1  

 

02 June 2017

From Love Braunton Community Group

LOVE BRAUNTON REPRESENTATION REGARDING APPLICATION 62170

We oppose application 61270 and urge the relevant decision maker to reject it.

This representation is structured as follows:

• Section 1 – Introduction. Page 2.

• Section 2 - Summary of Key Issues relating to the Proposal. Pages 3 to 14.

• Section 3 - Countering the Applicants Case. Pages 14 to 17.

• Section 4 – Summary – including a summary of the Love Braunton posistion. Page 18 to 21.

David Relph

Chair, Love Braunton

2  

 

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 This representation is submitted in response to the reopening of the consultation for application 62170. It is submitted on the 2nd of June, in accordance with the deadline for that consultation.

1.2 The representation is submitted for and on behalf of Love Braunton Community Group. The representation has been prepared by David Relph, Chair of Love Braunton, with assistance from third parties.

1.3 We continue to oppose application 62170 and urge the relevant decision maker to reject it.

1.4 Our general position is also that the fairest way to resolve this application is by the Appeal Hearing due to take place in July. We do not feel that the Planning Committee should even be considering this application, as this is a process that can only favour the Applicant. We have made representations to this effect to the Chief Planning Officer and Chair of the Planning Committee but have received no response to our questions to date.

1.5 Decision makers may also wish to note that a Neighbourhood Plan is being developed for Braunton Parish that will include the land on which this proposal is sited. Work to develop the Neighbourhood Plan is has reached the initial public consultation stage and it is already very clear that protection of the natural environment and value local landscapes are a crucial area of concern for local residents.

3  

 

SECTION 2 – KEY ISSUES

2.1.1 Application 62170 substantially replicates application 61139 and so issues that are pertinent to 61139 are also pertinent to 62170.

2.1.2 I would like to refer to Love Braunton’s previous objection letter dated 21 April 2017. To be clear, all of the points made in that objection remain relevant.

2.1.3 This current objection focuses on some additional key issues that we wish to reinforce or highlight.

2.1.4 The following key issues are considered in this section:

• Planning Policy

• Does the application pass a sustainability test?

• The Planning Balance

• The ‘additionality’ test

• Affordable Housing

• Traffic

• Damage to local ecology

• Damage to the character of local landscape.

Planning Policy

2.2.1 This is a key area in terms of decision making. We have considered a range of documents with regard to policy, including the North Devon Council submission to the appeal regarding application 61139. The position set out in that document is directly relevant to application 62170 and we would expect the positions taken in this appeal statement to be replicated when considering application 62170.

2.2.2 We have also considered the April response from Policy Planning at NDC and have taken advice from a third party (MWA Chartered Town Planners). The key points regarding planning policy are summarised below.

2.2.3 The importance of the development boundary

• The proposed site lies outside the defined settlement boundary for Braunton. Further, and as stated in the NDC appeal statement:

(the site is) located on the eastern side of Braunton outside of both existing and emerging Local Plan development boundaries.

it would be premature to suggest that the policy status of the application site is other than a greenfield site which has not been identified for development in either the adopted or emerging Local Plan.

4  

 

• Boundaries serve a sound planning purpose, help promote sustainable patterns of development, and can carry significant weight even where a 5YHLS cannot be demonstrated.

• The rationale for the current development boundary in Braunton has been set out in North Devon Planning Policy STY2, which defines Braunton as an area centre within the designated strategic area of Area of Strategic Landscape and Development Constraint (ASLDC)., and states that

“In view of the surrounding environmental quality and the need to retain its characteristics and local distinctiveness the emphasis in Braunton is to confine development within Braunton’s existing urban fabric.”1

• Accordingly, the boundary has been set for clear reasons of landscape and environmental considerations.

• This is clearly contrary to the position taken by Elizabeth Dee in her submission of the 18th of April, in which she states that;

The advice in the NPPF, although guidance and not policy, suggests that given the Councils’ present inability to conclusively demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply across the Joint Local Plan area means that the present development boundary for Braunton could be regarded as out of date, as its exact location was drawn for the purpose of limiting growth rather than for specific landscape/environmental reasons.

• This is clearly wrong and must be challenged, for the following reasons.

o First, the NPPF does not mention development boundaries. The way that Ms Dee has presented this implies that the NPPF specifically covers this point regarding the relevance of the planning boundary. It does not, and hence this advice is disingenuous and potentially misleading

o Second, her judgment that the boundary was not drawn for landscape or environmental reasons is not true – see the saved polices in the 2006 plan (something I would expect her to be familiar with).

• The position is straightforward – the site is outside the development boundary. The boundary was established to protect the ‘surrounding environmental quality and the need to retain its characteristics and local distinctiveness’. Further, the boundary has been consistently applied in both the 2006 and 2016 plans.

• Further, in this case (and because of the way it is defined in local planning policy) the development boundary might be regarded as an environmental policy and not as one relating to the supply of housing, which means that it would not be out of date in the event that the 5YHLS cannot be demonstrated.

2.2.4 The position regarding of 5YHLS

• North Devon Council has set out in April 2016 how they can demonstrate a 5YHLS. Following examination by an Inspector of the draft Local Plan, the NDC position (E Dee April 2017) is now that ‘it is still maintained that the local authority does have a 5YHLS, however

                                                                                                                         1  Local Plan Saved Chp 3 para 3.26 Area Centres and Policy Sty2  

5  

 

cannot conclusively demonstrate it at the present time’. Work to provide this conclusive demonstration is ongoing and the LPA is ‘confident’ that It will be able to demonstrate a supply.

• In the event though, that a decision maker finds that North Devon cannot demonstrate a 5YHLS, the weight to be given to ‘out of date’ plans is for the decision maker to judge, on the basis of relevant considerations such as the extent of any shortfall, how long any deficit is likely to persist (a point made in the NDC Appeal Statement). Decision makers may decide to give weight to restrictive policies that justify refusal of permission despite not being considered up to date because of the absence of 5YHLS. The extent of any shortfall as advanced by the Applicant is disputed and is a matter which requires consideration as part of the planned Hearing.

2.2.5 The implications of the 5YHLS position

• The Council’s appeal statement makes clear however that irrespective of the position in terms of land supply it continues to oppose this scheme. This position should be maintained in any recommendation that goes to the Planning Committee.

• As the Council’s statement also makes clear there is a raft of appeal decisions in which Inspectors have refused permission on landscape grounds despite their being no 5YHLS.

• Even if the 5YHLS cannot be demonstrated, the NDC position (appeal statement) is that

there are a number of other policies that the development does not comply with, relating to design, affordable housing and ecology.

there remain a number of substantive site specific objections, such as to be contrary to policy in the development plan and in terms of sustainable development.

• This point was specifically and robustly reinforced by the ND Head of planning, Mr Mike Kelly, at the December meeting of the Planning Committee. When questioned by the Applicant’s Agent about he 5YHLS position, Mr Kelly stated that the site in question was not developable at the present time irrespective of the position with regard to 5YHLS. We expect this position to remain consistent.

2.2.6 Housing plans in Braunton are clearly already sufficient

• Sufficient land either has planning permission already or is allocated in the emerging Joint Local Plan (eJLP) to meet the needs of Braunton.

• Braunton has already seen an uplift in housing delivery from 185 in the 2006 plan to 390 in the eJLP. The current trajectory of completions in Braunton is good – under construction or committed schemes total 122 which is 31% of the overall requirement to 2031.

2.2.7 The lack of site specific benefits

• There are no site specific benefits that could not be delivered by building elsewhere.

• Any benefits proposed by the scheme are not site specific and would arise in the event that building took place on more suitable and less sensitive sites in landscape and ecological terms. Further, developing this site now would in fact delay the development of sites that are demonstrably more suitable.

6  

 

2.2.8 Further site specific disbenefits

• The proposal in question involves unnecessary and inappropriate incursion into the countryside which does not accord with the adopted or emerging Local plans.

• New housing would contribute to boosting the supply of housing but this benefit needs to be weighed against the significant adverse impacts, particularly in terms of environmental factors.

• The additional housing that this appeal site would deliver would add to the housing stock without any commensurate growth in the social, cultural, economic or employment opportunities in the locality.

• The appeal site would reinforce the role of Braunton as a dormitory or commuter settlement with the population largely reliant on accessing jobs, shops, support service, recreation and leisure facilities elsewhere.

2.2.9 The importance of consistency in planning considerations

• The saved Local Plan (2006) is current and ‘remains the Development Plan for the local planning authority’2

• As the site is outside the identified development boundary, granting permission would set a troubling precedent and would seem to undermine in the publics mind the value of Plan making and the meaningfulness of the public consultation that goes along with this process.

• There is a high level of consistency with regard to South Park and development in Braunton between the 2006 and 2016 plan. The reasons for rejection in 2006 were that it lay outside the development boundary. The reasons for rejection in the 2016 Plan were because of sustainability issues.

o The site was excluded by the Inspector in his report in 20073 where he concluded that ‘the strategy of constraint for Braunton rules out green field extensions of this type’ and that ‘there is no need to go outside the development boundary onto another green field site'.

o In respect of the 2016 Local Plan the site was rejected for 4 reasons of unsustainability as listed by the Planning Policy Officer on page 19 of the Site Visit Report. None of these issues have been resolved. Furthermore, when the site was rejected in the development of the 2016 Plan it was as a proposal for 42, not 55, homes.

o It should also be reiterated that the 2006 and 2016 plans deal very consistently with the issue of the defined development boundary – it was used as the basis for rejection of the South Park site in 2006 and it remains in place in the 2016 submitted Plan.

• The site is outside the saved up to date Local Plan and is also not part of the identified land resource on which the North Devon 5 Year Housing Land Supply is based.

