Bishops Clyst Parish Council
BISHOPS CLYST PARISH COUNCIL
Clerk & RFO to the Council
Emma Gibbons
30 Westward Drive
Exmouth EX8 1JD
07861 801335;
Chairman: Cllr M Norman
(Tel: 01392 877012)
Our Ref: BC/14/CVH/2/15
18 November 2015
Ed Freeman
Head of Planning
Planning Department
East Devon District Council
Council Offices
Knowle
SIDMOUTH, EX10 8HL
BY E MAIL AND POST – RECORDED DELIVERY
Dear Sir/Madam
RE: AMENDMENTS TO: PLANNING APPLICATION REF. NO’s. 14/2637/OUT, 14/2640/MFUL, 14/2641/LBC, 14/2642/MFUL, 14/2643/LBC and 14/2644/MFUL – Applications for Mixed Use Redevelopment at Winslade Park, Clyst St Mary, Exeter.
Bishops Clyst Parish Council (BCPC) has previously objected to the planning applications referred to above on 23 January 2015. This document sets out further objections to the amendments to the original applications referred to above, and should be read in conjunction with those previous objections.
Summary of objections:
•The applications are not in accordance with the Development Plan (adopted East Devon Local Plan 2006-2011), specifically Policies S5, D1, E3, E6, EN6, EN9, RE1, RE2, TA1, TA3 and TA7.
•The applications are contrary to the emerging New East Devon Local Plan (eLP), including Strategies 1, 7, 34 and 47.
•The applications would conflict with a number of policies set out in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan (NP).
•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 developments 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.
•A significant number of documents relied on by the Applicant have not been produced for public comment. These should be released prior to further public consultation.
Introduction
The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 require that planning applications be determined in accordance with the statutory Development Plan (DP) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the purposes of these current applications the DP comprises the East Devon Local Plan 2006-2011(LP).
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clearly a material consideration, particularly where relevant policies are regarded as out-of-date (see para 49 NPPF).
EDDC’s current position is that it now has a 5 year housing land supply, although this has not yet been fully tested through the development plan process. Most recent appeal decisions have taken the view that, this being the case, policies which make provision for housing may not be regarded as up to date. In the context of these applications Local Plan policy S3 cannot therefore be regarded as up-to-date.
However, recent appeals have also held that policies that are directed at the protection of open countryside are not those which make provision for housing, and consequently cannot be regarded as out of date (See APP/U1105/W/14/3001269 – Lees Farm, Talaton which references the High Court decision in Cheshire East v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 410).
Notwithstanding this, and the effect of para 14 of the NPPF (which explains that where relevant policies are out-of-date permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when set against other policies in the NPPF), planning permission should be refused where proposals conflict with saved policies in the Local Plan which are not out-of-date or where proposals significantly and demonstrably conflict with NPPF policies and principles.
This approach has been supported by Inspectors at a number of appeals across the District, such as Feniton, Seaton, Tipton St John and Newton Poppleford, notwithstanding the District wide lack of a 5 year housing land supply.
Given this, significant weight should be afforded to the NPPF in respect of these current applications together with other relevant policies in the LP.
As the emerging Local Plan (eLP), having now been subject to a resumed Examination in Public, and further consultation being underway on the Inspector’s proposed changes, should now be regarded as being close to adoption, it can be afforded significant, although not full, weight.
The new Neighbourhood Plan (NP) is also at an advanced stage, and is now awaiting the final adoption of the East Devon eLP before proceeding to its final stages and ultimate adoption. Given this advanced stage the emerging NP should be afforded significant weight.
East Devon Local Plan (2006-2011)
It is considered that the proposed developments conflict with the following Development Plan Policies.
Policy S5 (Countryside Protection)
The site of the proposed development lies outside the Built Up Area Boundary (BUAB) of Clyst St Mary, and notwithstanding that part of the site has been previously developed, is defined as countryside for the purposes of the Development Plan. For the reasons set out above, Policy S5 should not be regarded as making provision for housing, and applies to the site. As there is no specific DP policy permitting residential development of this site and as, for the detailed reasons set out below, the proposal causes harm to the landscape, local amenity and environment within which it is located, the development is contrary to LP Policy S5.
Comments on the proposed allocation of the site in the eLP for redevelopment are set out below.
D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)
LP Policy D1 requires that development proposals will only be permitted where they reinforce the key characteristics and special qualities of the area in which the development is proposed. The policy, in particular requires that proposed development does not adversely affect the distinctive historic or architectural character of the area nor adversely affect important landscape characteristics.
