLP states that proposals that would result in the loss of open space currently, or previously, used for a number of purposes, including play areas, won’t be permitted unless alternative provision of equivalent community benefit is made available or unless there is an excess of public open space in the area. It is understood that there is currently an under provision of open space in the parish.

The applicant has indicated their willingness to accommodate play equipment on the adjoining retained community land to the south of the housing site should funding for this become available in the future. This land within the field, to the south of the application site is within the same ownership as the application site i.e. Coly Valley CLT and therefore the applicant has control over this land. In addition, another area of land is identified as public open space in the northwest corner of the site even though the development itself is not of a scale that would require such on-site provision under Strategy 43 of the EDLP. This area is considered to be of equivalent size the to the former play area and as such and given that there is no current provision of play equipment on site and has not been since 2013, such provision (without the

20/1234/FUL page 213

requirement for play equipment) is considered to make suitable alternative provision sufficient to satisfy the requirements of policy RC1. It should be noted that the former play area on the site does not appear to have been recorded in either the 2012 East Devon Open Space Study or the subsequent 2014 Review and as such its status is questionable.

S.106 requirements

The application is accompanied by a draft terms for a legal agreement relating to the securing of all of the units as affordable rented properties for either social or affordable rent (dependent on the level of grant subsidy that can be secured) and setting out the allocation and eligibility criteria, these matters are considered to be acceptable in principle but would need to be secured by means of a s.106 agreement.

In addition the onsite open space and the ongoing management of these elements would also need to be secured by the legal agreement.

PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION

The application proposes development within the designated AONB and outside of a recognised settlement boundary. The development would clearly alter the character of the site and would result in some harmful landscape/visual impact, albeit such impact could be mitigated to an extent and would reduce over time. In addition, the proposal would result in development which, in terms of the environmental dimension of sustainable development would be unsustainable, with residents of the development likely to rely heavily on private transport to meet the majority of their needs. These impacts therefore weight against the proposal.

In terms of ecological impact the proposal would result in the loss of some habitat but the application proposes significant areas of new planting and hedgerow creation and as such overall biodiversity enhancement could be secured.

Balanced against the environmental impact are the social and economic benefits that might accrue from the development. In this case the proposal would bring forward affordable housing development to meet an identified need within the parish group in which the application site lies and where there are currently no alternative schemes by which this need might otherwise be met. The scheme is being promoted by a CLT that has been established to secure affordable housing to meet the needs of the parish group and in this way is considered to be a community led scheme. The provision of affordable housing, to meet an identified need that would otherwise appear to go unmet, weighs heavily in the applications favour. Further social benefits may arise through the support by future residents of existing community facilities in the parish group, including potentially the primary school in the adjoining parish.

In economic terms the proposal would provide some benefits both directly though the construction and associated jobs that would be supported and to a lesser extent through the support of local businesses, although in this regard the limited service provision in the parishes is noted.

20/1234/FUL page 214

In this case the benefits and harm that would result from the development are considered to be finely balanced and in similar situations the location of the site and lack of service provision within the nearby village would be sufficient to tip the balance in favour of refusal. However, in this instance it is recognised that the Local Plan has grouped the parishes of Farway, Southleigh and Northleigh together for the purpose of assessing housing need and that in order to meet that need locally development would need to be delivered in one of those parishes none of which meet the level of named service provision required under Strategy 35 of the Local Plan.

In circumstances where development is proposed outside the larger villages and towns of the district and where there is no built-up area boundary in place, Strategy 27 refers to the establishment of CLTs as a means of promoting community led development. In this case the Coly Valley CLT has been established to deliver affordable housing to meet an identified need and has demonstrated through a site selection process how this site has been arrived at. Whilst development of the site would result in some landscape impact and residents are likely to be largely reliant on private transport the same would be true of any other site within the grouped parishes. This being the case it is not considered there are any other sites which could deliver against the identified need and which are considered to be more sustainably located. It is therefore considered, very much on balance, that the exceptional circumstances of this case and the delivery of a 100% affordable housing scheme to meet an identified need are sufficient to outweigh the identified harm and the application can be supported subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure the affordable housing provision and the conditions below.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions and completion of a s.106 legal agreement to secure on-site affordable housing and the management of the on-site open space.