                                                                                                                         2 Page 20 of Planning Committee Site Visit Report (Sep 16). 3 North Devon Local Plan 1996-2011: Inspector’s Report dated 24.12.07: http://www.northdevon.gov.uk/media/266894/section-4-inspectors-report.pdf  

7  

 

2.2.10 The requirement for planning to be ‘plan led’ and for planning to empower local communities’.

• The principle of developing in accordance with the development plan and of the planning process being ‘plan led’ is clearly established. This application fails to satisfy this requirement, as set out by the NDC appeal statement:

The present proposal is not ‘genuinely plan led’ highlighted as a core planning principle in the Framework (paragraph 17) and its approval would undermine the associated objective of ‘empowering local people to shape their surroundings’.

Passing the sustainability test

2.3.1 Throughout the whole process of consideration of both 61139 and 62170, we have continued to ask a very simple question – what is the test of Sustainable Development that is to be applied in this case? This point has never been addressed. The Applicant is contending that this application is sustainable development by simply stating that it is so. This has been their position all along and it must be challenged.

2.3.2 The Applicant has claimed that the application not only passes the test for Sustainable Development (Planning Statement) but it was agreed that it did so at the pre-Application stage (Statement of Community Involvement). The Planning Officer will be aware of our repeated attempts to clarify with the Applicant what test of Sustainable Development was applied and agreed to have been passed. We have received no response to this request other than continued assertions that a test has been passed.

2.3.3 As set out in paragraph 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system. Paragraph 7 goes on to set out the three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. 2.3.4 We have previously submitted appendices that test the Applicants proposals against the relevant paragraphs of NPPF 18 to 219. If Sustainable Development is described in these paragraphs, then how else can one test a proposal if not by using these paragraphs? For completeness, this test is included in this objection as Appendix 2.

2.3.5 Despite numerous opportunities and requests, the Applicant has consistently failed to describe the test they claim their proposal has passed – so as far as we are aware, the Love Braunton work represents that only test of Sustainable Development that has been conducted during this whole process. No other evidence has been offered to contest or contradict this view.

2.3.6 Under NPPF 186, the decision maker has a duty to foster the delivery of development that can be shown to be sustainable – and by implication to prevent any development that is not.

2.3.7 The application is not compliant, inconsistent with or ignores many relevant paragraphs in the NPPF 18-219. In doing so, the application substantially fails to pass any reasonable test consistent with the Government’s understanding of sustainable development and what it means for the planning system in England. This consideration should be given considerable weight.

8  

 

2.3.8 If an application cannot be demonstrated to be sustainable, how can it then be considered on the basis of a presumption in favour of sustainable development? As set out in the case of William Davis Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 3058 (Admin), Lang J:

The presumption in favour of sustainable development applies only to development which has been found to be sustainable.

The Planning Balance of benefit and adverse impact

2.4.1 In terms of planning balance, the Local Planning Authority position is clearly set out in their Appeal Statement (para 6.10)

In the proposal at South Park, there is identifiable harm. It is that harm that has led the LPA to conclude that it would have refused the application if it had retained jurisdiction. The harm is capable of mitigation (though not by the measures proposed by the appellant such as controlling the type and brightness of internal lighting usable within the proposed dwellings)

2.4.2 We support this position and expect it to be replicated when the application comes before the Planning Committee.

2.4.3 Even if decision makers were to adopt the higher ‘significantly and demonstrably’ test to the decision making in this case, when one adopts the sustainable development framework set out at NPPF 7 (describing the economic, social and environmental components of sustainable development) it can be reasonably concluded that the adverse impacts of this application significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits.

2.4.4 Two relevant quotes from the NPPF:

o NPPF 152: Local planning authorities should seek opportunities to achieve each of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, and net gains across all three.

o NPPF 186: Local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development.

2.4.5 We have made previous and comprehensive summaries of the balance of benefits and impacts in this case. They set out how the adverse impacts of this proposal can clearly be shown to significantly and demonstrable outweigh the benefits. For reference, I have included this again as Appendix 1.

2.4.6 There is one additional issue that we have not previously included in a summary of the planning balance and this relates to the importance of ‘valued landscape’ that is valued as described in NPPF 109. There is a perception that land not formally designated has no value, but this is clearly not correct. The site in question is part of the green corridor between Braunton and Wrafton and is consistently used by walkers and others keen to experience a section of countryside with a uniquely special character of double sided, thick boundary hedges separating the countryside to the east of the site and the fields adjoining the site to the south. This special landscape – accessed routinely via public footpaths – will be destroyed by the proposed development.

9  

 

2.4.7 The importance of the local landscape generally as part of the environmental dimension of sustainability is emphasised in an appeal decision in Middleton St George.

“The appeal site does not lie within any designated area of special landscape value. However, that does not mean that it has no value or that it is not valued by local people. Nothing in the Framework suggests that non-designated countryside may not be valued or protected. Indeed, many everyday landscapes are treasured by people and are as much a part of the identity of communities as are outstanding landscapes. It therefore seems to me that the countryside protection policies should be weighed in the sustainability balance against other relevant considerations. “ 4

2.4.8 Finally, the NDC position on this site is clearly set out in their appeal statement:

The Local Planning Authority considers that the harm that this development will have on the ecological value of the site, the layout and the mix of affordable housing will significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of this development.

2.4.9 We support his position and expect that it will be maintained in any recommendation to the Planning Committee. The ‘additionality test’

2.5.1 The Application fails to set out why this development is required in addition to the 390 houses already planned for Braunton and Wrafton in the emerged Local Plan.

2.5.2 The Braunton and Wrafton Town Plan sets out clearly the proposed way in which Braunton and Wrafton's housing supply will be met – and there is no mention of the South Park site. This plan makes provision for 390 new homes by 2031. We think it reasonable to demand that the application set out why 55 more homes are needed in addition to the 390 already included in the 2016 Local Plan. The Applicant fails to do this.

2.5.3 The existing lack of services in Braunton is also not considered by the Appellent.

2.5.4 Decision makers may also wish to consider the issue of whether houses are required in addition to those set out in the Local Plan given the announcement regarding Chivenor. Additionally, the building of additional houses cannot be justified now that it is known that Chivenor base will become available by no later than 2027 – freeing up significant amounts of new housing opportunity within the life if the current Local Plan. It contains significant amounts of brownfield site.

Affordable Housing Requirement:

2.6.1 When considering application 61139 at their meeting in December 2016, the North Devon Planning Committee supported a recommendation to refuse the application. The second reason was as follows:

The Council is not satisfied on the basis of the submitted evidence that the percentage or mix

                                                                                                                         4  Appeal Ref: APP/N1350/A/14/2217552, Land off Sadberge Road, Middleton St George, Darlington, County Durham, DL2 1JT

10  

 

of affordable housing is appropriate when judged against the requirements of Policy HSG7 of the adopted North Devon Local Plan and associated Code of Practice and Core Principle 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.6.2 We support this conclusion. We would also like to add the following with regard to the issues of Affordable Housing.

• There have been inconsistencies over the last 12 months regarding understanding of what policy has to say about the percentage requirement for Affordable Homes on the site.

• The latest position (E Dee April 17) appears to be that the site is Greenfield and as such requires between 35% and 50% AH. This is not currently being met.

• As this proposed site is outside the development boundary the saved policies only allow consideration under an ‘exceptional’ approach. This mandates 100% affordable housing with only sufficient open market to make it viable as qualified by a Viability Assessment.

• If a Viability Assessment is not forthcoming that sets out and justifies the Applicants current proposals, this should carry significant weight in favour of rejection.

2.6.3 It also appears as though the applicant has failed to include standard Covenants regarding future ownership in their plans, which will mean that any AH will not remain in any sense affordable once they have been sold on once.

Traffic Issues:

2.7.1 Traffic is a key issue that has been dismissed by both the Applicant and a number of consultees during consideration of this application. We disagree with this position and have commissioned a third party report to highlight the traffic concerns that exist with this site. This report was submitted in relation to the appeal against non-determination of application 61139, but its findings are also relevant to application 61270. Accordingly, it is submitted in relation to application 61270 as its conclusions are also directly relevant to that application.

2.7.2 This report (submitted previously as part of the second objection to 62170) has been prepared by Mark Baker Consulting Limited and we request its findings are considered, particularly the key finding that the proposed scheme will have a severe impact in the following regards

• The cumulative impact at the A361 / B3231 traffic signals and adjacent A361 / Heanton Road junction,

• The cumulative impact along Wrafton Road due to the additional vehicles generated by the proposal conflicting with other vehicles on the section of Wrafton Road that is effectively single lane working due to the presence of parked cars, and

• The impact on the section of Lower Park Road between Barn Field Close, and South Park that is also a shared surface.

2.7.3 This finding brings into question the findings of consultees during the process of consideration of application 61139. Our position is that there appears to be a clear potential requirement to test what are contested views. If this new evidence is not properly considered and it is evidence that might have lead to the application being refused, this is a clear ground for Judicial Review in the event that this application is approved.

11  

 

2.7.4 As further evidence challenging the Applicants traffic survey, I would also like to cite the traffic survey submitted a part of application 60671 (Greenvalley). This survey indicated that there were an average of 1900 daily traffic movements along Lower Park Road. This section of road is also relevant to application 61139 sand 62170. The Applicant’s traffic survey stated that there were 32 and 42 movements on this piece of road during the two busiest hours of the day. Even if this ‘maximum’ rate of use was repeated for 24 hours this would still only get to 1008 daily movements. Applying the rate of use to a 14 hours day, the total is 558. Resident’s surveys showed 122 movements per hour. Apply this rate for 14 hours and you get 1708.

2.7.5 The clear conclusion here is that, when compared to this third party survey (which has been used by an inspector as the basis for dismissing an appeal), the residents surveys are the ones that are clearly validated. Despite this, resident’s surveys and evidence continues to be ignored.

2.7.6 The wide range of standing concerns regarding traffic have been set out clearly in previous objection sand are still relevant.

