Agenda item

The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management reminded Members about the need to continue with discussions about the detailed polices and asked Members to discuss policy 64 which was to protect key sites and routes from development.

 

Chapter 12 – Prioritising Sustainable Travel and Providing the Transport and Communications Facilities we need

 

64. Strategic Policy - Protecting transport sites and routes

·         It is important to protect our cycle networks that already exist.  An upgrade to the cycle route from Exeter to Exmouth should be given consideration;

·         Cycle routes are fragmented and need to be joined up to be effective;

·         The need to be mindful that cycle paths are often used as footpaths.  The mix of cycles and public can cause problems;

·         Concerns raised about the danger on roads for cyclists and the need for designated sections on the road;

·         A lack of a cycle route from A30 to the A3052;

·         The need to make greener connections between communities;

·         Policies in the past had always used footpaths as cycle ways.  Cyclists should be using roads;

·         Priorities need to change from using the car to cycling.  There is a need to prioritise active travel.  In response the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management reminded Members about the 20 minute neighbourhood and advised the first priority was walking and cycling in new developments and additional cycle and walking routes would be needed.

·         There is a need to consider public transport and passing loops as not everybody is able or willing to cycle all year round.  There is an opportunity for an expansion of public transport as buses occupy the same space as cars and other road users and are subject to the same congestion;

·         The Department of Transport and the Highway Code have given priority to cyclists;

·         Clarification was sought on whether the policy was only to protect existing cycle routes and whether there was an opportunity to protect potential routes as there is great potential for a cycleway from Exmouth to Woodbury Common.  In response the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised that additional routes could be considered and discussions would be needed with Devon County Council to deliver these routes;

·         When considering future cycle routes there is a need to consider that the routes go both east and west and north and south. 

·         When considering the new town cycles should be able to go from the A3052 to the A30;

·         There is a need for a policy on future transport routes to be compliant with the NPPF paragraph 106 - 109

 

An amendment to Policy 64 was proposed by Councillor Skinner and seconded by Councillor Allen to include the need for designated sections on the road for cyclists and a proposed cycle link between the A3052 to the A30.

 

The majority of Members’ were in support of the amendment

 

A further amendment was proposed by Councillor Ben Ingham to include an additional bullet point to the preferred option to read:

·         Enhance/upgrade the following routes:

o   Exeter to Exmouth where it passes through East Devon

 

The majority of Members’ were in support of the amendment

 

Members advised that they support officers preferred option that:

The preferred approach is to include policy that protects sites and routes from development, and show these on the policies map.  We are seeking comments on which sites/routes through public consultation, but at this stage we intend to protect the following sites and routes:

 

·         Enhance/upgrade the following routes:

o   Exeter to Exmouth where it passes through East Devon

·         Strategic cycle network schemes:

o   Cranbrook to Exeter

o   Seaton to Colyton

o   Feniton to Sidmouth

o   Clyst Valley Trail

o   Sidford to Sidbury

·         Railway passing loops as necessary at:

o   Axminster

o   Honiton

o   Whimple to Cranbrook

 

65. Policy - Travel Plans, Transport Statements, Transport Assessments

·         This policy is too woolly and not defined on what is acceptable;

·         People still have an obsession to stop the use of vehicles but it is the fossil fuels that must be stopped;

·         There is a need to go electric;

·         Clarification sought on whose responsibility it was to produce a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment and how can EDDC make certain that it was acceptable within the policy.  In response the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised it would be produced by the applicants or consultants acting on their behalf and it would then be assessed by this council in partnership with Devon County Council;

·         Concerns raised when a Transport Assessment comes back unacceptable after land has been allocated for development

·         The wording in the policy is confusing;

·         There is a need for a travel plan because so many developments assume car usage which impacts further on the road network;

·         The need to facilitate active travel and the need to make it possible for people to walk and cycle;

·         Concerns raised that the impact on the road network provided by the developer could impact on house prices which could affect our need for affordable housing;

·         There is a need to promote public transport;

·         Travel plans and road networks are vital;

·         Reference was made to Chapter 9 of the NPPF promoting sustainable transport, paragraph 106 on page 30 stating that transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and development proposals highlighting b) be prepared with the active involvement of local highways authorities, other transport infrastructure providers and operators and neighbouring councils, so that strategies and investments for supporting sustainable transport and development patterns are aligned;

·         The need for ‘blue sky thinking’ for the future e.g. driverless buses/electronic travel routes

 

It was proposed by Councillor Allen and seconded by Councillor Skinner for a Strategic Policy on Sustainable Transport.