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 to 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 (including where relevant details of quiet piling techniques to be employed), 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

20/1234/FUL page 215

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: A pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that the details are agreed before the start of works to protect the amenities of existing and future residents in the vicinity of the site from noise, air, water and light pollution in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and EN14 - Control of Pollution of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

4. Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4 (as 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

(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, 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'.

2. Submission of Remediation Scheme

A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared,

20/1234/FUL page 216

and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

3. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme

The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

4. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination

In the event that contamination is found at any time 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.

5. 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 (common to all): 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

20/1234/FUL page 217

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.)

5. Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall commence until a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) has been submitted to and been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include: - an ecological management plan; - a timetable for the delivery of the landscape and ecological mitigation measures indicated in the Ecological Appraisal Report, prepared by Sunflower International Ecological Consultancy and dated September 2019 and Detailed Planting Plan drawing no. 792_002B - details of the medium term monitoring and management of the site ( in this respect the LEMP shall provide for certification, by the appointed landscape architects and ecological consultant, to be submitted to the LPA within one month of completion of planting, confirming that the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved drawings and details. Thereafter annual hedgerow monitoring reports by the landscape or ecological consultant shall be submitted to the LPA for the first five years, confirming that management is being carried out in accordance with the LEMP and that any replacements of dead planting and other defects that may arise have been made good.), and; - details of the long term monitoring and management of the site (year 5 onwards) to ensure mitigation measures are retained and appropriately managed in perpetuity

Development shall proceed in accordance with details as agreed.

(Reason- In the interests of mitigating the landscape impacts of the proposal, the conservation and enhancement of the landscape and to protect existing habitats and enhance the biodiversity value of the site in accordance with Strategies 5 (Environment), 7 (Development in the Countryside), 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs), Strategy 47 (Nature Conservation and Geology) and Policies D2 (Landscape Requirements) and EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2033; policy NE1 - Development and the Natural Environment of the Beer Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2031, and; paragraphs 172 and 175 of the National Planning Policy Framework. This is a pre-commencement condition as it seeks to ensure the measures are appropriately planned for and considered from the outset of the development.)

6. Notwithstanding the requirements of condition 5 above, and unless otherwise previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the landscaping scheme herby approved (as set out on drawing no. 792_002B) shall be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of the development and shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or other plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

20/1234/FUL page 218

(Reason - In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Strategies 7 (Development in the countryside), 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs) and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and D2 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

7. 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 and hard landscaping 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.)

8. Prior to their installation further details of the items specified below shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

- Any external flues and meter boxes. - Any external lighting - Solar PV panel specification/appearance

Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and specification. (Reason - To ensure that the details are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area and to control light pollution in accordance with Strategies 7 (Development in the Countryside) 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs) and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness), EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

9. 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) no works within the Schedule Part 1 Classes A, C, D or E for the enlargement, improvement or other alterations to the dwellings hereby permitted or for provision of buildings, enclosure or other specified works within the curtilage of any dwellinghouse , other than works that do not materially affect the external appearance of the buildings, shall be undertaken. (Reason - To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over future development in the interests of 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.)

10. Development shall proceed in accordance with the Tree Report (incorporating Tree Protection Measures and Arboricultural Method Statement) prepared by Hellis Solutions Limited and dated August 2020 with all tree protection measures to be installed prior to commencement of any works on site (including

20/1234/FUL page 219

demolition) and thereafter retained until development has been completed. Provision shall also be made for supervision of tree protection by a suitably qualified and experienced arboricultural consultant. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the agreed details unless alternative details have previously been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

(Reason - In interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and D3 - Trees and Development Sites of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

11. Prior to the initial occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved and unless any alternative timetable, or details, have previously been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the site drainage ((foul and surface water) infrastructure as specified in the submitted Drainage Strategy prepared by Craddys and dated 5th June 2020, shall have been completed and shall thereafter be maintained. (Reason - To avoid pollution of the environment and/or flooding in accordance with the requirements of Policies EN14 - Control of Pollution and EN22 (Surface Run-off Implications of New Development) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Plans relating to this application:

