COMMITTEE REPORT
|
|
|
||
|
Case Officer:
|
Clare Stewart |
||
|
Parish: |
Lifton
|
Ward: |
Tamarside
|
|
Application No:
|
0034/24/FUL |
||
|
Applicant:
|
South West Water Limited Peninsula House Rydon Lane Exeter Devon EX2 7HR
|
Agent:
|
Miss Emily Comber tor&co 23 Heddon Street London W1B 4BQ |
|
Site Address: |
Land at SX 373 834, Lifton
|
||
|
Development: |
READVERTISEMENT (additional/revised information received) Construction & operation of water abstraction & pumping facility with associated access arrangements, landscape planting & other ancillary works
|
||
Reason item is before Committee: Called in by Ward Member (Cllr Edmonds) for the following reason -
“after careful consideration I feel it is appropriate to call this strategic infrastructure planning application into the DM&L Committee as a building in this location would not normally be supportable”
Recommendation: Conditions approval
Conditions:
1. Time limit
2. Accord with plans
3. Surface water drainage (PTC – date agreed 30/04/24)
4. Details of hard and soft landscaping to be submitted and agreed
5. Implementation of the submitted CEMP
6. Implementation of submitted Installation and Removal of in-river channel temporary works method statement
7. Implementation of AIA and Existing Gatherley Track Reinstatement Method
8. Implementation of Ecological Method Statement
9. Revised Landscape Strategy Plan (PTC – date agreed TBC)
10. Revised LEMP (PTC – date agreed TBC)
11. Implementation of submitted Invasive Species Method Statement.
12. Submission of revised BNG report and metric
13. Watercourse habitat compensation scheme
14. Updated Waste Audit Statement (PTC – date agreed 30/04/24)
15. Employment and Skills Plan (PTC – date agreed 30/04/24)
Key issues for consideration:
Principle of development, design, landscape impact, biodiversity, environmental impacts, trees.
Site Description:
The site is located within the open countryside, c. 2.2km south west of Lifton and comprises open fields adjacent to the River Tamar. The site is accessed via a Class E road from Leat Farm in the north to Gatherley Farm in the south. The western area of the site fall within Flood Zones 2 and 3. The site is adjacent to areas of Ancient Woodland; Gatherley Wood to the north east and south of the site.
The site is not subject to any landscape designations. It does lie within a County Wildlife site.
The Proposal:
Permission is sought to construct and operate a permanent water abstraction and pumping facility with associated access arrangements, landscape planting & other ancillary works. The applicant is South West Water Limited (SWWL). The submitted Planning Statement includes the following:
“SWWL is the statutory water service provider in Cornwall, Devon, and parts of Dorset and Somerset. As such, SWWL has a statutory legal obligation to provide safe drinking water to the public and to undertake all necessary infrastructure improvements required to ensure that this obligation is met.
The proposed facility is part of the Roadford Pumped Storage project, which together with the Northcombe to Prewley Transfer Mains, form SWWL’s North Devon Pipelines Green Recovery Initiative to accommodate population growth and increase resilience in the south west region from more frequent heat waves associated with climate change.”
Following the original consultation period additional/revised details were submitted to address comments from technical consultees and further design development. The application was then formally re-advertised for public comment.
The physical works include an abstraction intake structure within the River Tamar, a pumping station building, permanent access road, and a walkway/access road from the pumping station to the abstraction intake. The intake structure would be located within Flood Zone 3, with the Pumping Station within Flood Zone 1.
The Pumping Station would be stepped into the hillside, with the internal equipment tightly enclosed within a simple low-pitched roof building form. The Pumping Station would have a gross internal area of 738.6sqm (40.3m long x 19.3m wide), with an external yard containing
electrical substations to the east measuring 146.1sqm in area (6m wide x 25.8m long). When viewed from the west elation the main building would have an overall height of approximately 8.2m.
Externally the main building would be finished in stone effect concrete masonry at low level with metal panel cladding above. A 2.4m high security fence is proposed around the electrical substation compound. Colour finishes have been specified within the submitted Design and Access Statement in grey/green tones.
The abstraction intake would be of functional/utilitarian appearance, with a platform area measuring approximately 13.2m x 11.2m.
Consultations:
Following two rounds of consultation the latest comments are summarised as follows. Full copies of all comments are available to view on the Council’s website.
· DCC Highways – No highways related issues
· DCC Archaeology – No comments received
· DCC LFFA – No objection in principle subject to pre-commencement condition
· DCC Waste – No objection subject to pre-commencement condition
· Environment Agency – No objection strictly subject to recommended condition to secure a scheme for watercourse habitat compensation
· Natural England – Subject to mitigation the development will not have a significant adverse impacts on statutorily protected nature conservation sites. concur with the Appropriate Assessment conclusions, providing that mitigation measures as specified in the AA are appropriately secured by conditions in any planning permission given.