2.7.7 I would also like to restate here my concern that the evidenced pre-determination shown by Mr Paul Young during pre-application discussions has never been dealt with. Relying on the pre-determined position taken by Mr Young will open any subsequent decision to approve the proposal that relies on Mr Young’s statement without further investigation, open to challenge through judicial review.

2.7.8 The Effect on local Air Quality has not been properly considered and has the potential to be serious and adverse.

• Our commissioned piece of work (see paras 2.7.1 to 2.7.4) on traffic issues indicates that here is a clear potential for adverse impact on air quality in both Wrafton Road (on which there are 2 schools) and at he traffic junction in the centre of Braunton.

• These are technical matters which have not been properly examined because if the way in which traffic has been dismissed as an issue during consideration of application 61139.

• Air Quality issues should be examined in public as part of a Hearing.

• The local air quality action plan in this case is the latest Braunton Air Quality Action Plan, produced to ‘fulfil the requirements of the Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) process as set out in Part IV of the Environment Act (1995), the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland 2007 and the relevant Policy and Technical Guidance documents’.

2.7.9 To date, we have also not received confirmation that a proper Traffic Sustainability Assessment has been conducted. Until this has been done, and our evidence properly considered, traffic cannot be dismissed as an issue.

Damage to local protected species

2.8.1 Despite the submission of a number of documents related to ecology, we remain concerned about the implications of approving a proposal that will damage the habitat of protected species. These concerns have been set out extensively in previous objections and are still relevant.

2.8.2 That said, there are a number of issues that can be highlighted in addition to those made previously:

12  

 

• In December the Local Authority Landscape and Countryside Officer recommended the application be refused without redesign of the scheme. This redesign has not taken place and as a result he position must still be that the application be refused.

• The dark corridor designed to facilitate bat transit has been removed.

• The application has submitted a new lighting mitigation plan that has a number of issues that mean that it is unlikely to sufficiently mitigate the impact on local species – bats in particular.

• The Lighting Plan relies on what are basically unenforceable stipulations regarding internal and exterior lighting. The NDC position on this is set out in their Appeal statement.

• The Lighting Plan fails to incorporate the impact of still top be confirmed lighting around courtyard or public open space areas.

• The Lighting Plan will be affected by new elevation levels submitted din recent engineering updates but none of this impact has been factored into the new plan – for example some houses will need to be raised by up to 1m which will clearly effect light spill.

• The LPA do not regard the current mitigation plans - which depend substantially on the Lighting Plans – will be sufficient. They conclude that:

The LPA does not consider that all the identified concerns may be mitigated by condition or obligation so as to meet the requirements of paragraphs 203 to 206 of the Framework.

• We support this position.

• The technical issue of housing elevations still needs to be properly examined. It is clear that a number of the levels proposed on the site will need to change top satisfy the basic physics of drainage. In some cases this will result in properties being raised by up to 1m. this will also clearly impact the viability and effectiveness of any lighting mitigation plans.

• We welcome the decision to remove close board fencing from the eastern and western boundaries of the scheme. However, unless a condition is imposed to ensure this measure is also applied to the northern boundary, the lighting plan (and use of close board fencing to the north of the site) – which relies on close board fencing to reduce light spill – is fundamentally at odds with the requirement to ensure continued access to the hedgerows used by local bats. In other words, the mitigation plan in its current form still cannot avoid harm to the local protected species. It cannot, therefore, be supported.

• A fundamental review of the design of the site might address these issues, but the Applicant has shown no desire to do this. Accordingly, their efforts to provide mitigation to the local species still cannot be regarded as adequate – and therefore should be afforded limited weight.

• NPPF paragraph 118 is relevant here. It states very clearly (my emphasis):

When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:

• if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately

13  

 

mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

• proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;

2.8.3 The proposal is inconsistent with the guidance set out above because on current plans – and based on the LPAs own position – the harm from this scheme will not be avoided or adequately mitigated. If one to follow NPPF 118 it is clear that this application should be refused. To quote the Local Authority landscape officer:

I have seen no justification as to why development of this site cannot be achieved (albeit an alternative layout to that which has been applied for would be required) without avoiding harm, or to justify why there are exceptional reasons that mean avoiding harm is not possible in this instance.

2.8.4 Further, the North Devon Planning Committee supported a recommendation (made in the Officers report to their December 2016 meeting) to refuse application 61139 (the twin of 62170) as follows:

The application proposes major residential development on land that is not allocated for development in either the adopted or the emerging development plan. Whilst potentially increasing the supply of land for housing, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy ENV1 of the North Devon Local Plan as it will not enhance or protect landscape character or ecological value and, in the absence of satisfactory ecological mitigation and amended layout, would be contrary to Policy ENV8 and Policy ENV11 of the North Devon Local Plan and Core Principles 7 and 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework,

2.9.5 This makes it clear that two things are required to address the ecological issues – satisfactory mitigation and an amended layout. The Applicant is arguing that they have addressed the first of these, but this can still be challenged in detail (see paragraph 2.82 and 2.8.3 above) but they cannot demonstrate the second. Accordingly, the scheme is not acceptable in ecological terms until the layout issue is addressed.

2.10.1 If the issues raised above are not addressed before a decision is made, we are concerned that granting planning permission to application 62170 could lead to an offence being committed as there is a clear risk that the proposed development could lead to the disturbance of protected species present at this site.

Damage to the character of the local landscape

14  

 

2.11.1 The site is in landscape that is locally valued, to the extant that NPPF 109 is relevant.

• The site in question is part of a valley feature running east from the Taw/Torridge estuary into the rural hinterland of Braunton Parish. This feature – and the separation between Braunton and Wrafton that it provides – is recognised in the eJLP as a key environmental and landscape component of the Braunton and Wrafton Plan.

• The site is apart of a section of countryside with a uniquely special character of double sided, thick boundary hedges separating the countryside to the east of the site and the fields adjoining the site to the south. This special landscape – accessed routinely via public footpaths – will be destroyed by the proposed development.

• At present, there is a clear boundary to the limit of development, beyond which the special character of the countryside should be protected. There is a clear public expectation that the landscape beyond the development boundary should be protected.

• The valley is an important transit route for wildlife – local residents own records will confirm this.

• The extent to which the landscape is valued is something that could be easily tested at a hearing.

2.11.2 There is a concern that the design is not consistent with or appropriate to the character of existing local housing and takes no proper account of the landscape and natural setting of the site.

• The Applicant is claiming that the lack of a clear local vernacular means that their design is as suitable as any, but there is a clear feeling – expressed in representations – that the scheme represents an essentially urban design imposed on the edge of a rural setting.

• Related to this design issue, and evidenced by the extent to which the Applicant has had to consistently update and retrofit measures to mitigate the ecological impact of the scheme, the design has taken no real account of local circumstances and setting, either in terms of landscape or ecology. It is a design that has been imposed on the site, not arisen from it.

• This fundamental issue of design was also raised by the Local Authority Countryside and Landscape Officer had raised the following issue in correspondence (email 11 November 16):

Fundamentally my concerns with the proposal relates to initial site layout and design having been carried out without due consideration to the landscape and ecological constraints and opportunities which has consequently resulted in a proposal that compromises good landscape and ecological design principles.

• This issue was then cited in the Officers Report of the December 2016 Planning Committee, which set out that

These concerns suggest that a redesigned layout is required in order to overcome the objections which may in turn result in a reduction in housing numbers.

• No such redesign has been done.

• Further, any development will adversely effect what is a very special (unique in the area) low-density housing to the north of the site. The higher density of the proposed site contrasts

15  

 

markedly with the housing here. This point goes beyond the impact on visual amenity of residents along Lower Park Road.

16  

 

SECTION 3 – COUNTERING THE APPLICANTS CASE 3.1. The core of the Applicants case for approval of 62170 is set out in section 7 of their Statement of Case for their appeal against non-determination in the case of application 61139, which sets out 9 propositions. These are repeated below – the bullet points set out our counter position. This section has been repeated from our previous objection for the sake of completeness. Any additions are highlighted.

3.1.1 Proposition 1 – The Development Plan is out of date and should be given limited weight.

• The saved Local Plan (2006) is current and ‘remains the Development Plan for the local planning authority’5

• The weight to be given to ‘out of date’ plans is for the decision maker to judge, on the basis of relevant considerations such as the extent of any shortfall, how long any deficit is likely to persist. Decision makers may decide to give weight to restrictive policies that justify refusal of permission despite not being considered up to date because of the absence of demonstrated 5YHLS.

3.1.2 Proposition 2 – The Emerging Plan is only capable of being afforded limited weight.

• This is not true - there is scope for whatever weight a decision maker deems to be appropriate to be applied to the plan based on the a range of considerations set out in NPPF 216, which states:

From  the  day  of  publication6,  decision-­‐takers  may  also  give  weight  to  relevant  policies  in  emerging  plans  according  to:    

the  stage  of  preparation  of  the  emerging  plan  (the  more  advanced  the  preparation,  

the  greater  the  weight  that  may  be  given);    

the  extent  to  which  there  are  unresolved  objections  to  relevant  policies  (the  less  significant  the  unresolved  objections,  the  greater  the  weight  that  may  be  given)  

the  degree  of  consistency  of  the  relevant  policies  in  the  emerging  plan  to  the  policies  in  this  Framework  (the  closer  the  policies  in  the  emerging  plan  to  the  policies  in  the  

Framework,  the  greater  the  weight  that  may  be  given).  

3.1.3 Proposition 3 – an adequate 5YHLS cannot be demonstrated.

• This may be contested.

• In November 2016, the Inspector conducting an examination into the emerging Local Plan (eJLP), advised the Councils (North Devon and Torridge) that they must be able to demonstrate a supply of specific deliverable sites to provide 5 years from the adoption of the pan. She did not state that this had not been demonstrated but in accordance with finding the plan sound, clarified that she must be assured that this requirement has been met. Work to demonstrate this will be completed by July 2017.