792_002 B Landscaping 06.10.20

20/1234/FUL page 220

50111-0030 rev Other Plans 16.10.20 B : Visibility splay plan

7560 01-001 F Location Plan 26.06.20

7560-01-005D Proposed Combined 26.06.20 Plans

7560 01-006 Sections 17.06.20 REV: B

7560 01-002 Proposed Site Plan 17.06.20 REV: J

7560 01-003 Proposed Combined 17.06.20 REV: D Plans

7560 01-004 Proposed Combined 17.06.20 REV: D Plans

792_003 A Landscaping 17.06.20

792_004 A Landscaping 17.06.20

Plant Schedule Landscaping 17.06.20

Drainage General 17.06.20 Strategy Correspondence

Tree Survey Arboriculturist Report 17.06.20 (October 2019)

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

20/1234/FUL page 221 Agenda Item 14

Ward Dunkeswell And Otterhead

Reference 20/2082/FUL

Applicant Mr and Mrs Summers

Location Kains Park Farm Awliscombe Honiton EX14 3NN

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

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

page 222

Committee Date: 2nd December 2020

Dunkeswell And Target Date: Otterhead 20/2082/FUL 03.12.2020 (Awliscombe)

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Summers

Location: Kains Park Farm Awliscombe

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

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before Members as one of the applicants is an employee of East Devon District Council.

The development proposed is the construction of an agricultural building to be used for rearing and fattening beef cattle. This represents a re-entry to livestock farming after the business diversified from dairy farming into storage, first of agricultural machinery but more recently into caravan storage and letting storage space in containers. Since that aspect of the business took off, the agricultural land has been used for growing and selling grass for grazing and cutting.

The proposed building is a typical modern livestock building and would have concrete and timber walls with a fibre cement roof. It would measure 24.4m by 27.4m with an eaves height of 4.9m and a ridge height of 8.1m. The eastern end would be raised by just over a metre owing to the slope of the field. At the western end there would be a concrete hardstanding and a hardcore track leading to a new gate into the storage yard which would provide access to the highway.

All of the existing buildings are in use for commercial or farm storage and none are suitable for the proposed use in terms of their size, construction or their location within the storage area. Nevertheless, in landscape terms the proposed building would be well related to the existing buildings and would not appear unduly prominent or out of character. The nearest dwelling is about 200m away and would not be adversely affected by noise, smells or fly nuisance.

Subject to protection of boundary trees and hedgerows, a suitable drainage scheme and closure of the redundant field access, the proposal is supported.

20/2082/FUL page 223

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Dunkeswell And Otterhead - Cllr David Key I support the application for an agricultural building.

Parish/Town Council The Parish Council have no objections to this application and fully support

Technical Consultations

Health and Safety Executive Do Not Advise Against, consequently, HSE does not advise, on safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission in this case.

Other Representations None received.

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

07/1903/COU Change of use of buildings to Approval 08.11.2007 storage of agricultural retrospecti machinery ve (conditions )

16/2551/FUL Expansion of existing storage Approval 11.01.2017 and distribution site including with revisions to planning conditions permission 07/1903/COU to allow storage of caravans, boats, trailers, machinery and vehicles ; caravan wash bay; 25no storage containers for self store use; and associated works including re-cladding of existing storage building.

POLICIES

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

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

20/2082/FUL page 224

D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

D7 (Agricultural Buildings and Development)

EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features)

EN14 (Control of Pollution)

EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development)

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

National Planning Practice Guidance

Site Location and Description

Kains Park Farm is located a short distance to the south east of Awliscombe off Weston Lane which is a well-used lane providing access to the A373 from the south. It sits in a low lying undulating landscape characterised by small to medium fields divided by hedgerows with many hedgerow trees. The Blackdown Hills AONB is about 300m to the north. The existing farm buildings and yard have a well-established commercial use for storage purposes, including storage in containers and caravan storage.

Proposal

Planning permission is sought for an agricultural building for the purpose of establishing a beef enterprise that would involve rearing and fattening high quality cattle. The building would be located in the field on the north side of the storage yard and would measure 24.4m by 27.4m with an eaves height of 4.9m and a ridge height of 8.1m. Owing to the slope of the site, ground levels would be raised at the eastern end by slightly more than a metre. At the western end a hard standing area would be constructed in concrete with a larger hardcore area beyond that and a track connecting to a new gateway into the storage yard. The materials used would be concrete and timber for the walls and fibre cement sheets for the roof.