· LPA Ecology – Ecological information submitted is sufficient, conditions required. Natural England must be consulted on the Appropriate Assessment prior to determination (see response above)
· Designing Out Crime Officer – Comments for applicant
· Environmental Health – No concerns
· Tree Officer – No objection on Arboricultural merit subject to submitted AIA being an approved document if consent given
· Landscape Officer – Support subject to condition
· Lifton Parish Council – Support
“At the Parish Council meeting held on 28th March 2024, Councilors' discussed the
amendments to the above planning application which included the raising of the pump house roof by 1 metre to enable a crane gantry; and changes put forward by the Environment Agency (EA) relating to water abstraction. South West Water had also added photographs to the planning application.
Although Councillors noted the 19 letters of objection on the planning portal, the majority of which were from the Cornwall-side of the proposed works, Councillors were unable to identify any material planning objections for this application. The water abstraction rates and water quality is the responsibility of the EA.
Councillors noted the design of building which had been carefully considered to blend in with the countryside surroundings; they considered the wider benefits of the project and the need to find balance between impact and local needs. Given they could not identify any material planning objections, Councillors decided to support this application.”
· Lawhitton Parish Council (neighbouring Parish within Cornwall) – Concerns
“As the ground works & construction has been ongoing for some time Lawhitton Parish Council comments on this application can only be academic.
Nevertheless, the Parish Council have concerns:
· Local disruption and noise pollution during construction.
· Monitor noise pollution when in operation.
· Aspect will be put right as soon as work is completed.
· Landscape planting will be adequate for full screening to minimise the visual impact and noise pollution.
· Monitoring watering quality of water down river from the Sewerage Treatment Works.
· Have trust in the planning process and Government agencies for regular site inspection.”
Representations:
19 letters of objection have been received, with issues raised summarised as follows:
• Visual impact on landscape
• Only untouched part of the Tamar Valley
• Green field site
• No other farmer/business would get permission so close to the river so why should SWW
• Unconfirmed noise pollution levels and vibration from pumps
• Environmental impacts of river bank removal and shuttering using concrete
• Environmental consequences of water removal from the Tamar
• Abstraction will lead to collapse of the river eco system
• No consideration of salmon and sea-trout
• Sewage released in Tamar, will be pumped into Roadford
• Proximity to poorly performing sewage plant (St Leonards)
• EA have not yet granted abstraction license, planning application should not be determined before licence application
• Water quality in this location will restrict what can be extracted
• Lack of involvement/consideration of Cornwall side of the Tamar
• Full consultation with village of Lawhitton required, would be most affected by visual and noise impacts
• Abstraction is not a sustainable method of topping up a failing reservoir
• More accessible location could have been chosen
• New reservoir could enhance the environment, provide recreational facilities and create employment
• Who will police the abstraction levels & environmental impact
• Concerns regarding application 3309/23/FUL
• Query how turning a rural and agricultural area into an industrial site qualifies as a Green Recovery Initiative
• If approved building should be totally soundproofed to the surrounding area and screened on all sides
• How will impacts be measured, monitored and made available to the general public in real time
• Unnecessary development – SWW need to fix leaks in supply pipework
• Development could be located towards the A30 crossing where there are road links and impacts would be less
• Incorrect buffer distances from Ancient Woodland.
Relevant Planning History
· 0098/23/PR7 Pre Application Enquiry For - New Pumping Station. Not concluded.
·
· 2490/23/SCR Request for EIA screening opinion, appropriate assessment &information notification of permitted development for proposed pumping station & access road. ES not required.
·
· 3309/23/FUL Construction and operation of temporary water abstraction plant and
·ancillary works. Conditional Approval
·
· 0053/24/ARC Application for approval of details reserved by conditions 10 (Construction Phase Method Statement) and 11 (In-Stream Structures) of planning consent 3309/23/FUL. Discharge of Condition Approved.
ANALYSIS
1. Principle of Development/Sustainability:
1.1 S38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications for planning permission under the planning Acts be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
1.2 The recent case of Corbett[1] has re-emphasised that a key part of the s38(6) statutory duty is to determine whether the development accords with the development plan when viewed as a whole. It has long been recognised by the courts that it is not unusual for development plan policies to pull in different directions and that the decision taker must therefore make a judgement as to whether a proposal is in accordance with the plan as a whole and bearing in mind the relative importance of the policies which are complied with or infringed, and the extent of the compliance or breach.
1.3 The Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan sets out the framework for consideration of all new development proposals within the Plymouth, West Devon and South Hams Local Planning Authority Areas. JLP Policy SPT1 sets out the spatial strategy for delivering sustainable development across the plan area. The stated principles include a “sustainable society” where “Resilient communities and developments are delivered, which are able to accommodate the impacts of climate change and do not cause detrimental impacts to other communities and developments, for example through increasing flood risk” (SPT1.2(iv)). JLP Policy SPT2 provides the guiding principles of sustainable linked neighbourhoods and sustainable rural communities to guide development and growth in the Plan Area. SPT13 states that WDBC (along with SHDC and PCC) will work with partners to ensure that the infrastructure needed to deliver the spatial strategy is delivered.