                                                                                                                         5 See page 20 of Planning Committee Site Visit Report. 6  My  footnote  -­‐  This  refers  to  the  date  of  publication  of  the  NPPF.  

17  

 

3.1.4 Proposition 4 – the presumption in favour of sustainable development is fully engaged and highly significant.

• Merely asserting that the application has passed a test of sustainable development does not make it so. The Applicant has failed to confirm what test has been passed. When one compares the application against paragraphs 18 to 219 of the NPPF, which when taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system, the application cannot be viewed as representing sustainable development.

• As set out in the case of William Davis Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 3058 (Admin), Lang J:

o The presumption in favour of sustainable development applies only to development which has been found to be sustainable.

3.1.5 Proposition 5 – there is a significant need for affordable housing

• This is acknowledged, but the Applicants claim to base their proposal on delivering these benefits can be undermined by the following:

o They have failed to refer to the actual local need (in Braunton) at any stage in the application process.

o They have consistently attempted to build as few AH as possible.

o The AH will still in all likelihood be beyond the availability of local residents.

o The Applicant has consistently refused to conduct a Viability Assessment.

3.1.6 Proposition 6 – this proposal will be for a sustainable development

• See my earlier comments at 3.1.4.

3.1.7 Proposition 7 – there are no outstanding technical matters and very limited adverse impacts will arise from the appeal proposals.

• This was written in October 2016 and was not true at that time. If there were no outstanding technical matters, why have the Applicants subsequently revised the ecological mitigation plans?

• With regard to adverse impacts, the Applicant clearly has an interest in understating these. In particular, the absence of any recognition of the traffic impact is a serious omission.

• There are clearly outstanding technical issues in the following areas:

o Traffic – new evidence has been submitted which directly counters the applicants position

o Ecological Mitigation – the Lighting Plan can be easily challenges and has clear gaps.

o Drainage and Elevations. There are issues with the fall away rations for local Foul Water Sewerage and the changing levels of new engineering drawings will clearly affect he Lighting Plans.

18  

 

3.1.8 Proposition 8 – The proposal will have economic, social and environmental benefits that support the grant of permission.

• At this stage, the Applicant had offered no claimed environmental benefits, so they cannot claim benefits across all three of the elements of sustainable development.

• The economic and social benefits are overstated.

3.1.9 Proposition 9 – the balancing exercise as set out in paragraph 14 of the NPPF is in favour of the grant of planning permission.

• Not so – a clear case can be made that the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of this scheme.

• Further, the Local Authority have also confirmed that his is their position in their appeal statement:

.The Local Planning Authority considers that the harm that this development will have on the ecological value of the site, the layout and the mix of affordable housing will significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of this development.

19  

 

SECTION 4 – SUMMARY

4.1 We oppose this proposal and urge the relevant decision maker to REFUSE application 62170.

4.2 We fully support the reasons for refusal of the related application 61139, as set out in the Officers Report to the December meeting of the North Devon Planning Committee. These are repeated below for clarity and remain clearly relevant to application 62170.

Minded to REFUSE had NDC has jurisdiction, for the following reasons: 1. The application proposes major residential development on land that is not allocated for development in either the adopted or the emerging development plan. Whilst potentially increasing the supply of land for housing, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy ENV1 of the North Devon Local Plan as it will not enhance or protect landscape character or ecological value and, in the absence of satisfactory ecological mitigation and amended layout, would be contrary to Policy ENV8 and Policy ENV11 of the North Devon Local Plan and Core Principles 7 and 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2. The Council is not satisfied on the basis of the submitted evidence that the percentage or mix of affordable housing is appropriate when judged against the requirements of Policy HSG7 of the adopted North Devon Local Plan and associated Code of Practice and Core Principle 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.3 These issues have clearly not yet been dealt with and are relevant and material irrespective of the position with regard to the 5YHLS. In addition, our position is that the traffic issues associated with this site are enough in themselves to justify refusal. Any decision to approve the application that does not consider these traffic issues fully, including now evidence submitted by Love Braunton, will be subject to challenge by Judicial Review.

The NDC Appeal Statement and the Importance of Consistency

4.4 In addition, we also support he position taken by NDC in their appeal statement. This statement is very important because it states the NDC position on the adjusted 61139 application – and this scheme is substantially the same as the 62170 scheme. Accordingly, the position that NDC will take with regard to 62170 should be the same as that taken with regard to the appeal scheme.

4.5 What might have changed since the Council took their Appeal position? There are a number of potential factors:

• First, there is the new position regarding the development boundary taken by Elizabeth Dee – but this can be dismissed as set out in 2.3.3

• Second, The Council may have updated their position with regard to the 5YHLS – a potential update was referred to in a meeting between the council and the developer in late April. This updated position has not yet been published so it is not possible to determine its relevance. However, it seems reasonable to assume that any change in the NDC position would be likely to take them closer to a position where they can demonstrate a 5YHLS, something that would weaken the Applicants arguments.

20  

 

• Third, the Applicants agent has written to NDC threatening them financially. This is an extract from the letter:

o In the spirit of openness, it is only fair to put you on notice that, in the event that his reapplication is refused or deferred at committee (with the result that it is necessary for the non determination appeal to proceed to a hearing) we intend to submit an application for a costs award against the council for unreasonable behaviour. However, given the positive outcome of our last meeting, I trust that the hearing will not be necessary.

• It should go without saying that this sort of behaviour is completely unacceptable and should be resisted robustly by NDC and the Planning Committee. It also implies that the decision may have already been made at this previous meeting.

4.6 In summary as nothing has substantially changed (less the developers threatening the council) since they took that appeal position then to depart from that position now would be clearly inconsistent, and arguably unreasonable. We look forward to that position – and a recommendation for refusal – being maintained in any recommendation to the Planning Committee.

Summary of the Love Braunton Position

4.7 Our position supports the NDC position of refusal, but we also believe there are further reasons for objection to the proposal that also merit refusal, in particular the impact in terms of traffic.

4.8 This wider range of considerations has been presented in Section 2 this submission, and includes the following:

• The saved Local Plan (2006) is current and ‘remains the Development Plan for the local planning authority’7

• The position is straightforward – the South Park site is outside the development boundary. The boundary was established to protect the ‘surrounding environmental quality and the need to retain its characteristics and local distinctiveness’. Further, the boundary has been consistently applied in both the 2006 and 2016 plans.

• Further, in this case the development boundary might be regarded as an environmental policy and not as one relating to the supply of housing, which means that it would not be out of date in the event that the 5YHLS cannot be demonstrated.

• This appeal site has the potential to seriously distort both the existing development plan and the emerging one in a number of ways that add up to a scheme that cannot satisfy any test of sustainable development.

• North Devon Council has set out in April 2016 how they can demonstrate a 5YHLS. Following examination by an Inspector of the draft Local Plan, the NDC position (E Dee April 2017) is now that ‘it is still maintained that the local authority does have a 5YHLS, however cannot conclusively demonstrate it at the present time’. Work to provide this conclusive demonstration is ongoing and the LPA is ‘confident that It will be able to demonstrate a supply.

                                                                                                                         7 Page 20 of Planning Committee Site Visit Report (Sep 16).

21  

 

• In the event though, that a decision maker finds that North Devon cannot demonstrate a 5YHLS, the weight to be given to ‘out of date’ plans is for the decision maker to judge, on the basis of relevant considerations such as the extent of any shortfall, how long any deficit is likely to persist.

• Decision makers may decide to give weight to restrictive policies that justify refusal of permission despite not being considered up to date because of the absence of a 5YHLS. The extent of any shortfall as advanced by the Applicant is disputed and is a matter that requires consideration as part of a hearing or inquiry.

• As the Council’s statement also makes clear there is a raft of appeal decisions in which Inspectors have refused permission on landscape grounds despite their being no five year supply.

• Even if the 5YHLS cannot be demonstrated, the NDC position (appeal statement) is that

there are a number of other policies that the development does not comply with, relating to design, affordable housing and ecology.

there remain a number of substantive site specific objections, such as to be contrary to policy in the development plan and in terms of sustainable development.

• This point was specifically and robustly reinforced by the ND Head of planning, Mr Mike Kelly, at the December meeting of the Planning Committee. When questioned by the Applicants Agent about he 5YHLS position, Mr Kelly stated that the site in question was not developable at the present time irrespective of the position with regard to 5YHLS. We expect this position to remain consistent.

• Housing trajectory is not a problem in Braunton. 122 plus the houses under construction at the Wrafton site near Chivenor mean that Braunton is already close to achieving the 185 completions that were the plan in 2006. The current trajectory of completions in Braunton is good – under construction or committed schemes total 122, which is 31% of the overall requirement by 2031. If there is a trajectory issue at district or Local plan level then it isn’t reflected at town/village level.

• This case as only been strengthened by confirmation that Chivenor will come on line for ne housing in 2027 within the lifetime of the current 2016-2031 plan. With this asset becoming available, additional housing outside the plan and the development boundary cannot be justified.

• The Applicant is presenting the potential requirement to identify additional sites for housing as part of the argument to approve this scheme. The site in question is on the SHLAA but it cannot be discounted that the site has been dealt with very consistently – and rejected for sustainability treasons – during the work on both the 2006 and 2016 Local Plans.

• Further, any sites that may be brought forward have to be developable. At the December meeting of the Planning Committee, the Applicants agent raised the issue of the Inspectors findings with the Chief Planning Officer, who stated that, irrespective of the position with regard to 5YHLS, there were a number of site specific problems with the site in question that meant it was not considered developable at the present time.

22  

 

• Further, work to review the SHLAA and exception sites will be conducted by July 2017. Particularly as the site in question is outside the development boundary it might be regarded as premature to bring forward this site (which would de facto be the impact of allowing the appeal) before it has been considered against he range of other SHLAA options, all of which offer the same generic benefits claimed by the Applicant.