ANALYSIS

The main issues for consideration are the acceptability of the principle of development, assessment of the visual impact of the building and impact upon residential amenity.

Principle

Policy D7 of the Local Plan supports new agricultural buildings in the countryside where there is a genuine agricultural need and subject to a number of other criteria (assessed below).

There are a number of buildings around the farm yard which are used for commercial storage in accordance with earlier permissions or are still used for agricultural storage.

20/2082/FUL page 225

However, none are suited to the proposed activity for a number of reasons. Primarily the commercial storage provides an important income to the farm, the loss of which would be to the detriment of the farm business as a whole. In addition, the buildings would need significant upgrading and improvement and no single building is of a suitable scale. They also share space with the storage yard which is used by people accessing their caravans or storage containers and this is not compatible with the activity associated with keeping livestock.

By way of further background, the farm comprises 39 acres of owned land and a further 11 acres of rented land nearby. Historically the farm operated as a dairy unit, and diversified into agricultural contracting and haulage. After milk production ceased the farm diversified into storage, starting initially with farm machinery and then expanding into other forms of storage. Farming activities are now limited to growing and selling grass for grazing and cutting.

The applicant now seeks a return to keeping livestock at the farm, underpinned by the financial success of the storage business. Having regard to the lack of suitable and available buildings on the farm, the need for a new building is accepted.

Visual Impact

Policy D7 states that proposals should be well integrated with its surroundings and closely related to existing buildings, being of appropriate location, scale, design and materials so as not to harm the character, biodiversity and landscape of the rural area particularly within the AONB.

Although not located within the existing yard, the building would be closely related to the farm and would be seen as an expansion of the established group of buildings. Views from the surrounding road network would be screened or partially screened by land form, hedgebanks and trees. Where views are possible, they are likely to be of the timber walls and roof and would be against a backdrop of the existing farm. From higher ground, including from the AONB, the building would not appear out of scale with its surroundings or isolated in the landscape.

There are a number of trees around the perimeter of the field in which the building would be located. The precise siting of the building has taken these into account and would avoid intrusion into the root protection areas. A condition requiring protective fencing during the construction work would be necessary, however.

The field is also bounded by hedgerows and some removal is required to facilitate access. By way of compensation it is proposed to close the existing access in the southern boundary of the field and plant native hedge species. This approach has been informed by an ecological assessment which found that the proposal would have a negligible impact if timed appropriately. To ensure that development takes place in accordance with the ecologist's recommendations a condition is necessary.

The design and scale of the building has been determined having regard to the welfare of the livestock and overall it is considered appropriate for its setting.

20/2082/FUL page 226

Amenity Impact

Policy D7 states that proposal should not be detrimental to the amenity of nearby residents on grounds of smell, noise or fly nuisance.

The nearest neighbour is Yeolands which is just under 200m to the north-north-west and there are other dwellings at least 300m away on all sides of the site. None are considered to be in such close proximity that they would be adversely affected by noise, odour or fly nuisance.

Other matters

Policy D7 also require a suitable access and drainage provision.

With regard to access, the proposal may lead to a small increase in traffic movements but this would be minor relative to the volume of traffic using the roads leading to the site. There are also suitable passing places and therefore the additional traffic can be safely accommodated on the lane.

With regard to drainage, initial discussions have indicated that clean run-off would drain to a ditch on the boundary of the field which then runs into the River Wolf and joins the Otter about 800m south of the site. To avoid the hard surfacing leading to an increase in the run-off rate compared to the natural rate of run-off from the field it is necessary to secure details of a drainage scheme. In this instance it may be appropriate to provide an attenuation basin between the building and the ditch but details of appropriate measures can be secured by condition.

Foul water would be kept separate from clean water run-off by means of straw bedding. To ensure this separation is maintained a condition is necessary.

Finally, the site is within the consultation distance of a high pressure gas pipeline which is about 150m south east of the site. Given the nature of the proposal and the distance from the pipeline, the Health and Safety Executive has not objected to the proposal.

CONCLUSION

Subject to conditions to secure tree protection, suitable drainage and hedge planting, the proposal is in conformity with Policy D7 and is therefore supported.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

20/2082/FUL page 227

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) Prior to the commencement of any works on site, a scheme for the protection of the retained trees and hedges shall be produced in accordance with the principles embodied in BS5837:2012, which provides for the retention and protection of trees and hedges growing on or adjacent to the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development or other operations shall take place except in complete accordance with the approved protection scheme.