1.4 JLP Policy TTV1 provides a hierarchy of settlements for the distribution of growth and development to deliver homes and jobs, to enable each town and village to play its role within the rural area. For the purposes of policy assessment the proposal site is characterised as being in the countryside, and is therefore in the 4th tier of the settlement hierarchy. JLP Policy TTV1.4 states development in the countryside will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated to support the principles of sustainable development and sustainable communities (Policies SPT1 and 2) including as provided for in Policies TTV26 and TTV27. Policy TTV26 seeks to protect the special characteristics and role of the countryside.
1.5 The spatial strategy contained within Policy TTV1 is clear that most development should be directed towards our most sustainable, named settlements. Policy TTV26 (and sometimes TTV27 but that is not relevant to this particular proposal) introduce some additional considerations for sites beyond these named settlements. Although it isn’t directly referenced within SPT13, the strategic nature of the proposal subject of this application and the importance of a resilient water supply (particularly in the face of climate change) needs to be acknowledged.
1.6 Policy TTV26 sets out the tests for development in the countryside. In this instance, the site is located c. 2.2 km south of Lifton; access is provided via single track metalled lanes with no footpath or street lighting along the route and on this basis is considered to be isolated from a settlement and both limbs of TTV26 apply.
1.7 The first limb of TTV26 specifies that:
“1. Isolated development in the countryside will be avoided and only permitted in exceptional circumstances, such as where it would:
i. Meet an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside and maintain that role for the development in perpetuity; or
ii. Secure the long term future and viable use of a significant heritage asset; or iii. Secure the re-use of redundant or disused buildings and brownfield sites for an appropriate use; or
iv. Secure a development of truly outstanding or innovative sustainability and design, which helps to raise standards of design more generally in the rural area, significantly enhances its immediate setting, and is sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area; or
v. Protect or enhance the character of historic assets and their settings.”
Items (i)-(v) are illustrative of when, exceptionally, isolated development may be permitted in the countryside. The nature of the proposal means of necessity it must be close to the river and in this location. This, together with the strategic nature of the proposal, is sufficient to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and ensure that the proposal complies with the policy.
1.8 The second limb of TTV26 requires that development should, where appropriate:
i. Protect and improve public rights of way and bridleways.
ii. Re-use traditional buildings that are structurally sound enough for renovation without significant enhancement or alteration.
iii. Be complementary to and not prejudice any viable agricultural operations on a farm and other existing viable uses.
iv. Respond to a proven agricultural, forestry and other occupational need that requires a countryside location.
v. Avoid the use of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land.
vi. Help enhance the immediate setting of the site and include a management plan and exit strategy that demonstrates how long term degradation of the landscape and natural environment will be avoided.”
The proposal does not impact on any public rights of way and therefore complies with clause i. Clause ii relates to the re-use of existing buildings only and is therefore not relevant to the current application. Clause iv requires that proposals are supported by an agricultural, forestry and other occupational need that requires a countryside location and clause iii that the proposal is complementary to and does not prejudice any viable operations on a farm. The use of the land to support water abstraction is considered complementary to the surrounding agricultural uses of land that justifies a countryside location. The proposal is sited on Class 3 Agricultural Land but is not considered to represent such a significant loss of agricultural land so as to warrant a refusal on this basis. Furthermore, when considered that the requirement to be adjacent to the river limits the potential options for siting the development and in this context, the proposal complies with the provisions of clause v. Clause vi concerns the impact of the proposal on the immediate setting of the application site and the natural environment. This is covered in more detail later in this report.
1.9 JLP Policy DEV15 seeks to support the rural economy – this proposal is essentially for strategic infrastructure and arguably does not fall within the scope of what DEV15 seeks to influence (whilst there would be some job creation during the construction phase once operational the site would only really be accessed for maintenance purposes and not therefore be a generate employment or significant vehicle movements). However, in a broader sense the security of water supply is of importance to the rural economy, and the proposal does not directly conflict with any of the specific DEV15 criteria.
1.10 The submitted Design and Access Statement includes the following as “key requirements” of the abstraction intake location:
“• The abstraction point on the River Tamar needed to be downstream of the Lyd / Tamar confluence for sufficient volume to be available in the channel, and on the eastern (Devon) side of the Tamar to avoid an unnecessary pipeline crossing.
• The intake needs to be on an outside meander bend in the river where water depth is greatest and to minimise the extent the abstraction structure projects into the river.
• The abstraction intake needs to be as close as possible to the Tinhay abstraction (on the River Lyd) to allow existing pipeline infrastructure to Roadford Reservoir to be used, and to optimise the route of new infrastructure for lowest capital cost and maximum efficiency in operation.
• The intake and pumping station needs to be located in an area readily accessible for construction, operation and ongoing maintenance.”
