Copyright Paul Mobbs/Mobbs' Environmental Investigations, October 1996

Torbay FoE: Response to Torbay Local Plan (Consultation) Draft

A. Introduction

This response to the consultation draft of the local plan has been produced upon behalf of Torbay Friends of the Earth.
This first section introduces Friends of the Earth's response to the Local Plan Consultation Draft. It should be considered as 'background', and read with the other objections, although it does not in itself form a single objection to the plan.

Putting the plan into a wider context

In our main set of objections to the local plan we wish to focus solely on the material planning considerations relevant to the issue. For this reason we include this 'general' section to express the points which we feel should be made, but which are not strictly material to the planning process.

At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (the 'Earth Summit') in June 1992, the UK signed the final conference report - a convention on sustainable development normally entitled 'Agenda 21 (the Agenda for the 21st Century). In doing so, the UK has committed itself to achieving a wide range of environmental objectives and targets. This has now been adapted by the Government into the UK Sustainable Development Strategy.

By 1996, all local authorities in the UK will have to complete their own 'Local Agenda 21', based around the principles in the international document, but set in the context of the local community or region. Friends of the Earth believe that the Torbay Local Plan should be aiming towards the sustainable outlines in Agenda 21, and the UK Sustainable Development Strategy, and we will be framing our input to the subsequent deposit draft, and the local plan inquiry in terms of Agenda 21, and the work of the Government and other local authorities in the UK on sustainable development.

As yet there has been no specific guidance on planning for sustainable development except for the commitment given at a number of points in the Governments' white paper on the environment, "This Common Inheritance", and brief outlines of future policy in the UK Sustainable Development Strategy. However, we believe that within the framework set out in existing ministerial guidances, there is the possibility of producing local plan policies which reflect the principles of sustainable development. This Common Inheritance, sets out the Governments' policy on the environment in terms of the concept of 'stewardship', and we wish to ensure that these principles are put into practice in the Torbay Local Plan.

Both in terms of stewardship, and sustainable development, the general definition given is that originated in the Brundtland Report....

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains two key concepts:

the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which over-riding priority should be given;

the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organisations on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs."

I have highlighted the idea of 'limitations' because this is very relevant to this case. The Brundtland Report makes it clear that, although technology is able to perform many tasks, not all of the tasks, and their results, are desirable when considering the well-being of this and future generations.

However, in practical terms the problem with 'sustainability' is that there is not one concrete definition of the term which can suit all situations. This problem has been outlined by a number of bodies, for example the Town and Country Planning Association:

"...it is a vague concept that, at once, offers a comprehensive, consensual and conservative approach able to weld together quite disparate and conflicting interests in environment and development. But, because it is vague and its implications poorly understood, in practice it offers few clear solutions. Anyone can sign up for sustainable development so long as it requires no specific commitment to do anything that will threaten their material interests."

We consider that, at the moment, the approach of the Torbay Local Plan represents more of the latter. We can find few references to sustainable development, and in general there has been no attempt to address the medium and long term structural environmental issues which must be addressed in the next ten years if we are to get off the route to global disaster.

The full statement from the Brundtland Report, given earlier, phrases 'sustainable development' in a wider social, political and economic arena. These are three concepts which require precise definition:

The first is development - which is not the same as growth, although the two are often used synonymously. Growth involves the physical expansion of the economic system. Sustainable growth is ultimately contradictory since there are physical limits imposed by the earth and its natural resources. Development, by contrast, implies improvement and progress and includes social and cultural as well as material dimensions. Sustainable development emphasises conservation and the recognition that natural resources are not simply free goods to be pillaged and pilfered at will.

The second concept is needs - defined in the Brundtland Report as 'meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to satisfy their aspirations for a better life'. The environment simply cannot cope with meeting the material standards enjoyed by the rich while, at the same time, supplying basic necessities to the burgeoning populations of the developing world.

Thirdly, there is the concept of future generations. This involves the notion of stewardship. We have a moral duty to look after our planet and to hand it on in good order to future generations; this means improving already degraded areas and avoiding irreversible damage (such as the destruction of species) or imposing risks on the future (from toxic or radioactive wastes, for example).

Looked at in this way the criteria for sustainable development are very tough indeed. Firstly, it will require a review of political and social systems - not just economic ones. Second, it implies a wholesale shift from exploitation to conservation through the accurate costing of resources which are currently considered free (the air, for example, used and polluted by power stations). Third, the actual needs of the populations of the 'developed' world need to be assessed, so as to plan a redistribution of resources from rich to poor. Finally, there has to be a withdrawal now from those activities whose effects transcend generations, and which rob or endanger future generations - the generation of radioactive waste for example.