• The additional housing that this appeal site would deliver would add to the housing stock without any commensurate growth in the social, cultural, economic or employment opportunities in the locality.

• Any benefits proposed by the scheme are not site specific and would arise in the event that building took place on more suitable and less sensitive sites in landscape and ecological terms. Further, developing this site now would in fact delay the development of sites that are demonstrably more suitable.

• The proposal in question involves unnecessary and inappropriate incursion into the countryside which does not accord with the adopted or emerging Local plans.

• Consistency is important in planning decisions.

• As the site is outside the identified development boundary, granting permission would set a troubling precedent and would seem to undermine in the publics mind the value of Plan making and the meaningfulness of the public consultation that goes along with this process.

• There is a high level of consistency with regard to South Park and development in Braunton between the 2006 and 2016 plan. The reasons for rejection in 2006 were that it lay outside the development boundary. The reasons for rejection in the 2016 Plan were because of sustainability issues.

• The site is outside the saved up to date Local Plan and is also not part of the identified land resource on which the North Devon 5 Year Housing Land Supply is based.

• The principle of developing in accordance with the development plan and of the planning process being ‘plan led’ is clearly established. This application fails to satisfy this requirement, as set out by the NDC appeal statement:

The present proposal is not ‘genuinely plan led’ highlighted as a core planning principle in the Framework (paragraph 17) and its approval would undermine the associated objective of ‘empowering local people to shape their surroundings’.

• The Applicant is contending that this application is sustainable development by simply stating that it is so. This has been their position all along and it must be challenged.

• The Applicant has claimed that the application not only passes the test for Sustainable Development (Planning Statement) but it was agreed that it did so at the pre-Application stage (Statement of Community Involvement). The Planning Officer will be aware of our repeated attempts to clarify with the Applicant what test of Sustainable Development was applied and agreed to have been passed. We have received no response to this request other than continued assertions that a test has been passed.

• As set out in paragraph 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The

23  

 

policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system. Paragraph 7 goes on to set out the three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental.

• The application is not compliant, inconsistent with or ignores many relevant

paragraphs in the NPPF 18-219. In doing so, the application substantially fails to pass any reasonable test consistent with the Government’s understanding of sustainable development and what it means for the planning system in England. This consideration should be given considerable weight.

• In terms of planning balance, the Local Planning Authority position is clearly set out in

their Appeal Statement (para 6.10)

o In the proposal at South Park, there is identifiable harm. It is that harm that has led the LPA to conclude that it would have refused the application if it had retained jurisdiction. The harm is capable of mitigation (though not by the measures proposed by the appellant such as controlling the type and brightness of internal lighting usable within the proposed dwellings)

• Further, the NDC position on this site is clearly set out in their appeal statement:

o The Local Planning Authority considers that the harm that this development will have on the ecological value of the site, the layout and the mix of affordable housing will significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of this development.

• The Application fails to set out why this development is required in addition to the 390 houses already planned for Braunton and Wrafton in the emerged Local Plan.

• Decision makers may also wish to consider the issue of whether houses are required in addition to those set out in the Local Plan given the announcement regarding Chivenor. Additionally, the building of additional houses cannot be justified now that it is known that Chivenor base will become available by no later than 2027 – freeing up significant amounts of new housing opportunity within the life if the current Local Plan. It contains significant amounts of brownfield site.

• When considering application 61139 at their meeting in December 2016, the North Devon Planning Committee supported a recommendation to refuse the application. The second reason was as follows:

The Council is not satisfied on the basis of the submitted evidence that the percentage or mix of affordable housing is appropriate when judged against the requirements of Policy HSG7 of the adopted North Devon Local Plan and associated Code of Practice and Core Principle 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

• These reasons for refusal remain in place.

• If a Viability Assessment is not forthcoming that sets out and justifies the Applicants current proposals, this should carry significant weight in favour of rejection.

• Traffic is a key issue that has been dismissed by both the Applicant and a number of

24  

 

consultees during consideration of this application. We disagree with this position and commissioned a third party report to highlight the traffic concerns that exist with this site.

• The Love Braunton Written Statement on Traffic has found that the proposed scheme will have a severe impact in the following regards

o The cumulative impact at the A361 / B3231 traffic signals and adjacent A361 / Heanton Road junction,

o The cumulative impact along Wrafton Road due to the additional vehicles generated by the proposal conflicting with other vehicles on the section of Wrafton Road that is effectively single lane working due to the presence of parked cars, and

o The impact on the section of Lower Park Road between Barn Field Close, and South Park that is also a shared surface.

• This finding brings into question the findings of consultees during the process of consideration of application 61139. Our position is that there appears to be a clear potential requirement to test what are contested views. If this new evidence is not properly considered and it is evidence that might have lead to the application being refused, this is a clear ground for Judicial Review.

• The evidenced pre-determination shown by Mr Paul Young during pre-application discussions has never been dealt with. Relying on the pre-determined position taken by Mr Young will open any subsequent decision to approve the proposal that relies on Mr Young’s statement without further investigation, open to challenge through judicial review.

• The Effect on local Air Quality has not been properly considered and has the potential to be serious and adverse.

• Despite the submission of a number of documents related to ecology, we remain concerned about the implications of approving a proposal that will damage the habitat of protected species. These concerns have been set out extensively in previous objections and are still relevant.

• In December the Local Authority Landscape and Countryside Officer recommended the application be refused without redesign of the scheme. This redesign has not taken place and as a result he position must still be that the application be refused.

• The application has submitted a new lighting mitigation plan that relies on what are basically unenforceable stipulations regarding internal and exterior lighting. The NDC position on this is set out in their Appeal statement.

• There are clearly outstanding technical issues in the following areas:

o Traffic – new evidence has been submitted which directly counters the applicants position

o Ecological Mitigation – the Lighting Plan can be easily challenges and has clear gaps.

25  

 

o Drainage and Elevations. There are issues with the fall away rations for local Foul Water Sewerage and the changing levels of new engineering drawings will clearly affect he Lighting Plans.

• A fundamental review of the design of the site might address these issues, but the Applicant has shown no desire to do this. Accordingly, their efforts to provide mitigation to the local species still cannot be regarded as adequate – and therefore should be afforded limited weight.

• The North Devon Planning Committee supported a recommendation (made in the Officers report to their December 2016 meeting) to refuse the application as follows:

The application proposes major residential development on land that is not allocated for development in either the adopted or the emerging development plan. Whilst potentially increasing the supply of land for housing, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy ENV1 of the North Devon Local Plan as it will not enhance or protect landscape character or ecological value and, in the absence of satisfactory ecological mitigation and amended layout, would be contrary to Policy nENV8 and Policy ENV11 of the North Devon Local Plan and Core Principles 7 and 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework,

• This makes it clear that two things are required to address the ecological issues –

satisfactory mitigation and an amended layout. The Applicant is arguing that they have addressed the first of these, but this can still be challenged in detail (close board fencing still planned for the Northern Boundary for example) but they cannot demonstrate the second. Accordingly, the scheme is not acceptable in ecological terms until the layout issue is addressed.

• The site is in landscape that is locally valued, to the extant that NPPF 109 is relevant.

The site is apart of a section of countryside with a uniquely special character of double sided, thick boundary hedges separating the countryside to the east of the site and the fields adjoining the site to the south. This special landscape – accessed routinely via public footpaths – will be destroyed by the proposed development.

• The Applicant is claiming that the lack of a clear local vernacular means that their design is as suitable as any, but there is a clear feeling – expressed in representations – that the scheme represents an essentially urban design imposed on the edge of a rural setting.

• This fundamental issue of design was also raised by the Local Authority Countryside and Landscape Officer had raised the following issue in correspondence (email 11 November 16):

Fundamentally my concerns with the proposal relates to initial site layout and design having been carried out without due consideration to the landscape and ecological constraints and opportunities which has consequently resulted in a proposal that compromises good landscape and ecological design principles.

• This issue was then cited in the Officers Report of the December 2016 Planning Committee, which set out that

These concerns suggest that a redesigned layout is required in order to overcome the objections which may in turn result in a reduction in housing numbers.

26  

 

• No such redesign has been done.

• Further, any development will adversely effect what is a very special (unique in the area) low-density housing to the north of the site. The higher density of the proposed site contrasts markedly with the housing here. This point goes beyond the impact on visual amenity of residents along Lower Park Road.

Conclusion 4.9 In conclusion, our position is that:

• Overall the proposal conflicts with a range of saved local and national policy, and is not consistent with the development Plan. There are not sufficient material considerations to justify departure from the Plan and approval of this application.

• The Applicant has failed to deal with the issues which led the South Park proposal to

be refused in December 2016, and in particular have failed to redesign the scheme, which was key and specific component of the recommendation to refuse.

• Even in the event that NPPF 14 is engaged, the adverse impacts of this proposal

significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Significant weight should be given to the clear adverse impacts from this proposal across all three of these dimensions – and the environmental dimension in particular. Under NPPF 152, the Decision Maker is required to seek opportunities to achieve each of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, and net gains across all three.

• The LPAs clear position is that, even if a higher planning balance has to be applied,

‘the harm that this development will have on the ecological value of the site, the layout and the mix of affordable housing will significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of this development’. If this position is consistently applied to application 62170, it must be refused.

• Further, the potentially severe adverse impact of the development in traffic and Air

Quality terms are determining issues that have not been satisfactorily dealt with in the planning process to date, and need to be considered as part of any decision. In both cases, there are impacts that merit refusal of permission and at the very least must be weighed in the planning balance between adverse impact and claimed benefit.

4.10 Application 62170 must be REFUSED.

Challenging any decision to approve 62170 at this stage. 4.10 There are a number of issues that may be relevant in terms of challenging any decision to approve application 62170 at this stage. These issues are summarised below and may be the basis on which a Judicial Review of any decision would be launched.