(b) No operations shall be undertaken on site in connection with the development hereby approved (including any tree felling, tree pruning, demolition works, soil moving, temporary access construction and / or widening or any operations involving the use of motorised vehicles or construction machinery) until the protection works required by the approved protection scheme are in place.

(c) No excavations for services, storage of materials or machinery, parking of vehicles, deposit or excavation of soil or rubble, lighting of fires or disposal of liquids shall take place within any area designated as being fenced off or otherwise protected in the approved protection scheme.

(d) Protective fencing shall be retained intact for the full duration of the development hereby approved and shall not be removed or repositioned without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

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

4. No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Unless it is demonstrated that it is unfeasible to do so, the scheme shall use appropriate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). The drainage scheme shall be designed so that there is no increase in the rate of surface water runoff from the site resulting from the development and so that storm water flows are attenuated. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. (Reason - The details are required prior to commencement to ensure that they fit efficiently within the site layout, protect water quality and minimise flood risk in accordance with Policy EN22 - Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.)

20/2082/FUL page 228

5. The site shall be drained on a separate system of foul and surface water drainage, with all clean roof and surface water being kept separate from foul drainage. (Reason - To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with the requirements of EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

6. All foul drainage, including foul surface water run-off shall be disposed of in such a way as to prevent any discharge to a well, borehole or spring or any watercourse, including dry ditches with a connection to a watercourse. (Reason - To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

7. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of Protected Species Survey prepared by Richard Green Ecology Ltd dated 4 August 2020. (Reason - To ensure that the development conserves wildlife habitats and protected species in accordance with Policy EN5 - Wildlife Habitats and Features of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

8. The new access in the southern boundary of the field shall not be created until a scheme for the blocking up of the existing field access is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include an earth bank planted with native hedgerow species. The scheme shall be implemented in the first planting season following the creation of the new access in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - To ensure that the loss of hedgerow to create the new access is compensated by new planting in the interests of biodiversity in accordance with Policy EN5 - Wildlife Habitats and Features of the East Devon Local Plan 2013- 2031.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Plans relating to this application:

4 Proposed Combined 28.09.20 Plans

3 Proposed Elevation 28.09.20

1 Location Plan 28.09.20

2 issue 2 Proposed Site Plan 08.10.20

20/2082/FUL page 229

5 issue 3 Sections 08.10.20

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

20/2082/FUL page 230 Agenda Item 15

Ward Woodbury And Lympstone

Reference 20/1531/LBC

Applicant Mrs J Young

Location Jasmine Cottage The Strand Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5JR Proposal Replace existing passageway roof and install 3no. rooflights; construct wall at end of passageway and insert 1no. window on north elevation; removal of partition walls in utility and construct new partition wall and door opening to create wet room; create level floor across the passageway; install double doors in existing opening between dining and lounge to create bedroom

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

page 231

Committee Date: 2nd December 2020

Woodbury And Target Date: Lympstone 20/1531/LBC 20.11.2020 (Lympstone)

Applicant: Mrs J Young

Location: Jasmine Cottage The Strand

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

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before members as the applicant is a close relative of a Member of the Council.

The application seeks listed building consent for works that have been previously approved at Committee in August 2017.

The alterations are relatively minor to allow a ground floor wet room and bedroom and will have no harmful impact on the character, appearance and significance of the listed building.

Subject to the conditions the works are considered to be acceptable.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council Recommendation: Support

LPC support inline with LBC Officers recommendations.

20/1531/LBC page 232

Technical Consultations

None.

Other Representations No 3rd party representations were received

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset)

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

Site Location and Description

Jasmine Cottage is mid C19, possibly incorporating earlier work. Constructed in random rubble sandstone and limestone with a hipped slate roof with red ridge tiles, the property is set back from the main street, The Strand, and fronted by a small garden area.