1.11 Within its immediate context the precise location of the pumping station was selected with regard in particular the following (again taken from the submitted Design and Access Statement):
“• Optimises the length of underground pipework between the abstraction point,
pumping station and connection to the main pipeline route.
• Pumping station location optimal for clearance to woodland, priority wetland habitat, recorded species in waxcap grassland and badger sets.
• Location allows utilisation of existing track route (with minimal additional hardstanding) with limited upgrade work required for periodic operational and maintenance access to the facility.”
1.12 The JLP would generally be resistant to development of this scale/form for non-agricultural purposes in an isolated rural location. However the specific nature of this application for what is essentially strategic infrastructure needs to be weighed in the balance. Based on the available information it is considered there are sufficient reasons to justify the proposed development in this countryside location, and the provisions of SPT1, SPT2, TTV1, TTV2, TTV26 in particular are broadly satisfied.
1.13 A number of third party of objectors have queried the site location and suggested alternatives which they consider to be more appropriate. The Council is required to determine the application as submitted for the development in the location proposed.
1.14 Having assessed matters of principle, there are a number of technical issues which required detailed consideration.
2. Flood Risk/Drainage:
2.1 The proposed intake structure would be located within Flood Zone 3, with the Pumping Station within Flood Zone 1.
2.2 JLP Policy DEV35 requires all developments to incorporate sustainable water management measures, with further detailed guidance in the adopted SPD. DEV35 also states that “In respect of development of sites not provided for in this plan, a sequential approach will be used in areas known to be at risk from any form of flooding. Development will be resisted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding.”
2.3 Paragraph 161 of the NPPF sets out that a “sequential, risk-based approach” should be taken in planning the location of development, managing the residual risk by applying the Sequential Test and then is necessary, the exception test. Paragraph 162 states: “The aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding. The strategic flood risk assessment will provide the basis for applying this test. The sequential approach should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding. If it is not possible for development to be located in areas with a lower risk of flooding (taking into account wider sustainable development objectives), the exception test may have to be applied. The need for the exception test will depend on the potential vulnerability of the site and of the development proposed, in line with the Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification set out in Annex 3” (emphasis added).
2.4 Annex 3 to the NPPF includes pumping stations within the definition of ‘water-compatible development’, which are not subject to the Exception Test for any Flood Zone. The initial response from the Environment Agency included the following with respect to flood risk: “We are satisfied from a flood risk perspective regarding the location and elevation of actual pumping station. This is to be set in flood zone 1 (low risk of flooding) at a minimum floor level of 49.70 AOD. This is in excess of 3m above the surrounding ground levels of the flood plain which extends for approximately 400 metres in width across the valley bottom at this point. The pipe work and access track linking the pumping station to the intake on the banks of the River Tamar are proposed to be set at existing ground levels to avoid any impedance to out of bank flood flows or significant loss of floodplain storage capacity which is acceptable.” It is also noted that a Flood Risk Activity Permit will be required. It is the responsibility of the LPA to determine whether the Sequential Test has been satisfied – having regard to the inherent need for the pumping station to be in immediate proximity to a river (and could not be appropriately located at any significant distance away from the river in order to avoid the Flood Zone area), it is considered reasonable to conclude (and as is indicated within the submitted Flood Risk Assessment), that the Sequential Test can be considered satisfied in this case.
3. Environmental Impacts/Ecology/BNG:
3.1 In addition to addressing any site-specific ecological impacts arising from survey work, all major developments are required to deliver a 10% increase in biodiversity (Biodiversity Net Gain, BNG) in accordance with JLP Policy DEV26 and the adopted JLP SPD. The NPPF also states that development should provide for net gains in biodiversity (paragraph 174(d)) and that is significant harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or compensated (as a last resort) then planning permission should be refused (NPPF paragraph 186). (It should be noted that the submission date of this application pre-dates the statutory requirement for BNG, but as a major development the proposal still needs to deliver 10% BNG to accord with JLP Policy DEV26).
3.2 After the initial application submission concerns were raised by the LPA Ecologist and the Environment Agency. Following further discussions additional/revised information was received (and advertised for comment by any interested parties). The revised consultation response from the Environment Agency was received as follows:
“Environment Agency position
We consider that this proposal will only be acceptable if subsequent planning permission includes a condition to ensure a scheme for watercourse habitat compensation is agreed and implemented. Our recommended condition together with our comments regarding habitats, fisheries, and various regulatory requirements are set out below.
Condition – Watercourse habitat compensation scheme
Within six months of the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme for the provision and management of compensatory watercourse habitat shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details of all in-channel and riparian compensation proposals, including for the main channel and tributary within the application boundary, and be supported by an updated Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment. The watercourse habitat compensation scheme shall be implemented within 18 months, once approved.
Reason: To ensure loss of priority habitat is adequately compensated for in accordance
with paragraph 186 on the National Planning Policy Framework.