The statutory consultee on heritage matters, Historic England (HE), remains opposed to the proposed development, despite the amendments now submitted, on the basis that it will adversely affect the setting of a Grade II* house, adversely affecting the open character of the parkland landscape and setting producing a much less restricted axial view, fundamentally changing the manner in which Winslade Manor and its setting is experienced.
As such, the proposed development still conflicts with LP Policy D1 and NPPF paragraphs 129 and 132.
E3 (Safeguarding Employment Land and Premises) and;
E6 (Small Scale Employment Development in Rural Areas)
Our previous objections on these Policy grounds remain unaffected by the amendments submitted.
EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features)
Our previous observations remain, but it is noteworthy that since submission further proposed changes to the eLP have been put out for consultation by EDDC which are of direct relevance to this application in the context of European sites (SPAs and SACs).
The proposed changes recognise that “any development that could lead to extra visitor pressure on the Exe Estuary or the Pebblebed Heaths would be likely to have adverse nature conservation impacts unless mitigation measures are put in place.”
The proposed development at Winslade Park is one such development.
Consequently it is proposed that draft Strategy 47 – Nature Conservation and Geology is amended to take such developments into account.
The new Strategy 47 will apply to all residential development schemes within a 10km distance of any part of the SAC and/or SPA, and, most importantly, “the onus will rest on developers demonstrating that mitigation can and will be provided and granting of planning permission will be linked to clear evidence that delivery will actually happen to agreed timescales.”
It is considered that “On-site mitigation measures are likely to be most appropriate in the very early years of the Local Plan’s life”, whereas off-site mitigation in the form of SANGS should aim for a target level provision of around 8 hectares of open space for every 1,000 new residents, equivalent to 176m2 of SANGS per dwelling.
Most tellingly, the new Strategy will require such mitigation proposals to be implemented ahead of any development being occupied and provide for mitigation “in perpetuity”.
It is clear that unless these proposed changes are incorporated into the new LP it will be declared “unsound” in that it will fail to meet the stringent requirements of the Habitats Directive and the Conservation Regulations 2010.
The SANGS provision set out in the amended application fails to satisfy the requirements of the draft Strategy (and consequently the legislation set out in the Habitats Directive and Conservation Regulations).
In addition, the amended Arboricultural Report now illustrates the extent of the destruction of mature trees on site in order to enable the proposed development to proceed. It is considered that such removal will constitute not only the loss of valuable habitat and resource in itself, but will also remove an important wildlife corridor between Grindle Brook and the River Clyst.
On the basis of the information provided on ecological matters the proposed development fails to satisfy the requirements of Local Plan Policy EN6, and the Conservation Regulations 2010.
EN9 (Extension, Alteration or Change of Use of Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest)
The latest consultation response from Historic England (see above) states clearly that the proposed development, despite its amendments, still conflicts with NPPF para. 132 in that it will adversely impact on the setting of the Grade II* listed building Winlsade Park Manor.
This finding also represents a clear conflict with saved Local Plan Policy EN9.
RE1 (Retention of Land for Sport and Recreation) and;
RE2 (Open Space, Sports Facilities and Parks)
The amended application continues to offer a significant downgrading of the current facilities, in that the new pitch layout and design remain inappropriate for adult use, and the loss of sports and social facilities (including the swimming pool, gym, squash, badminton and tennis courts) are not compensated for by the new provision, representing an significant overall loss in terms of community provision and benefit.
TA1 (Accessibility of New Development) and;
TA7 (Adequacy of Road network and Site Access)
Our previous objections relating to transport and traffic matters remain, but there are additional relevant points to be raised in this context.
Firstly, it has now been confirmed that the bus service providing public transport links between Clyst St Mary and Exeter has been reduced, so that the only service now remaining is the 52A and 52B. Given our previous submissions on the lack of sustainability in locational terms for residential development of the scale proposed, this further reduction in public transport provision can only serve to further reduce the sustainability credentials of the site.
Secondly, it appears that the amended application is not supported by an amended or updated Transport Statement (TS) or Transport Assessment (TA). The provision of such is an explicit requirement of the NPPF (see para.32), and is also a requirement of adopted LP Policy TA3.
Thirdly, and with direct bearing on LP Policy TA7, the Applicants acknowledge that the proposed development would result in increased traffic movements during pm peak periods. However, it is then asserted that the network will be capable of absorbing such increases due to a recent and significant trend of reduced background traffic. The source of this claimed trend is unreferenced, and without the production of this evidence the veracity of the claim cannot be scrutinised. The Applicants should be required to produce such evidence, together with a revised TA, allowing sufficient time for this further information to be assessed.