 

The majority of Members’ were in support of the proposal for a Strategic Policy on Sustainable Transport

 

It was proposed by Councillor Arnott and seconded by Councillor Davey to support the policy as written.

 

Members advised that they support officers preferred option that:

·         Requires a Travel Plan at specified thresholds of residential and non-residential development.

·         Requires a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment at specified thresholds of residential and non-residential development.

·         Enables a Travel Plan, Transport Statement or Transport Assessment to be required below these thresholds taking into account: the scale of the proposed development; availability of public transport, proximity to environmental designations; impact on promoting walking and cycling; cumulative impacts of multiple developments in the area; and whether there are particular types of impacts.

 

66. Policy – Residential car parking standards

·         To encourage the green agenda that we wish for there is a need to consider EV charging points for every new home in East Devon.  In response Members were advised to be careful when considering this issue as it would entail car parking spaces being provided for all new properties when this is not always the case and it would also be difficult as there is no universal charging point for EV’s so it is usually better to require the wiring to be provided and leave home owners to install a charging point suited to their vehicle;

·         There is a need to provide adequate overnight lorry parking facilities which is not mentioned in this policy.  In response the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management acknowledged there was a policy in the existing local plan and advised it would be appropriate to look at a relevant replacement policy;

·         There is a requirement to have evidence for residential car parking standards to make sure people can actually park their vehicles;

·         Concerns raised about using public car park spaces for residential parking.  In response the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised that this had been done in the past in sustainable locations with excellent public transport facilities and where all facilities, such as, schools and jobs were within walking distance;

·         Concerns raised about the second paragraph and the omissions it will produce and this should be made an exception rather than a rule;

·         Concerns raised that town centre car parks would be used for residential car parks during the day which could be to the detriment of businesses in those town centres;

·         Clarification sought on whether officers would look at providing secure lorry parking facilities especially for lorries with loads on board.  In response the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised this would be included in the Roadside Services Policy;

·         Clarification was sought on the redevelopment of the Exeter Services at Sowton and the need for a policy if the Services were to encroach onto East Devon.  In response the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised if Exeter City Council were to promote this and an alternative location was found in East Devon then further discussion would be required with Exeter City Council.

 

The following amendments were proposed by Councillor Moulding and seconded by Councillor Ingham that the necessary infrastructure be provided to all new dwellings so that the EV charging points are ready as and when required; to incorporate reference to residential commercial uses and secure lorry parking along trunk roads; to amend the last sentence to extend car clubs for not just cars but also electric bikes and for the provision of electric points and that town centre car parks should not be used for day residential parking.

 

The majority of Members’ were in support of the amendments.

 

Members advised that they support officers preferred option that:

Residential car parking standards

The preferred approach is to include a policy setting out residential and non-residential car parking and cycle parking standards.

 

In town centres where there is access to public car parks and/or on-street parking lower levels of parking and in exceptional cases where there are also very good public transport links, car parking spaces may not be deemed necessary

 

Electric Vehicle Charing Points

Development needs to provide Electric Vehicle Charging Points in accordance with the latest Government guidance.

Rapid charging points will be particularly important in the public domain.

Provide spaces for public electric car charging point and for car clubs.

 

67. Strategic Policy – Digital Connectivity

·         Reference was made to the NPPF Chapter 10 – Supporting high quality communications and the need to provide not only broadband but also radio and electronic communications masts.

 

An amendment was proposed by Councillor Allen and seconded by Councillor Moulding to widen the policy to include all high quality communications and should be structured to take account of the requirements of the NPPF.

 

The majority of Members’ were in support of the amendment.

 

Members advised that they support officers preferred option that:

The preferred approach is to include a policy to require all new development to have access to superfast broadband from day one recognising it is the fifth utility and to continue to support the expansion of full fibre broadband connections in the district.

 

Other requirements would include requiring ducting to be installed with capacity for more than one provider and other provisions to enable the delivery of multi operator fibre to the premises and sufficient mobile connectivity.

 

Developers are encouraged to have early discussions with strategic providers or CDS for major development.