The property is therefore located off The Strand in Lympstone with the listing description for the property stating the following:

Listed Grade II: Jessamine Cottage - GV II Cottage. Mid C19, possibly incorporating earlier work. Random rubble sandstone and limestone; hipped slate roof with red ridge tiles. Single-depth 1-room plan, with rear outshut; remains of an external rear lateral stack; right-hand internal end stack. 2 storeys. Front: 2-window range; one 12, and one 16-pane hornless sash windows to first floor; another 16-pane sash window to right of door, which has fielded panels and a rectangular fanlight; simple canopy on shaped brackets. Included for group value. Listing NGR: SX9900484140

The site also lies within the Lympstone Conservation Area.

Proposal

The application relates to various works at Jasmine Cottage and comprises two main elements:

Firstly, alterations to the existing ground floor extension, housing the outside utility room and store, to create a new ground floor shower/wet room. This includes the construction of a new clay tiled roof incorporating 3no. rooflights over the passageway, infilling the end (north) wall, removing the modern block wall and levelling the floors. This will allow the applicant to adapt the listed building to meet their longterm needs by providing a ground floor shower/wet room.

20/1531/LBC page 233

Secondly, there is an existing opening between the ground floor lounge and dining room and it is proposed to infill the central openings with timber double doors and panels to create a ground floor bedroom for use by the owner, enabling them to access facilities without having to climb the original steep staircase to the first floor. This work will not include the removal of any historic fabric and could easily be reversed at a later date if required.

The current proposal is a resubmission of the same works that were approved under application ref. 17/1246/LBC.

ANALYSIS

The alterations to the existing ground floor extension are sympathetic to the listed building and do not result in the loss of any main features to the building or result in any harm to the listed building.

With regard to the second part of the proposal and the infilling of the central openings with timber double doors and panels to create a ground floor bedroom for use by the owner, this work will not include the removal of any historic fabric and could easily be reversed at a later date if required therefore causing no harm to the listed building.

In light of the above, the alterations proposed are relatively minor and will not harm the setting, character, appearance or features of the listed building. As such the works are in accordance with Policy EN9 of the Local Plan.

Subject to the conditions the works are considered to be acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

2. The works 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 any work is undertaken to remove any part of the building, the applicant shall take such steps and carry out such works as shall, during the process of the works permitted by this consent, secure the safety and the stability of that part of the building which is to be retained. Such steps and works shall, where necessary, include, in relation to any part of the building to be retained, measures as follows:-

20/1531/LBC page 234

a) to strengthen any wall or vertical surface; b) to support any wall, roof or horizontal surface; and c) to provide protection for the building against the weather during the progress of the works. Details of any additional necessary repairs required as a result of the works, including methodology, specification or schedule shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before continuing with the works. (Reason - To safeguard the architectural and historic character of the building in accordance with Policy EN9 - Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

4. Before the relevant parts of the works begin on the items specified below, the following details and specification for these items shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

- Roofing materials including product details, sample and method of fixing. - Size, type and manufacturers model of all roof lights, including method of flashing. - New rainwater goods including profiles, materials and finishes. - Roof ventilation systems. - New windows including sections, mouldings, profiles and paint colour. Sections through casements, frames and glazing bars should be at a scale of 1:2 or 1:5. - New double doors and infill panels between the lounge and the dining room including sections, mouldings, profiles and paint colour. Sections through casements, frames, panels and glazing bars should be at a scale of 1:2 or 1:5. - Eaves and verge details including construction and finishes. - External vents, flues - Type of render including proportions of mix, method of application and finishes.

5. Where partitions are to be removed in accordance with the approved works, the work shall be made good to match the original. (Reason - To safeguard the architectural and historic character of the building in accordance Policy EN9 - Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

6. Where new partitions are constructed in accordance with the approved works they shall be scribed around (not cut into) existing cornices, skirtings or other features.

20/1531/LBC page 235

(Reason - To safeguard the architectural and historic character of the building in accordance with Policy EN9 - Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

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 listed building concerns. However, in this case the application was deemed acceptable as submitted.

Plans relating to this application:

Block Plan 23.09.20

Location Plan 23.09.20 image002 (2) Photos 23.09.20

TW/17/09/01 Existing Floor Plans 23.09.20

TW/17/09/02 Sections 23.09.20

TW/17/09/03 Existing Elevation 23.09.20

TW/17/09/04 Proposed Combined 23.09.20 Plans

Photos 25.09.20

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

20/1531/LBC page 236