Emerging East Devon Local Plan
The Applicants place significant weight and reliance on the new proposed Policy for the Re-development of Redundant Offices Complex at Winslade Park and Land Adjoining Clyst St Mary in the emerging LP.
This proposed Policy should, of course, be interpreted and applied within the overall context of other emerging LP Strategies and Policies. Draft Strategy 34 – District Wide Affordable Housing Provision Targets is clearly directly applicable to this proposed development.
The draft Strategy requires a target of 25% affordable dwellings at growth centres identified. Outside these areas a 50% target will apply. The Winslade Park site is not identified as a growth area or strategic site, and consequently, to be policy compliant, a 50% affordable element should be provided.
The position of the Applicant is set out in their agent’s (JLL) covering letter dated 6 October 2015, which, referring to the District Valuer’s review of the Applicant’s Viability Assessment, states that;
“…the proposed development is unviable when applying policy compliant affordable housing and other developer contributions.” (Covering letter page 6)
It is then asserted that;
“The proposed development can remain policy compliant even if no affordable housing contributions are proposed.” (Covering letter page 6)
The letter continues stating that EDDC will be provided with further details of revised unit numbers, revised valuation of those units and details of increased costs. Notwithstanding this, the Applicants are prepared to offer a small number of units at less than market rent for a fixed period of years.
The relevant section of Draft Strategy 34 states that;
“The District Council will consider issues of development viability and housing mix including additional costs associated with the development of brownfield sites, mitigation of contamination and the provision of significant community benefits provided the assessment process is completely transparent and there is full financial disclosure by stakeholders.” (Our emphasis)
When set in this context, whilst it may be strictly correct for the Applicants to assert that a development may be policy compliant even if there is no affordable element, it is clearly not policy compliant in circumstances where any and all documents relating to the financial viability of the scheme continue to be withheld from public and consultee scrutiny, as appears to be the case here.
It is therefore formally requested that the Council produce the District Valuer’s review, the Applicant’s Viability Assessment and the further information referred to by the Applicant’s agent in their letter of 6 October 2105, and allowing a reasonable period of time for such information to be considered by the public and consultees.
The Agent’s letter also makes reference to a Draft Section 106 Agreement. At the time of writing this document does not appear to have been published on the Council’s web site, and it is requested that this be produced as soon as possible for public comment.
Failure to produce the documents referred to above would not only constitute a failure to comply with draft Strategy 34, but also the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR).
For the avoidance of any doubt, it is considered that the information sought constitutes environmental information as defined in the EIR 2004, and is not subject to any of the exemptions to disclosure set out in the EIR. There is a clear public interest in disclosing the information sought, and no evidence that such disclosure would adversely affect any legitimate economic interest. For fuller consideration of the applicability of the EIR to viability reports and the relevant tests see Elmbridge BC v Information Commissioner (EA/2010/0106).
Emerging Neighbourhood Plan
It is anticipated that the emerging Bishop’s Clyst Neighbourhood Plan 2104-2031 will go through its final stages for adoption once the new LP is adopted, early in 2016. The emerging NP has been drafted in line with the latest iteration of the new LP and is considered to be policy compliant with both it and the NPPF.
The proposed development conflicts with and will prejudice the following policies in the emerging NP:
EN1 – Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity and Wildlife
BE1 – Changes to Historic Buildings
BE3 – Development Outside the Settlement Areas
HO1 – Meeting Local Housing Need
CS1 – Safeguarding Community Facilities
TR1 – Traffic Impact of New Development
SR1 – Local Green Space
SR2 – Protecting Existing Sports Facilities
Conclusions
•The applications are not in accordance with the Development Plan (adopted East Devon Local Plan 2006-2011), specifically Policies D1, E3, E6, EN6, EN9, RE1, RE2, TA1, TA3 and TA7.
•The applications are contrary to, and conflict with a number of core principles and policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
•The applications are contrary to the emerging New East Devon Local Plan (eLP), including Strategies 1, 7, 34 and 47.
•The applications would conflict with a number of policies set out in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan (NP).
•There are not sufficient material considerations in favour of the developments so as to outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan.
•The adverse impacts of permitting the proposed developments would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
•A significant number of documents relied on by the Applicant have not been produced for public comment. These should be released prior to further public consultation.
For the reasons set out above all of these applications should be refused.
Yours sincerely
Emma Gibbons
Clerk & RFO to the Parish Council