 

Chapter 13 – Caring for our outstanding landscape

 

68. Policy – Landscape Features

·         Fully support the 10 items listed but it fails to consider what we should be  stopping such as no new dwellings in protected areas at all;

·         The need to include the best and most versatile agricultural land and dark skies;

·         The need to include areas of strategic importance;

·         Would like to see a clear strategy on planning applications;

·         The conversion of barns and agricultural buildings should not be permitted in AONBs;

·         The need to protect existing hedgerows to protect wildlife;

·         The need to protect existing countryside from encroachment;

·         Concerns raised about trees being uprooted and killed prior to the submission of a planning application;

·         Thought should be given to wildlife corridors and migration patterns;

·         Applicants should be required to submit landscape surveys when they put in planning applications;

 

The following amendments were proposed by Councillor Bailey and seconded by Councillor Allen that the wording ‘where possible’ be removed from the policy; to incorporate best and most versatile agricultural land and dark skies and have a clear strategy for the applicant to demonstrate how they meet the policy on the landscape and especially via the landscape survey.

 

The majority of Members’ were in support of the amendments.

 

The following amendment was proposed by Councillor Bailey and seconded by Councillor Allen that the Areas of Strategic Visual Importance be added as a separate policy in the local plan.

 

The majority of Members’ were in support of the amendment.

 

Members advised that they support officers preferred option that:

This overarching policy aims to protect important features in the landscape, whether designated or not.

 

Landscape, countryside and rural areas will be protected against harmful development.  Development will only be permitted where it protects and, where possible enhances, features that contribute to the nature and quality of East Devon’s landscapes, in particular:

      i.        Trees (including individual trees, groups of trees and woodlands), hedgerows and field boundaries;

    ii.        Irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland and aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland;

   iii.        Rivers, tributaries and flood plains;

   iv.        Other watercourse and water bodies;

    v.        Seascapes and coastline;

   vi.        The landscape setting of settlements;

  vii.        Topographical features;

viii.        Areas of features of cultural and historic value;

   ix.        Important views and visually sensitive skylines; and

    x.        Aesthetic and perceptual factors such as tranquillity, wildness, intactness, rarity and enclosure.

 

The Council will seek the retention of important hedgerows.  Where retention is not possible and a proposal seeks the removal of a hedgerow, the Council will require compensatory planting with a mixture of native hedgerow species.

 

69. Policy – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

·         Buildings in the AONB should not be built beyond a certain height.  In response the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised that the proposed policy gives the highest level of protection already and urged caution about precluding development as some development may be needed in the AONB.

·         Delete the wording ‘where possible’ in the first bullet point;

·         Need to be mindful how we support areas of the AONB as this may imply areas outside the AONB have less importance;

 

Members advised that they support officers preferred option that:

It is proposed that a policy be included to ensure that the highest level of protection will be given to the landscape and scenic beauty of the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) in East Devon:

·         Development in the AONB or affecting the setting of an AONB will only be permitted where it conserves, and where possible, enhances the character and natural beauty of the AONB;

·         Development in an AONB will only be permitted where it is appropriate to the economic and environmental wellbeing of the area or promotes understanding or enjoyment of the AONB;

·         Major development in an AONB will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances and where I can be demonstrated to be in the public interest; and

·         Development proposals that could affect the special qualities of an AONB (including the setting of an AONB) either individually or in combination with other developments, should be accompanied by a proportionate Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.

AONB Management Plans will be a material consideration in decision making.

 

70. Policy – Coastal Preservation Areas

·         The word ‘supported’ in the officers preferred option be deleted to read: ‘appropriate proposals which increase public access to the coast will be considered.’

·         The policy is not clear or definitive;

·         Support shown for option C which gives a greater level of protection;

·         Suggestion made for the need to work with local actors to reduce the risk of river pollution and to help develop infrastructure that minimises the outflows of effluent;

·         What does ‘protected’ mean?

 

Members advised that they support officers preferred option that:

It is proposed that a policy be included to ensure that coastal preservation areas and the undeveloped coast is protected from development which would harm its character.  Appropriate proposals which increase public access to the coast will be supported.

 

71. Policy – Green wedges

·         Support shown for option A as written but do not support the proposal to consider green wedges in the future.  Concerns were raised about the need to consider green wedges before the strategic allocations because once the land has been built on the green wedge has been lost especially when considering green wedges in the new town;

·         Agree with options A & D and a suggestion made to put them together;

·         Don’t eliminate smaller green wedges;

·         It is important to recognise green wedges first before deciding where development should go otherwise we are in danger of undermining existing settlement containment policies such as that between Ottery St Mary and West Hill;

·         Concerns raised that green wedges are being overridden for development;

·         There is a need to consider wildlife migration patterns;

·         Would like to see a green wedge between Sidford and Sidbury;

·         Clarification sought on Option C which suggested a review that may allow more green wedges but would it include a review of the existing green wedges.  In response the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised that Option C would allow more green wedges to be designated but with any option it will be necessary to assess the extent of the green wedges needed to achieve the aims of the policy and establish a common evidence base for their inclusion in the plan whether they are existing green wedges being re-designated or new green wedges;

·         We need to protect what we already have and do not see the need for reviewing the green wedges that we already have;

·         Clyst St May, Clyst St George, Ebford and Exton all need a green wedge;

·         The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised Members that in order for the Local Plan to be found sound at examination it would be necessary to have evidence to prove the need for the existing green wedges as well as any new ones.