Advice – Habitat compensation
Regarding compensation for the loss of riverbank and riverbed through construction of
the permanent abstraction, we are seeking appropriate mitigation within the tributary that is within the red line boundary to the north end of the site. In particular we seek:
· Restoration of channel banks within the red line boundary for proven, long term,
sustainable improvements to ecological status.
· Restoration of riverbed within the red line boundary for proven, long term,
sustainable improvements to morphology.
· Restoration of both bed and banks for improved “Naturalness” of the watercourse.
· Actions outside of the boundary on neighbouring land (i.e., upstream of the
proposed mitigation will need to be considered to ensure longevity of the
interventions).
· To look for further opportunities within the red line boundary (i.e. riparian
compensation).
We are satisfied that the recommended condition will ensure appropriate habitat compensation is secured.
Advice – Fish
We are satisfied that the revised application has addressed all our previously raised concerns regarding the temporary works.
The relevant supporting documents and revisions of the overall landscape plans do not
clearly show how our previous comments in relation to design and management guidance to reduce potential for fish stranding in the new riparian ponds/wetlands have been incorporated. However, these matters have been discussed directly between the applicant and our specialists and we are content that this detail be confirmed separately.
As a further advisory point, we would recommend that the new area of reno-mattress to
be installed as a tie-in between the invert of the new headwall structure and the riverbed, is set sufficiently low as to allow accretion natural bed material over time. This is to ensure the mattress itself does not become an exposed feature which could cause issues and impact upon recreational and angling interests in this reach.
Advice – Environmental Permitting and other regulatory requirements
Our previous letter (23 February 2024, Ref. DC/2024/123863/01-L01) highlighted other
regulatory requirements relating to this proposal.
We noted that the construction of the intake structure will require a Flood Risk Activity
Permit (FRAP) from us due to the proximity of the works to a designated Main River.
We can confirm that we have received and are currently processing a FRAP application
for these works.
We can confirm that the intake screening arrangements conform with best achievable eel protection under the Eels (England & Wales) Regulations 2009.
Finally, we reiterate that an abstraction licence will also be required for the proposed operations.”
3.3 It is important to note that compliance with other regulatory regimes, and in particular the need for an abstraction licence, falls beyond the scope of planning control (and it would not be reasonable to refuse the planning application subject of this report simply because the Environment Agency have not yet issued an abstraction licence). In light of the above response from the relevant statutory body it is considered third party concerns regarding impact on fish have been addressed.
3.4 On the basis of the revised information the LPA Ecologist has raised no objection subject to conditions. Their detailed consultation response includes the following points of particular note:
“Proposed works intersect with potential functionally linked habitat for SAC features (migratory fish and otters). There are likely fish spawning areas within c.180m downstream of the works.
Potential construction impacts include loss and degradation of in-river and riparian habitat, risks to migratory fish and otters. The intake would directly affect c.25m of river bank. Operational impacts due to abstraction are subject to a separate AA to be undertaken by the Environment Agency (EA).
An HRA screening and Appropriate Assessment was completed by DCC Ecology 19.09.23 for the EIA screening of the permanent scheme, which considered impacts on the Plymouth Sound & Estuaries SAC and Dartmoor SAC in detail. The Tamar Estuaries Complex SPA was screened out for HRA.
An Update of Information to inform HRA (IIHRA) dated November 2023 has been submitted, informed by EA comments. A minor modification to the scheme of moving intake slightly upstream is taken into account. Potential Likely significant effects have been identified therefore an Appropriate Assessment has been carried out.
A further iteration of the information to inform an HRA will be competed in autumn 2024 for the EA abstraction licence application.”
Additionally:
“The DCC Ecology Appropriate Assessment dated 03.04.24 concludes that the development subject to this planning application, with all avoidance and mitigation measures being secured by condition and implemented in full will not adversely affect the integrity of any European site.”
Natural England have been consulted on the Appropriate Assessment, and have confirmed that they “concur with the assessment conclusions, providing that mitigation measures as specified in the AA are appropriately secured by conditions in any planning permission given.”
3.5 With reference to the County Wildlife Status of the site, LPA Ecology have stated in their response:
“The western field contains a regionally important waxcap and other fungi assemblage of CWS standard. In addition, certain fungi present are priority species (see below).
Detailed grassland fungi survey carried out by Seasons Ecology on 28 September and 20 October 2022. Further eDNA surveys of soil samples collected on 11 & 12 September 2023.
The site for the proposed works is an area of grassland described by the consultant ecologist as of ‘regional importance’ for waxcaps, including date coloured waxcap listed as a species of principle importance under the NERC Act and listed as vulnerable globally by the IUCN. The combined field and eDNA surveys suggest that 15 waxcap species and 3 other important fungi are present. As noted above, the western field is of County Wildlife Site quality.
The works will affect approx. 7750 sq m of waxcap habitat although the area with species of higher value impacted is 97 sq m.”