We believe that there are five primary goals which need to be implemented in order to achieve true sustainability. These are the goals of conservation, balanced development, environmental quality, political participation and social equity.


Conservation: Sustainable development means the efficient use of non-renewable energy and mineral resources through higher productivity, recycling, development of alternative technology and substitution wherever these are possible and not environmentally harmful. It also means maintenance of biological diversity and potential. It will also require the economic valuation of natural capital assets regarded as free. The conservation goal can be said to be to ensure the environmentally efficient use of land and other resources.

Balanced development: This goal is concerned with the use of physical resources and their impact on the built environment. Resource conservation requires patterns of development that minimise energy consumption, promote the re-use of buildings and prevent the waste of valuable natural resources. The goal here is to achieve an appropriate balance between the built and natural environment.

Environmental quality: At the very least environmental quality means that processes must be avoided which degrade or pollute the environment. But it must also be an aim to improve and enhance environmental quality in those areas already degraded or grossly polluted. This goal is therefore to prevent or reduce processes that are harmful to the environment and human health.

Social equality: A pattern of inequality has developed that intensifies the pressure on the environment from the high per capita demands of the rich and the struggle for survival of the poor. The conflicts that arise are a major obstacle to co-operation. Greater equality will not, in itself achieve sustainability since, under present economic systems, both wealth and poverty degrade the environment. But greater equality will remove the sources of conflict and is a precondition for political co-operation and commitment. The scale of inequality was first assessed in the Brundtland Report, and was further considered at UNCED through the proposals drawn up in Agenda 21.

Political participation: Commitment will only be achieved through participation. This goal is to change values and attitudes by encouraging the increase of participation in political derision-making at all levels. Change cannot simply be ordained from above - it must also be stimulated from below. Within democratic systems of government, non-governmental organisations (NGO's) are able to promote ideas and mobilise support for them. Dispersal of power from the central state to the local level will encourage innovation, responsibility and support for policies of sustainable development. In this respect, the local planning system fails since it is strictly regulated by 'guidance' defined at the national level.


The above goals must be acknowledged within the any strategy which aims to institute sustainable development policies - purely economic goals will not achieve a sustainable system - it just makes the existing economic system 'environmentally friendlier'.


Interpretation of objections

The objections to the plan are set out in general terms with reasoned arguments. We do not in general specify alternative policies spelt out word for word, or suggest absolute targets. This is because...

we do not have the information resources available to precisely draft out a proper plan policy;

we do not have the up to date information on local development proposals, traffic flows, etc, with which to set absolute policies or targets; and

there is room for a constructive dialogue and compromise, and we would welcome an opportunity to discuss the resolution of our objections either officially as part of the review process or in separate unofficial meetings.


While welcoming opportunities for a cooperative resolution to each of our objections, we must make it clear that we consider each of the these objections as being of of prime concern, and we will pursue them throughout the Local Plan development process, until such a time as we consider that a 'reasonable' solution has been made.



B Outline of objections to the Local Plan (Consultation) Draft

1. Background to local plan [Paragraph 1.1, p1]
The Devon Structure Plan has been reviewed, but more importantly, planning guidance as a whole has been reviewed to encourage sustainable development. This is not adequately reflected in the plan.

Rather than just stating that things have moved on from the adoption of the last plan, the text should be more specific in stating what has changed, and the bearing this has on the content of the plan.

2. Issues addressed by the plan [Paragraph 1.4, p1]

The content of local plans is dictated by section 36 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. The statutory scope of the plan is not adequately explained here. It might be useful for the public if the statutory requirements on the local authority under Part II of the Town & Country Planning Act, 1990 are outlined first. Then from this the more detailed elements of the plan can be developed.

3. Relationship of local plans [Figure 1, p2]

The diagram does not adequately give weight to the statutory and non-statutory strategic plans. On the basis of this diagram all have equal weight, which would be an error if people relied on the diagram.

More detailed emphasis should be given to the consideration of statutory as opposed to non-statutory plans - for example the guidance in paragraph 3.20 of PPG12. Also, the 'ultra vires' restrictions that apply to the planning system should be discussed, and the limits this gives in the consideration of other documents explained.