 

Councillor Allen proposed an amendment and seconded by Councillor Arnott for the review in Option C be done starting from the position that the existing green wedges are retained.

 

The majority of Members’ were in support of the amendments.

 

Members advised that they support Option C:

The preferred option is to include a policy that:

Green wedges are designated following a landscape review to ensure that sufficient land is designated to restrict development and therefore prevent settlement coalescence and protect the separate identities and character of settlements in close proximity to each other.  Extensive areas of green wedge that go beyond the area needed to achieve this aim would unnecessarily restrict development that would otherwise be acceptable.

 

72. Policy – Land of Local Amenity Importance

·         This policy protects town but does not protect the villages;

·         Clarification was sought on the resources requires in option C.  In response the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised he would have to review resources and timescales if every area of green space in the district was needed to be assessed;

·         There is a need to start with what we have already have identified so that the 14 identified areas should not be affected;

·         A suggestion was made to ask parish councils to produce a list of their identified local green spaces;

 

Councillor Howe proposed an amendment seconded by Councillor Arnott to write to all the parish councils and ask them to nominate their green open spaces for officers to assess.

 

Members advised that they support Option B to include a wider-reaching policy to protect Local Green Space but do not identify all LGS in the Plan.

 

Chapter 13 – Protecting and enhancing our outstanding biodiversity

 

73. Strategic Policy – Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geological features.

Members advised that they support officers preferred option that:

This overarching strategic policy will address and afford general protection to biodiversity and geological features in East Devon, to include:

·         Protection of existing features, habitats, sites and species;

·         Promoting opportunities for restoration, enhancement and connection of natural habitats;

·         Incorporating beneficial biodiversity conservation and enhancement features.

Policy will also highlight the essential importance of habitat assessment and surveys accompanying planning applications, particular so in respect of cases where there is or could be the presence of protected species.

 

74. Strategic Policy – Habitat Regulations and mitigation of adverse impacts

·         The need to consider the issues of phosphates in our rivers and the mitigation measures that might need to be taken;

·         Support was shown for the support for habitat regulations;

·         Mitigation measures need to be clearer for specific species to show that the species have been moved before buildings are taken down.  In response the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised that a policy on protected species would be consider further on in the agenda;

 

An amendment was proposed by Councillor Moulding and seconded by Councillor Ingham to include the mitigation measures for reducing phosphates in our rivers.

 

The majority of Members’ were in support of the amendments.

 

Members advised that they support officers preferred option that:

Policy will establish the need for mitigation measures in respect of adverse impacts that would otherwise arise from development or from occupiers or users of development of SACs, SPAs and Ramsar Sites.  Policy will address:

·         Need for Appropriate Assessment (under the Habitat Regulations) to be undertaken in respect of cases where development could adversely impact on sites;

·         Need to contribute, where adverse impacts may arise, to packages of mitigation measures and/or to provide direct relevant mitigation works.

Policy will also need to consider exclusion zones at or around sites where development is either totally ruled out or very heavily restricted.  Issues associated with predation by domestic cats is one reason why, for some sites, significant restrictions on development are appropriate.

 

75. Policy – Biodiversity net gain

·         20% is an ambitious amount;

·         Needs to be considered on a case by case basis as it is vital for infrastructure;

·         Action needs to be taken as 97% of wildflower meadows have been lost and butterflies and birds are on the decline;

·         UK has the lowest biodiversity in whole of Western Europe and it is a disgrace;

·         Must not accept less than 20% net gain;

·         There is a need to find a way to achieve 30% net gain;

·         If we build on brownfield sites 20% net gain can be easily reached;

·         Clarification sought on whether advice had been taken on whether 20% could be reached.

 

An amendment was proposed by Councillor Bonetta and seconded by Councillor Rylance for officers to further investigate a higher diversity net gain percentage for areas of outstanding natural beauty along the lines of 25% or 30%.

 

The majority of Members’ were in support of the amendments.