3.6 The Applicant and their project team have sought to work with LPA Ecology to suitably address the ecological sensitivities of the site (with particular regard to the waxcaps), and information provided at this stage includes an Ecological Method Statement and a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP). On the basis of the latest information LPA Ecology are satisfied ecological matters have been addressed subject to a number of conditions.
3.7 The removal of five trees adjacent to the river corridor will require the applicant to obtain a European Protected Species Licence (EPSL). The LPA Ecology consultation response includes the following:
“Removal of the 5 trees adjacent to the river corridor will be carried out under licence and with restrictions on timing and under an Ecological watching brief by a dormouse licence holder. The EMS sets out how impacts to dormice will be avoided and a RAMMS provided. The LEMP provides details of dormouse habitat creation and management.
The authority must consider whether the proposal meets the three derogation tests of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), and accordingly whether Natural England are likely to grant an EPSL which would permit the proposal to lawfully proceed. The first two tests (below) are essentially planning tests and are for the case officer to conclude. The third test I have concluded below. i) The consented operation must be for ‘preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons for overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment’; ii) There must be ‘no satisfactory alternative’; iii) The action authorised ‘will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range’.
Provided the mitigation measures included within the submitted information are conditioned it is my opinion that the third test of the Habitats Regulations will be satisfied.”
3.8 In relation to the first two derogation tests, the public health interests associated with drinking water supply are considered to provide an overriding public interest (first test); and the proposal the proposal is considered to reasonably require this riverside location (second test). It is therefore reasonable to conclude that Natural England will grant an EPSL.
3.9 With regards to the JLP policy requirement for 10% BNG, the LPA Ecology consultation response includes the following:
“The Metric Dec 23 gives headline results of a net gain of +10.94% in habitat units and +66.4% hedgerow units. Bespoke compensation for loss of priority river habitat is necessary. This comprises the creation of a riparian habitat mosaic (approx 175 x 10m) as outlined on the Landscape Strategy Plan P03 in the Annex below. This will include scrub, wetland, pond creation and dead wood habitat.
Management and monitoring
The Feb 24 LEMP give a timetable for a 30- year period and includes details for habitat creation, enhancement and management.
Monitoring of BNG is referred to in the LEMP but no detail is provided.
Findings
The habitat and hedgerow baseline calculations appear broadly accurate. It is understood that additional in-channel and riparian habitat measures will also be delivered in the northern part of the site and secured by planning condition. Any delay in creation/enhancement will mean that the habitat net gain is likely to not reach 10%. The applicant has agreed that the site can and will accommodate the necessary additional net gain to achieve a 10% net gain.
We are confident that a minimum 10% net gain will be achieved. It has been agreed that a planning condition will require submission within a set period of a revised Metric, LEMP and Landscape Strategy Plan to satisfy net gain requirements.
3.10 Conditions are recommended in light of the above technical response to ensure 10% BNG is secured. As detailed above Natural England have confirmed they concur with the findings of the Appropriate Assessment (subject to conditions to secure the appropriate mitigation). It is considered ecological matters arising from the proposal have been addressed subject to imposition of the conditions listed above on any approval.
4. Trees:
4.1 The Tree Officer has raised no objection, detailing the following in their response:
“Appraisal
1. The submitted information has been principally reviewed in accordance with the
Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014-2034, BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to Design, Demolition & Construction & further additional industry best practise guidance, policies and legislation as required.
2. An assessment of the application has been undertaken by way of a desktop study of
G.I.S. and aerial imagery following a combination of a site visit and Teams meetings with all stakeholders.
3. The AIA satisfactorily reflects negotiated outcomes and finds the best solution for the
conflicts between the statutory designation and the requirements of the scheme.
4. Further details of tree planting appear to be required in terms of species mix and
establishment regimes. I would advise the Senior Landscape Specialist is consulted for a
review of their efficacy and supporting information.”
4.2 The consultation response from LPA Ecology notes:
“Gatherley Wood Unconfirmed Wildlife Site (UWS) and Ancient Woodland and River Wood UWS are adjacent to the site. A new access track will be constructed partially within 15m of Gatherley Wood Ancient Woodland. It has not been possible to avoid the 15m buffer zone completely due to steep level changes and minimising impact on waxcap grassland.
The 15m buffer to ancient woodland is required by the JLP SPD for Policy DEV28.
The West Devon Tree Officer has undertaken a site visit and has no objection on ancient woodland grounds, subject to the AIA being conditioned.”
4.3 Whilst third party objectors have raised concerns regarding the impacts of the development on trees, in the absence of any objection from the relevant technical consultee it is considered refusal of the application could not be substantiated on this basis.
5. Design/Landscape:
5.1 JLP Policy DEV20 requires all development proposals to meet good standards of design and protect and improve the quality of townscape and landscape including through “Having proper regard to the pattern of local development and the wider development context and surroundings in terms of style, local distinctiveness, siting, layout, orientation, visual impact, views, scale, massing, height, density, materials, detailing, historic value, landscaping and character…” JLP Policy DEV23 requires all development to conserve and enhance landscape character and scenic and visual quality. Policy DEV23.3 states proposals should “Be of high quality architectural and landscape design appropriate to its landscape context.”