4. Plan preparation [Figure 2, p3]

This diagram would be confusing to those not experienced in the review of development plans since it gives more emphasis to what work has preceded this draft, and not the stages which are to come. The diagram should be reverse - the previous stages should be summarised and the following stages explained in detail.

5. Reference to Structure Plan review [Paragraph 2.7, p5]

It is premature to put great weight on the consultation draft of the structure plan. Instead the plan should address the sources of guidance which the structure plan policies are based upon -

e.g. PPG12, or UK Sustainable Development strategy. In this way the local planning authority can avoid criticism that considering the consultation draft of the structure plan is premature.

6. Scope of strategic statement [Strategic statement, p8]

The wording of the strategic statement does not conform to the legal requirements of the plan under section 36 of the 1990 Act. Taking the guidelines in PPG1 (and the recent draft of the new PPG1), that also means the management of growth and encouragement sustainable development in the public interest.

Another area ignored by the strategic statement is paragraph 4 of PPG1 where it notes that the planning system must take account of international obligations. This is important in terms of the 'direct effect' of international law (e.g., the Climate Change Convention) and European directives.

7. Affordable housing [Paragraph 3.23-3.26, p13]

There is a contradiction in the plan between the encouragement of affordable housing, and the encouragement of tourism which inevitable increases the value of local housing. Particularly in rural areas, the desirability of South Devon for holidays or retirement forces up local housing values. This issues needs to be addressed both within the tourism and housing chapters.

8. Housing density [Housing chapter, p13]

There is no detailed discussion of housing density in the plan - only in the 'environmental guide'. Density is important in meeting housing needs without excessive land take, and should be discussed in the housing chapter.

FoE suggest that housing allocations and density figures are broken down further to specify figures for types of dwellings. In this way it will be possible to identify sites and areas which would be suitable for multiple occupation housing, terraces, and detached/semi-detached. In this way the land-take needed to meet this housing figure can be managed or reduced by encouraging more multiple occupation dwellings to be built or redeveloped from existing properties. By the same measure, fears of 'cramming' can also be allayed as the identification of sites for such developments, as part of the local plans, will allow according provision for infrastructure/services.

9. Housing allocation [Policy H1, p14]

There should be a caveat introduced to make the linkage to the rest of the plan clear. We suggest that the words 'subject to all other plan policies' is inserted after the second use of the words 'plan period'.

It is also unacceptable that sites which compromise the ecological value of the area are being considered. As part of the review of policies, alternatives to these sites should be looked for.

10. Relevance of policy [Policy H4, p17]

Policy H4 is not a land use planning policy - it is a statement of intent.

PPG12 directs the content of development plans. In particular paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8 note that policies should be related to decision making and development control. It is also important that policies are clear and concise. In the case of this policy reference is made to planning briefs, and the concept of a 'balanced community'. Not only does the development brief not form part of the local plan, the the key concepts such as 'balanced communities' are not explained in detail. To us this practice is unacceptable.

While not objecting to the aim of this policy, in its current form it does not deal with clear land use or development control issues. The policy should redrafted in detailed land use terms, with no references to 'bottom of the drawer' (ref. PPG12, paragraph 3.20) documents such as development briefs.

11. Relevance of Policy H5 - planning briefs [Policy H5, p17]

This is not a proper land use planning policy. The development plan should make general statements on adherence to planning briefs, rather than making specific reference to them. This argument is explained in detail in objection 12 above.

12. Relevance of Policy H6 - housing density [Policy H6, p18]

This is not a clear land use planning policy - it is a statement of intent. This policy should be deleted and the substance of the statement implemented under other clear policies on affordable housing. This argument is explained in detail in objection 12 above.

13. Affordable housing on windfall sites [Policy H7, p19]

This policy is duplicating the functions of other policies. It would be more logical to have a stated policy on affordable housing, and then delete this policy and make reference to affordable housing in Policy H2. Note also our objection to the calculation of dwellings on windfall sites (objection 87).

14. Relevance of Policy H8 - affordable housing [Policy H8, p20]

This is not a land use planning policy - it relates to matters of negotiation surrounding site that are identified for development. It should be deleted, and the statements incorporated into other parts of the plan. This argument is explained in detail in objection 12 above.

15. Allocation for special needs [Policy H9, p20]

It makes no sense to widely distribute special needs housing over a number of sites. It would be preferable, we believe, that specific sites be identified so that the necessary support services and be more easily and economically supplied. Consideration should be given to identify specific sites for sheltered/special needs housing where there is easy access to services.