 

Members advised that they support officers preferred option that:

This policy will establish a requirement for all development proposals to demonstrate at least 20% net gain in biodiversity compared with the pre-development situation by including or funding biodiversity enhancements, as appropriate.

 

Biodiversity losses, compensation and enhancements will be calculated using the most recent nationally endorsed biodiversity metric, taking into account any adopted local authority guidance.  Compensation and enhancements will be delivered in accordance with the Local Nature Recovery Strategy and Network (emerging) and secured by planning conditions and/or planning obligations.

 

76. Policy – Protection of nationally important wildlife sites

Members advised that they support officers preferred option that:

Policy will afford protection to and resist loss of:

·         National Nature Reserves; and

·         Sites if Special Scientific Interest

·         Policy will address exceptional cases where development may be allowed and cover the need for full mitigation and/or compensation which leads to a net gain in biodiversity value.

 

77. Policy – Protection of local wildlife sites and features

Members advised that they support officers preferred option that:

Policy will afford protection to and resist loss of:

·         Local Nature Reserves

·         County Wildlife Sites

·         County Geological Sites

·         Other areas of sites identified to have wildlife importance

Policy will address exceptional cases where development, to include certain uses (including if compatible with the reasons of objectives for designation), may be allowed and cover the need for mitigation in associated with development that might under exceptional circumstances be permitted.

 

78. Policy – Protected species

Members advised that they support officers preferred option that:

Policy will seek to afford appropriate protection to protected species adding to and providing local detail to national policy and legislation on protection.  Policy will seek to promote additional habitat protection in association with any development that does occur.

 

79. Policy – Trees and development

·         On-street planting in new developments needs to be clearer in terms of compliance with the strategy;  In response the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised that caution was needed as on street planting can cause safety issues such as tree roots raising up pavements and tarmacked footpaths

·         Concerns about mitigation when matures trees are cut down and replaced with small saplings;

·         Need to look back at the site condition 1 year prior to the application to prevent the loss of trees prior to the planning process;

·         We should be replacing trees lost through development on the basis of replacing the canopy cover on a like for live basis;

·         There is a need to protect existing hedgerows;

·         It was suggested that a decision on this issue should be deferred until a decision is taken on whether to move forward with the Tree Strategy.  The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised that a policy seek tree protection was required whether the Tree Strategy is progressed or not and can link across to the strategy at a later date it if is progressed;

·         Would like to see a ratio of replacement trees for every tree felled;

·         No loss of ancient woodland

 

The Chair moved a motion that Members support officers preferred option provided that officers investigate the potential to implement the 1 year rule referred to in debate.

 

Members advised that subject to investigations into the 1 year rule that they support officers preferred option that:

Policy will seek to afford protection to existing trees in East Devon and planting of new trees.  Matters for policy to address will include:

·         Encouragement of new tree planting

·         Retention of trees, hedgerows and similar features on development sites

·         Planting of native species

·         On street planting in new developments

·         Specific protection of ancient and veteran trees and ancient woodlands; and

·         Initiatives and planting schemes that seek to connect existing but separate woodlands or groups of tree planting

 

80. Policy – Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site and geodiversity

Members advised that they support officers preferred option that:

Policy will seek to afford protection to the World Heritage Site and at a more local level to geodiversity interests.  In respect of the Jurassic Coast policy will seek to protect and not compromise the Outstanding Universal Value that justifies its designation.

 

In respect of geological sites more generally policy will seek to afford protection and retention of sites resisting development that may bring about adverse changes.

 

81. Policy – Incorporation of wildlife friendly features into new development

·         Would like the policy to be more robust to enforce developers;

·         Concerns raised about hard surfacing and artificial grass and the need for conditions on this;

·         The need to make sure wildlife features are genuinely wildlife friendly’

·         The need to avoid resin drives surface water has nowhere to go;

·         The need to expand on the second bullet point as small patches of grass can be a blight on the landscape.

 

Members advised that they support officers preferred option that:

Policy will seek to promote, encourage and where possible require development schemes to be wildlife friendly through such measures as:

·         Expecting, as the norm, planting of native species

·         Incorporation of wild and non-manicured spaces in development

·         Avoidance of hard surfacing

·         Incorporation of wildlife friendly features such as bird and bee houses built into the fabric of buildings and hedgehog tunnels.  In particular, an average of at least one integral bird box per residential unit should be incorporated in the fabric of all new housing developments, with flats, hotels, care/nursing homes, commercial and public buildings considered on a case-by-case basis.