5.2 In design terms the proposed Pumping Station building, whilst not insignificant in scale would broadly appear as a modern agricultural building within the wider landscape. Careful consideration has been given in particular to the siting, orientation and choice of materials. Overall Officers are satisfied that the proposed development accords with JLP Policy DEV20.
5.3 The Council’s Landscape Officer has raised no objection subject to condition, and provided the following detailed comments:
“Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment:
The supporting Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is noted (LVA, 330202118_200.6 Roadford Pumped Storage_LVIA_01, Nov 2023, Stantec). The LVA broadly accords with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition 2013 (GLVIA3), published by the Landscape Institute and IEMA, and the methodology is appropriate.
Reference is made to Landscape Institute Technical Guidance Note 02/21: “Assessing
landscape value outside national designations”.
The assessment fails to identify the West Devon Landscape Character Assessment and
Guidelines as a relevant evidence base for the landscape character appraisal, which is
disappointing as pre-application advice specifically highlighted the site’s Landscape
Character Types: the more elevated land being within LCT 5A: Inland elevated undulating land, and the lower-lying land being within LCT 3C: Sparsely settled farmed valley floors. However, aside from this omission, the LVIA explains the baseline landscape and visual amenity context clearly. Mitigation measures are clearly described and considered appropriate, and I broadly concur with the assessment of effects on landscape character and visual amenity.
The DAS is noted, and clearly explains the design development, including the various
mitigation measures that have been explored and subsequently adopted as part of the
proposals for the built form and structures, the materials and finishes, the access, and the
landscape strategy.
The proposals are accompanied by a Landscape Strategy Plan that illustrates a range of
planting proposals. These will provide both landscape and biodiversity enhancements within an effective green infrastructure framework, which will provide additional screening and also assimilate the new development within the landscape, and provide habitat and biodiversity benefits. There are no detailed landscape proposals, but full hard and soft landscape details could be secured by condition, with an expectation that such details reflect the landscape strategy that has been submitted, as well as the objectives and management actions described in the LEMP. In relation to landscape, details in the LEMP covering objectives and management actions and monitoring and plan review are considered appropriate – other Specialist colleagues will comment on the acceptability of the LEMP documentation in relation to habitats, protected species and biodiversity.
The proposals accord with JLP Policy DEV23. However, a condition requiring full details of
hard and soft landscape proposals will be required to secure the appropriate level of detail to deliver the proposed Landscape Strategy and mitigation measures.”
5.4 The revised submission details included additional visualisations which help to support the view that visual harm to the landscape would be minimised. There have been a number of third party objections regarding the visual impact of the development from within Lawhitten, which lies to the south west of the application site (west of the River Tamar). Lawhitten is in excess of 2km from the application site, and having regard to the separation distance and scale of development proposed Officers are not persuaded that there are grounds to refuse the application due to the impacts on this settlement or the wider landscape more generally.
6. Heritage:
6.1 A Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment has been included with the application submission. This also includes assessment of the pipeline route which does not form part of the planning application subject of this report.
6.2 The nearest listed building is Gatherley Farmhouse (Grade II) which lies at some distance to the south east of the application site. Given the separation distance and scale of development proposed, the proposal would not result in harm to the setting of this heritage asset and no policy conflicts are identified in this regard.
7. Highways/Access:
7.1 JLP Policy DEV29 requires new developments to provide, amongst a number of criteria, safe and satisfactory traffic management and vehicle access to and within the site.
7.2 DCC Highways have not offered any specific comments on this application, on the basis that it does not raise any specific highways issues. The volume of traffic associated with the development once operational would be very limited. Other consultees have requested details of a CEMP which would suitably address construction matters in this case.
8. Low Carbon Development:
8.1 JLP Policy DEV32 includes a Plan Area target to halve 2005 levels of carbon emissions by 2034. It also states: “All major development proposals should incorporate low carbon or renewable energy generation to achieve regulated carbon emissions levels of 20 per cent less than that required to comply with Building Regulations Part L.” Further guidance is now contained within the Plymouth and South West Devon Climate Emergency Planning Statement.
8.2 The application submission includes a completed Climate Emergency Compliance Form and a Carbon Reduction Assessment. The assessment notes that the Pumping Station building is exempt from Building Regulations (including Part L). As such the standard methodology for assessing compliance against DEV32 cannot readily be applied. The possibility of on-site renewable energy was still considered, in particular solar PV, but was seemed unfeasible partly due to the limited water abstraction time during winter months only (and would not provide sufficient energy to power the equipment). Efforts have been made in terms of the choice of materials to reduce carbon impacts: “The building's structural framework comprises steel, with a commitment to utilising recycled steel whenever feasible. The roofing and wall panels are intended to be coated with a plastisol finish to ensure weather durability and protection. Plastisol, chosen for its properties, is a material known for its minimal waste production and low emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), aligning with sustainability objectives and environmental considerations. Window frames, door frames, and louvres are intended to be polyester powder-coated metal, a sustainable choice due to its production process, which eliminates the release of toxic emissions and significantly reduces the necessity for intensive waste disposal methods.”