27  

 

• Failure for an authority and decision maker to adopt a consistent position with regard to an application and the material planning issues – and in doing so act in a way that might be regarded as unreasonable.

• Related to this, a failure of a public body to act impartially (eg to inappropriately encourage an

application), adhere to the basic principles of ‘natural justice’ and failure to provide a fair hearing to interested public parties prior to any decision being made.

• Failure to consider the full range of evidence (relevant factors) – regarding traffic in particular.

• Failure to conduct proper sustainability assessments regarding traffic.

• The recorded predetermination from Mr Paul Young.

• Approval of a proposal that does not fully mitigate damage to the habitat of a protected species.

• The circumstances surrounding the Councils request for a Viability Assessment and the Applicant’s refusal to provide this.

• Failure to make the Committee (or any decision maker) properly aware of the public’s views.

David Relph

Chair, Love Braunton

Braunton Resident

Appendices:

1. Weighing the Benefits and Adverse Impact 2. The NPPF 18-219 sustainability test

28  

 

APPENDIX 1 - WEIGHING THE BENEFITS AND THE IMPACTS

Potential (Claimed) Benefits

o The Applicant claims two benefits – the economic benefit of job creation, and the social benefit of the supply of Affordable Housing, addressing an acknowledged need for these homes in North Devon. There is no stated environmental benefit, less an increase in net biodiversity due to an offsite enhancement.

• In terms of job creation, it should be acknowledged that jobs will be sustained or created (in the short term) by this development. However, the figures claimed by the Applicant may be challenged – they have made a very generous interpretation of the figures in the Laying the Foundations document (original Planning Statement) and they have not recognised the short-term nature of many of these jobs.

• They make no case for the creation of local employment on a sustainable basis – once the building is done it is not clear there is any longer term benefit in terms of employment and the local economy. The Applicant makes the implicit assumption that people who live in the development will be employed, but again this can be challenged, mainly because the demographic projections in Braunton are very clear that there will be progressively fewer, not more, people of working age. Additionally, there is no acknowledgement of the rates of out-commuting which would further undermine any long term employment benefit.

• The claim that the Applicant is somehow addressing a social need in terms of the provision of Affordable Homes can also be undermined by the clear desire on their part to provide as few as possible. If this is the reason (no other social benefits are stated) then why only build 20?

• Any claimed benefit derived from the provision of below (current saved) policy level affordable housing should receive greatly reduced weight –particularly as the Applicant has refused to conduct a Viability Assessment.

• Also note that the houses will retail at between 250-450K. Average salary in North Devon is under 20K – the houses proposed by the Applicant are only affordable using a % of market rate argument, and will still be likely to be beyond the reach of those whom affordable housing is designed to help.

• Additionally, the Applicant has only ever made general references to the affordable housing need – and never actually referred to the stated need in Braunton. This is easy to find out as the Parish Council hold a register. The failure to base any potential benefits on the actual local need should undermine the weight given to any benefits the Applicant is claiming.

Adverse Impacts

Adverse Economic Impacts

• A high quality environment is likely to be a key reason why people come to visit North Devon. Development outside the development boundary will set a precedent that can only undermine this, and cannot be justified in this context.

• There is the clear potential for additional traffic to further add to Braunton’s reputation as the

29  

 

bottleneck of North Devon. This has the related potential to damage local tourism and the trade of local retailers and those in the service industry. This damage is likely to occur not just around Braunton – any worsening of the traffic situation in Braunton may also affect people’s willingness to visit the coastline from Croyde all the way to Ilfracombe. This consideration should be given significant weight.

• There is also a risk to a local employment site – Travis Perkins the builders merchants sits next to Knowl Water and has been flooded by it a number of times, most recently in 2016. Travis Perkins insurers have refused to pay – development upstream will compound this.

• The cost of any air quality impact (Wrafton Road has two schools on it) will be borne by the public sector and the community. The community cost is social, but the public sector cost is economic – it is worth noting that the one of the costliest single item purchases in Devon for GP surgeries is inhalers.

Adverse Social Impacts

• There is a demonstrable lack of infrastructure development to accompany building. This position has been deteriorating not improving – Braunton recently lost both its last bank and standalone Post Office.

• There are a number of adverse impacts associated with the failure to fully comply with the Manual for Streets, specifically:

o Section B 4.4 Walkable Neighbourhood: There is no suitable pavement on the most direct pedestrian route, and an unrealistic expectation to walk through nearby developments which is contrary to many of the principles of Section B 4.6.

o Section B 5.7 Designing Streets as Social Spaces: The design does not aim for appropriately located high quality open space which encourages social integration – the open space is marginal not central.

• North Devon already has a higher Vacancy Rate than the UK average and developments like this will only exacerbate what is recognised locally as a real problem. This site may encourage the purchase of second homes – which are very unpopular with local residents and will only further undermine the Applicant’s stated intent to provide socially beneficial housing.

• Any increase in traffic is unlikely to improve the situation with regard to poor air quality in Braunton. The lack of focus on Air Quality undermines the Applicants claim in their Travel Statement that they aim to ‘improve health’. This claim cannot be justified.

Adverse Environmental Impacts

Firstly, the perception that damage to the natural environment on ‘the wrong side of Braunton’ matters less than that on the side of the Great Field needs to be challenged. This site has been incorrectly classified – it is within the Transition Zone of the UNESCO Biosphere but this has not been referenced. There has been clearly expressed public concern for the fragmentation of the natural environment. The adverse environmental impacts of this application include:

· The loss of a valued landscape as described in NPPF 109.

· SuDs scheme is the bare minimum.

30  

 

• The clear and evidenced impact on the local bat population and in particular on the SSSI maternity roost of Great Horseshoe Bats less than 2Km from this site.

• Dark sky site will be permanently removed.

• Biodiversity benefits can be contested.

• The impact on badger setts identified in the ecological survey and well known by local residents.

• The increase in flood risk in Knowl Water. Knowl Water is a part of a designated nitrate sensitive zone because it feeds into the Taw Torridge SSSI – this SSSI must be taken into consideration as well as the Caen Roost.

• The risk associated with poor water quality that may be caused by the current runoff attenuation plan. NPPF 103 is clear in this regard:

When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere.

• The failure of the application to contribute to – or even acknowledge the importance of – securing radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. This is an opportunity cost that he community will bear in the future – the more carbon adding developments that are added, the greater the reduction requirement will be in the future. These environmental harms should be given significant weight.

• NPPF 93 (my emphasis):

Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.

• The application cannot be said to be compliant with this. Accordingly, because these issues are ‘central’, this undermines any claim that it represents sustainable development. None of the known climate change risks in Braunton are addressed by this application.

• Adverse impact on hedgerows from the use of close board fencing (still being used on the Northern boundary of the site). This is despite the fact that close board fencing was specifically ruled out in the original Landscape and Visual Assessment because of the damage this would do to local hedgerows. It took a member of the public to point this out to Officers and Natural England – their recommendation that close board fencing be 5-10m offset from the hedgerow has never been incorporated in the design.

• Adverse impact associated with the failure of the design to incorporate the following issues (as set out by the Countryside and Landscape Officer).

o Arboricultural Impacts – the design does not provide sufficient separation distances between existing trees and hedges and the proposed dwellings.

o Ecological Impacts – the biodiversity losses have not been adequately addressed and opportunities for enhancement have not been taken.

31  

 

o Landscape Impacts – mitigation and enhancement recommendations do not appear to have been followed through to the final site layout and design stage.

Significant weight should be given to the clear adverse impacts from this proposal across all three of these dimensions – and the environmental dimension in particular. Under NPPF 152, the Decision Maker is required to seek opportunities to achieve each of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, and net gains across all three.

32  

 

APPENDIX 2 - THE NPPF SUSTAINABILITY TEST

This  analysis  was  originally  submitted  in  July  2016  as  part  of  an  objection  letter.    Any  updated  text  (as  at  April  2017)  is  in  italics.  

This  section  works  through  paragraphs  18  to  219  of  the  NPPF  in  order  to  demonstrate  that,  when  viewed  against  these  paragraphs  as  a  whole,  the  proposal  cannot  be  regarded  as  constituting  sustainable  

development.    I  ask  that  this  be  given  considerable  weight  by  the  Decision  Maker.  

This  section  uses  a  tabular  format,  looking  at  each  relevant  paragraph  in  turn  –  accordingly  not  every  paragraph  is  listed.    I  don’t  repeat  the  paragraphs  verbatim  in  full  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  so  this  section  should  read  in  parallel  with  the  NPPF.  

Para   Issue/Extract   Comment  

18   ‘low  Carbon  future’   The  application  makes  no  attempt  to  address  this  issue,  less  a  rather  grudging  Sustainability  Statement  whose  brevity  is  

instructive.  

19   ‘sustainable  economic  growth’  

The  application  merely  describes  the  economic  activity  associated  with  building  a  number  of  houses  –  it  does  nothing  

to  set  out  why  the  propose  development  will  add  to  a  sustainable  economic  future  for  Braunton.    For  example,  out-­‐

commuting  is  not  even  recognised  as  an  issue.  

28   Economic  growth  in  rural  areas  

The  application  does  nothing  to  address  this  issue.    Again,  it  describes  activity  not  development  or  growth  –  and  out  

commuting  is  ignored  as  an  issue.  

28   ‘promote  the  development  

and  diversification  of  agricultural  and  other  land-­‐

based  rural  businesses’  

The  application  actively  undermines  this  by  removing  productive  

agricultural  land.  

28   ‘support  sustainable  rural  tourism  and  leisure  

developments  that  benefit  businesses  in  rural  areas,  

communities  and  visitors,  and  which  respect  the  character  

of  the  countryside’.  

The  application  helps  to  potentially  undermine  the  reasons  why  tourism  exists  in  North  Devon.    I  am  not  claiming  that  55  houses  

will  stop  the  tourist  industry,  but  the  development  is  certain  to  exacerbate  existing  traffic  issues  there  is  likely  to  be  a  material  

increase  in  traffic  (already  recognised  as  a  problem  in  Braunton)  and  a  potentially  adverse  impact  on  local  biodiversity  –  which  

cannot  be  a  good  thing  for  a  biosphere.  

30   facilitates  the  use  of  

sustainable  modes  of  transport  

The  provision  of  a  ‘transport  welcome  pack’  is  hardly  sufficient  

in  this  regard  –  the  application  fails  to  promote  sustainable  travel  in  any  aspect  of  the  design.    There  is  also  a  point  for  the  

Local  Authority  here  –  they  should  be  supporting  proposals  that  facilitate  the  use  of  sustainable  transport,  not  simply  continuing  

to  support  new  developments  that  can  only  be  accessed  by  car.  

32   ‘improvements  can  be  undertaken  within  the  

transport  network  that  cost  

There  is  a  clear  implication  here  that  where  there  will  be  impacts  from  any  development,  these  should  be  cost  effectively  

limited  by  (infrastructure)  improvements.      There  is  nothing  in  

33  

 

Para   Issue/Extract   Comment  

effectively  limit  the  significant  impacts  of  the  development’.  

the  application  that  addresses  this.  

35   ‘Plans  should  protect  and  

exploit  opportunities  for  the  use  of  sustainable  transport  

modes  for  the  movement  of  goods  or  people.’  

There  is  nothing  in  the  design  of  the  proposal  to  address  this.  

35   ‘give  priority  to  pedestrian  

and  cycle  movements,  and  have  access  to  high  quality  

public  transport  facilities’  

The  design  does  not  address  this  issue.  

 

35   ‘create  safe  and  secure  

layouts  which  minimise  conflicts  between  traffic  and  

cyclists  or  pedestrians’  

The  design  does  not  address  this  issue.  

35   ‘incorporate  facilities  for  charging  plug-­‐in  and  other  

ultra-­‐low  emission  vehicles’  

This  is  completely  absent  from  the  proposal.  

35   ‘consider  the  needs  of  people  

with  disabilities  by  all  modes  of  transport’  

The  Braunton  Access  Group  has  raised  a  number  of  issues  with  

regard  to  this  are  in  their  response  to  the  statutory  consultation.  

50   ‘plan  for  a  mix  of  housing  

based  on  current  and  future  demographic  trends,  market  

trends  and  the  needs  of  different  groups  in  the  

community’  

Analysis  of  this  sort  is  lacking  from  the  proposal.    For  example,  

the  small  amount  of  population  growth  expected  in  Braunton  in  the  next  158  years  is  all  accounted  for  by  increases  in  the  

population  of  older  people.    How  does  the  proposal  address  this?    It  doesn’t,  but  proposes  a  very  generic  scheme  that  

cannot  be  demonstrated  to  meet  local  –  specific  –  requirements.  

50   ‘where  they  have  identified  that  affordable  housing  is  

needed,  set  policies  for  meeting  this  need  on  site,  

unless  off-­‐site  provision  or  a  financial  contribution  of  

broadly  equivalent  value  can  be  robustly  justified’  

The  normal  expectation  on  this  site  would  be  that  at  least  50%  of  homes  would  be  affordable,  unless  a  Viability  Assessment  

had  been  done  that  concluded  a  different  figure  was  appropriate  in  order  to  cross  subsidise  the  affordable  housing.    

No  such  Viability  Assessment  has  been  done  or  presented  as  part  of  this  application.  

51   ‘plan  housing  development  to  

reflect  local  needs,  

No  Viability  Assessment  has  been  conducted  to  justify  the  

                                                                                                                         8  According  to  the  2013-­‐14  profile  of  Braunton  in  the  Joint  Strategic  Needs  Assessment,  the  population  of  Braunton  will  

increase  by  59  (sic)  between  2011  and  2026.    This  increase  is  accounted  for  by  an  increase  in  the  65-­‐84  population  of  702,  and  a  rise  in  the  over  85  population  of  279.    The  under  64  population  will  fall  by  924,  giving  the  net  rise  of  59.  

34  

 

Para   Issue/Extract   Comment  

particularly  for  affordable  housing,  including  through  

rural  exception  sites  where  appropriate’.  

affordable  homes  figure  in  this  application.  

56   Good  design  is  a  key  aspect  of  

sustainable  development,  is  indivisible  from  good  

planning,  and  should  contribute  positively  to  

making  places  better  for  people.  

The  proposed  development  is  very  typical  of  the  unimaginative  

‘noddy  boxes’9  that  are  often  typical  of  new  build.    I  accept  this  is  a  subjective  assessment  but  I  would  be  happy  to  talk  to  any  

local  residents  who  disagree  with  this.  

58   ‘respond  to  local  character  

and  history,  and  reflect  the  identity  of  local  surroundings  

and  materials’  

The  design  cannot  be  said  to  fit  with  the  local  character  of  

South  Park  in  particular,  and  beyond  identifying  that  bricks  were  once  made  in  Barnstaple,  there  is  nothing  in  the  design  that  is  

locally  relevant  in  any  way.  

58   create  safe  and  accessible  

environments  where  crime  and  disorder,  and  the  fear  of  

crime,  do  not  undermine  quality  of  life  or  community  

cohesion;  and  

The  application  very  clearly  fails  to  do  this  –  as  evidenced  by  the  

very  clear  response  to  the  proposal  by  the  Police  Liaison  Officer  which  concludes  that  the  design  submitted  can  potentially  

contribute  to  further  crime  and  community  conflict  which  can  lead  to  a  breakdown  in  sustainability’.  

Note  –  this  issue  was  dealt  with  by  an  updated  design.  

58   ‘are  visually  attractive  as  a  result  of  good  architecture  

and  appropriate  landscaping.’  

See  my  previous  comment  about  ‘noddy  boxes’.  

61   ‘planning  policies  and  decisions  should  address  the  

connections  between  people  and  places  and  the  integration  

of  new  development  into  the  natural,  built  and  historic  

environment.’  

There  is  no  reference  to  these  issues  in  the  application.  

64   Permission  should  be  refused  for  development  of  poor  

design  that  fails  to  take  the  opportunities  available  for  

improving  the  character  and  quality  of  an  area  and  the  way  

it  functions.  

There  is  no  way  in  which  the  application  improves  the  character  and  quality  of  Braunton  and  the  way  it  functions.  The  only  

benefits  cited  in  the  application  are  construction  jobs  and  affordable  homes.    I  don’t  dismiss  these  but  the  Applicant  

simply  makes  no  effort  to  improve  Braunton  in  the  way  described  in  this  paragraph.  

                                                                                                                         9  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noddy_housing  

 

35  

 

Para   Issue/Extract   Comment  

66   Applicants  will  be  expected  to  work  closely  with  those  

directly  affected  by  their  proposals  to  evolve  designs  

that  take  account  of  the  views  of  the  community.  Proposals  that  can  demonstrate  this  in  

developing  the  design  of  the  new  development  should  be  

looked  on  more  favourably.  

The  Applicant  has  signally  failed  to  demonstrate  this.    Nothing  in  the  design  ‘takes  account  of  the  views  of  the  community’.    

The  Applicant  has  been  asked  about  this  issue  a  number  of  times  and  declined  to  respond.  

69   ‘safe  and  accessible  

environments  where  crime  and  disorder,  and  the  fear  of  

crime,  do  not  undermine  quality  of  life  or  community  

cohesion’  

See  previous  comments  on  paragraph  58.  

76   Local  communities  through  local  and  neighbourhood  

plans  should  be  able  to  identify  for  special  protection  

green  areas  of  particular  importance  to  them.      By  

designating  land  as  Local  Green  Space  local  

communities  will  be  able  to  rule  out  new  development  

other  than  in  very  special  circumstances.  

The  southern  part  of  the  site  is  in  an  area  designated  in  this  way  in  the  submitted  2016  NDTLP.        What  are  the  ‘very  special  

circumstances’  that  pertain  in  this  instance  and  justify  using  this  land  –  and  fencing  off  a  component  of  it  –  in  the  

application?  

83   Once  established,  Green  Belt  boundaries  should  only  be  

altered  in  exceptional  circumstances,  through  the  

preparation  or  review  of  the  Local  Plan.  

De  facto,  the  current  development  boundary  as  confirmed  in  2006  represents  such  a  boundary.    Altering  it  would  therefore  

appear  to  require  ‘exceptional  circumstances’.  

88   When  considering  any  

planning  application,  local  planning  authorities  should  

ensure  that  substantial  weight  is  given  to  any  harm  to  the  

Green  Belt.  ‘Very  special  circumstances’  will  not  exist  

unless  the  potential  harm  to  the  Green  Belt  by  reason  of  

inappropriateness,  and  any  other  harm,  is  clearly  

The  2006  Inspectors  report  cited  above  describes  this  site  as  

greenfield.  

36  

 

Para   Issue/Extract   Comment  

outweighed  by  other  considerations.  

93   Planning  plays  a  key  role  in  

helping  shape  places  to  secure  radical  reductions  in  

greenhouse  gas  emissions,  minimising  vulnerability  and  

providing  resilience  to  the  impacts  of  climate  change,  

and  supporting  the  delivery  of  renewable  22  |  National  

Planning  Policy  Framework  and  low  carbon  energy  and  

associated  infrastructure.    This  is  central  to  the  

economic,  social  and  environmental  dimensions  of  

sustainable  development.  

The  Sustainability  Statement  and  wider  design  in  the  

application  cannot  be  described  as  meeting  this  requirement.    No  specific  renewable  technologies  are  specified  –  one  must  

infer  from  their  absence  from  the  design  that  the  renewables  in  the  plan  do  not  include  solar  thermal  or  Photovoltaic,  both  

relatively  cheap  technologies  that  one  might  expect  to  be  included  in  any  new  build.  