8.3 It is acknowledged that clear compliance with DEV32 has not been demonstrated in this case and this needs to be considered in the planning balance, acknowledging that the standard assessment method cannot be applied. Managing water supply/resilience is part of the wider picture of adapting to the impacts of climate change (NPPF paragraph 158) and this can also be taken into consideration.
9. Neighbour Amenity:
9.1 JLP Policy DEV1 requires amongst other matters satisfactory standard of amenity for both existing and future occupiers, with unacceptable impacts judged against the level of amenity generally enjoyed in the locality.
9.2 The nearest residential properties are a considerable distance from the proposal site, and no policy conflicts are identified with respect to amenity.
10. Other Matters:
10.1 Concerns have been raised by third parties with respect to noise – the Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the application and raised no concerns.
10.2 Comments regarding water abstraction and drinking water standards are noted but these are covered by separate legislative frameworks and statutory bodies and are considered beyond the scope of this report.
10.3 JLP Policy DEV19 requires all major development proposals to provide a site related employment and skills plans in order to support local employment and skills in the construction industry. No such details have been provided with the application as submitted, and would need to be conditioned as part of any approval.
10.4 In response to concerns regarding application 3309/23/FUL – these are not material to the determination of the current application. Site notices for the application subject of report were posted on the western side of the River Tamar (i.e. within Cornwall) as well as the east, and the relevant Parish Council within Cornwall were consulted.
11. Conclusions and Planning Balance:
11.1 The site is located within the 4th tier of the settlement hierarchy where new development is restricted. The proposal is essentially for strategic infrastructure which Officers consider does justify a countryside location, and specifically a site in close proximity to the River Tamar. The importance of a resilient water supply needs to be acknowledged. The application has been subject to detailed review by a number of technical consultees (in particular the Environment Agency and the LPA Ecologist), and subject to a number of recommended conditions the various requirements are considered to have been addressed. The Council’s Landscape Officer has raised no objection (subject to condition), and whilst third party concerns have been raised regarding the visual impacts of the development Officers consider the application as now presented accords with the relevant policy requirements in this regard. The application has not however demonstrated clear compliance with JLP Policy DEV32 and this needs to be acknowledged, as do the public benefits of a resilient water supply and the importance of this as part of the broader response the climate change. Several matters raised by third party objectors fall outside the scope of this planning application.
11.2 There is a statutory presumption in favour of the development plan. The NPPF, an important material consideration, reiterates this fundamental point. When taken as a whole, it is considered that the proposed development accords with the policies of the development plan, and the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions listed at the beginning of this report. It is also subject to receipt of consultation response from Natural England on the Appropriate Assessment.
This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act.
Planning Policy
Relevant policy framework
Section 70 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires that regard be had to the development plan, any local finance and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act requires that applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the purposes of decision making, as of March 26th 2019, the Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014 - 2034 is now part of the development plan for Plymouth City Council, South Hams District Council and West Devon Borough Council (other than parts of South Hams and West Devon within Dartmoor National Park).
The relevant development plan policies are set out below:
The Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan was adopted by South Hams District Council on March 21st 2019 and West Devon Borough Council on March 26th 2019.
SPT1 Delivering sustainable development
SPT2 Sustainable linked neighbourhoods and sustainable rural communities
SPT12 Strategic approach to the natural environment
SPT13 Strategic infrastructure measures to deliver the spatial strategy
TTV1 Prioritising growth through a hierarchy of sustainable settlements
TTV2 Delivering sustainable development in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area
TTV26 Development in the Countryside
DEV1 Protecting health and amenity
DEV2 Air, water, soil, noise, land and light
DEV15 Supporting the rural economy
DEV19 Provisions for local employment and skills
DEV20 Place shaping and the quality of the built environment
DEV23 Landscape character
DEV25 Nationally protected landscapes
DEV26 Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geological conservation
DEV27 Green and play spaces
DEV28 Trees, woodlands and hedgerows
DEV29 Specific provisions relating to transport
DEV32 Delivering low carbon development
DEV35 Managing flood risk and Water Quality Impacts
DEL1 Approach to development delivery and viability, planning obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy
Neighbourhood Plan
A Neighbourhood Plan is currently under preparation for the parish of Lifton but it has not
yet reached a stage where it can be considered material to the decision making process.
Other material considerations include the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and guidance in Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). Additionally, the following planning documents are also material considerations in the determination of the application:
Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document (2020)
Plymouth and South West Devon Climate Emergency Planning Statement (2022)
Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010
The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report.