 

94   Local  planning  authorities  should  adopt  proactive  

strategies  to  mitigate  and  adapt  to  climate  change,  

taking  full  account  of  flood  risk  

This  implies  that  concerns  over  flood  risk  should  be  afforded  considerable  weight  in  any  decision  making.  

95   To  support  the  move  to  a  low  carbon  future,  local  planning  

authorities  should  plan  for  new  development  in  locations  

and  ways  which  reduce  greenhouse  gas  emissions;  

This  is  not  addressed  in  the  application.    The  technology  exists  now  to  build  net  positive  homes  and  new  developments  should  

support  the  reduction  in  emissions.    

97   ‘responsibility  on  all  

communities  to  contribute  to  energy  generation  from  

renewable  or  low  carbon  sources.’  

There  is  no  reference  to  this  in  the  application.  

  New  development  should  be  planned  to  avoid  increased  vulnerability  to  the  range  of  

impacts  arising  from  climate  change.  When  new  

development  is  brought  forward  in  areas  which  are  

vulnerable,  care  should  be  taken  to  ensure  that  risks  can  

be  managed  through  suitable  

None  of  the  known  climate  change  risks  in  Braunton  are  addressed  by  this  application.    In  fact,  there  is  clear  evidence  that  in  terms  of  flood  risk  that  application  will  increase  risk.  

The  Applicants  have  failed  to  incorporate  available  current  adaption  measures  into  their  design,  as  set  out  clearly  in  the  

Devon  County  Council  Flood  and  Coastal  Risk  Management  Teams  response  to  the  statutory  consultation.  

37  

 

Para   Issue/Extract   Comment  

adaptation  measures,  including  through  the  

planning  of  green  infrastructure.      

100   Inappropriate  development  in  

areas  at  risk  of  flooding  should  be  avoided  by  

directing  development  away  from  areas  at  highest  risk,  but  

where  development  is  necessary,  making  it  safe  

without  increasing  flood  risk  elsewhere.1  

The  application  clearly  fails  to  address  this  to  the  satisfaction  of  

a  statutory  consultee.  

I  am  not  aware  if  the  issue  of  increasing  flood  risk  elsewhere  has  been  dealt  with  –  it  may  have  been  in  subsequent  iterations  of  

the  proposal.  

 

100   ‘using  opportunities  offered  

by  new  development  to  reduce  the  causes  and  

impacts  of  flooding’  

The  failure  to  include  current  available  adaption  measures  

means  that  the  application  fails  to  address  this  issue.  

103   When  determining  planning  

applications,  local  planning  authorities  should  ensure  

flood  risk  is  not  increased  elsewhere  

The  current  unsatisfactory  plan  for  surface  run  off  means  that  

this  requirement  not  to  increase  flood  risk  elsewhere  cannot  be  met.  

109   The  planning  system  should  

contribute  to  and  enhance  the  natural  and  local  

environment  by:  

• protecting  and  enhancing  valued  landscapes,  

geological  conservation  interests  and  soils;  

• recognising  the  wider  benefits  of  ecosystem  

services;  • minimising  impacts  

on  biodiversity  and  providing  net  gains  in  biodiversity  

where  possible.  

The  application  fails  to  adequately  address  these  issues.  

112   Local  planning  authorities  

should  take  into  account  the  economic  and  other  benefits  

of  the  best  and  most  versatile  agricultural  land.  Where  

significant  development  of  agricultural  land  is  

The  application  does  not  reference  this  issue  so  it  is  not  clear  if  

this  land  is  the  ‘poorer  quality’  agricultural  land’  referred  to.  

38  

 

Para   Issue/Extract   Comment  

demonstrated  to  be  necessary,  local  planning  

authorities  should  seek  to  use  areas  of  poorer  quality  land  in  

preference  to  that  of  a  higher  quality.  

118   When  determining  planning  applications,  local  planning  authorities  should  aim  to  conserve  and  enhance  biodiversity  by  applying  the  following  principles:  if  significant  harm  resulting  from  a  development  cannot  be  avoided  (through  locating  on  an  alternative  site  with  less  harmful  impacts),  adequately  mitigated,  or,  as  a  last  resort,  compensated  for,  then  planning  permission  should  be  refused;  

The  lighting  impact  on  local  bats  is  not  addressed  in  the  

application.    Potentially,  it  cannot  be.    Accordingly,  the  decision  maker  should  refuse  permission.  

This  issue  has  been  a  key  focus  of  discussion  about  ecological  

impact  –  an  updated  lighting  plan  has  been  submitted  with  the  appeal  but  not  yet  tested  in  public.  

118   proposed  development  on  land  within  or  outside  a  Site  of  Special  Scientific  Interest  likely  to  have  an  adverse  effect  on  a  Site  of  Special  Scientific  Interest  (either  individually  or  in  combination  with  other  developments)  should  not  normally  be  permitted.  

The  impact  on  the  Caen  maternity  roost  (SSSI)  is  almost  certain  

to  be  adverse.    In  this  case  the  development  should  not  normally  be  permitted.  

118   Where  an  adverse  effect  on  the  site’s  notified  special  interest  features  is  likely,  an  exception  should  only  be  made  where  the  benefits  of  the  development,  at  this  site,  clearly  outweigh  both  the  impacts  that  it  is  likely  to  have  on  the  features  of  the  site  that  make  it  of  special  scientific  interest  and  any  broader  impacts  on  the  national  network  of  Sites  of  Special  Scientific  Interest;  

The  application  potentially  fails  to  pass  this  test  –  the  Ecological  report  identifies  Greater  Horseshoe  bats  at  the  site  and  they  are  

likely  to  be  associated  with  the  SSSI  

119   The  presumption  in  favour  of  sustainable  development  (paragraph  14)  does  not  apply  where  development  requiring  appropriate  assessment  under  the  Birds  or  Habitats  Directives  is  

The  Greater  Horseshoe  Bat  is  a  listed  species  under  the  Habitats  Directive.    Natural  England  have  not  referred  to  the  Directive  in  

their  response  to  the  statutory  consultation,  but  rather  pointed  the  decision  maker  to  ‘standing  advice’  about  protected  species.    

This  is  odd  because  they  refer  so  clearly  to  the  presence  on  the  site  of  Greater  Horseshoe  Bats.    I  request  that  the  situation  with  

39  

 

Para   Issue/Extract   Comment  

being  considered,  planned  or  determined.  

regard  to  the  application  of  the  Habitats  Directive  is  clarified  as  soon  as  possible.    If  the  Habitats  Directive  is  relevant  in  this  case  

then  paragraph  14  of  the  NPPF  no  longer  applies.    I  plan  to  investigate  this  issue  further  and  request  that  subsequent  

representations  are  considered  prior  to  any  decision.  

124   Planning  policies  should  sustain  compliance  with  and  contribute  towards  EU  limit  values  or  national  objectives  for  pollutants,  taking  into  account  the  presence  of  Air  Quality  Management  Areas  and  the  cumulative  impacts  on  air  quality  from  individual  sites  in  local  areas.  Planning  decisions  should  ensure  that  any  new  development  in  Air  Quality  Management  Areas  is  consistent  with  the  local  air  quality  action  plan.  

The  local  air  quality  action  plan  in  this  case  is  the  latest  Braunton  Air  Quality  Action  Plan,  produced  to  ‘fulfil  the  

requirements  of  the  Local  Air  Quality  Management  (LAQM)  process  as  set  out  in  Part  IV  of  the  Environment  Act  (1995),  the  

Air  Quality  Strategy  for  England,  Scotland,  Wales  and  Northern  Ireland  2007  and  the  relevant  Policy  and  Technical  Guidance  

documents’.  

There  is  no  reference  to  this  document  in  the  application.  

125   By  encouraging  good  design,  planning  policies  and  decisions  should  limit  the  impact  of  light  pollution  from  artificial  light  on  local  amenity,  intrinsically  dark  landscapes  and  nature  conservation.  

It  is  clear  from  the  Natural  England  response  to  the  statutory  consultation  that  the  application  fails  to  do  this.  

131   In  determining  planning  applications,  local  planning  authorities  should  take  account  of…..the  desirability  of  new  development  making  a  positive  contribution  to  local  character  and  distinctiveness.  

It’s  a  matter  of  opinion,  but  I  doubt  you  would  be  able  to  find  a  single  current  resident  of  Braunton  who  would  argue  that  this  

development  would  make  ‘a  positive  contribution  to  local  character  and  distinctiveness’.    Certainly,  there  is  no  evidence  in  

the  application  that  the  proposal  would  make  this  contribution.  

152   Local  planning  authorities  should  seek  opportunities  to  

achieve  each  of  the  economic,  social  and  environmental  

dimensions  of  sustainable  development,  and  net  gains  

across  all  three.  

This  application  fails  to  demonstrate  net  gains  across  all  three  dimensions  of  sustainable  development.    Indeed,  in  each  case  it  

is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  the  application,  if  supported,  will  lead  to  significant  and  demonstrable  adverse  impact  in  all  three  

dimensions.  

186   Local  planning  authorities  should  approach  decision-­‐taking  in  a  positive  way  to  foster  the  delivery  of  

sustainable  development.  

The  decision  maker  has  a  duty  to  foster  the  delivery  of  development  that  can  be  shown  to  be  sustainable  –  and  by  

implication  to  prevent  any  development  that  is  not.  

187   Local  planning  authorities  should  work  proactively  with  Applicants  to  secure  

The  application  clearly  fails  this  test.    I  have  presented  analysis  

in  this  submission  to  justify  this  conclusion.    Nothing  in  the  

40  

 

Para   Issue/Extract   Comment  

developments  that  improve  the  economic,  social  and  environmental  conditions  of  the  area.  

Applicants  submission  is  presented  to  counter  this.