16. Sub-division of dwellings [Policy H11, p21]

This policy is too restrictive. The subdivision of existing dwellings, where this can be carried out with little problem, should be encouraged as a way of providing additional housing units without the need to develop new dwellings.

17. Duplication of policy on HMOs [Policy H12, p22]

This policy in part duplicates with the functions of Policy H11. The content of this policy should therefore be merged with Policy H11 to avoid unnecessary duplication.

18. Duplication of policy on special needs [Policy H14, p22]

This policy in part duplicates the functions of Policy H9. This policy should be deleted, and its content merged with Policy H9 to avoid unnecessary duplication.

19. Relevance of Policy H15 - old persons homes [Policy H15, p23]

This policy in part duplicates the function of Policy H14, but more importantly it is a statement of intent rather than a legitimate land use planning policy. It should be deleted and its content merged with Policies H9 and H14.

20. Need for Policy H16 - old persons homes [Policy H16, p23]

This policy is a properly constructed land use policy, but it is truncated from all other policies relating to this type of development. This policy should be deleted, and the wording merged with Policies H9, 14 and 15.

21. Relevance of Policy H21 - density & character [Policy H21, p25]

This is not a true land use planning policy - it is a statement of intent. It also duplicates the functions of other policies in the plan. This argument is explained in detail in objection 12 above.

22. Linkage of employment to other policies [Policy E1, p33]

There should be a clear linkage between Policy E1 and all other policies in the plan. We suggest that the words 'subject to all other policies in the plan' are inserted after the word 'sites'.

There also needs to be a clear indication as to how those sites with 'tipping licences' will be developed to avoid problems with landfill gas etc.

23. Relevance of Policy E2 - development briefs [Policy E2, p34]

Policy E2 is not a land use planning policy - it is a statement of intent. It should be deleted and the statement incorporated elsewhere in the plan. This argument is explained in detail in objection 12 above.

24. Relevance of Policy E3 - jobs per acre [Policy E3, p34]

Policy E3 is not a legitimate land use planning policy. It is a statement of intent, and in terms of the planning system it is overtly prescriptive. We recommend that it is deleted, and instead more detailed briefs, separate from the local plan, are developed for each site.

25. Enforcement of Policy E4 - change of use [Policy E4, p34]

We are concerned that this policy is at the present time unenforceable. Planning guidance permits some changes - for example industrial use to retail warehousing, but overall change of use is governed by the Use Classes Order (UCO). Consideration needs to be given to developing better use class definitions for sites, and then controlling appropriate changes under the UCO.

26. Relevance of Policy E5 - small businesses [Policy E5, p35]

This is not a land use planning policy - it is really an economic development policy which has little effect in terms of how planning permissions are constructed.

Also, by directing small businesses to certain areas, it may actually restrict the availability of sites to small businesses. If the response to this point is that small businesses are not constrained by this policy, what point is there in having the policy in the first place?

27. Relevance of Policy E6 - traffic management [Policy E6, p35]

Policy E6 is very vague. In terms of the application of conditions, or the agreement of planning obligations, specific needs must be specified in relation to the development of any site. It has been demonstrated in previous appeal cases that the requirement for infrastructure contributions must fairly relate to the development. Rather then making a general commitment, it may be more advantageous to specify the specific improvement required for each site.

28. Application of Policy E9 - home working [Policy E9, p36]

There is some legal difficulty in the application of this policy. Does the fact that someone is self employed necessarily mean that they run the business from their house? There may also be other repercussions from this policy - for example any permission for home working may result in the property being liable for business rates, which may in turn be a problem for the business concerned.

29. Relevance of Policy E10 - fishing industry [Policy E10, p37]

Policy E10 is not a land use planning policy - it does not define and specific development, nor does it seek to zone or control development in any one area. This argument is explained in detail in objection 12 above.

30. Relevance of Policy E12 - Brixham Harbour [Policy E12, p37]

We are concerned about the inclusion of a policy for development in coastal waters, separate from the consideration of other coastal planning issues. Also, if intensification of the port is planned, this will have knock-on effects which have not been seriously considered in the plan.

31. Application of Policy E13 - planning approval [Policy E13, p37]

We are concerned that Policy E13 duplicates other functions in the plan - such as transport issues. Also, it is not clear how, in tandem with other policies in the plan, this policy will be applied since it is in conflict with other policies.

Finally, in terms of planning applications, in the first instance decisions must be taken on the basis of planning law. Arbitrarily setting conditions, although it may cause local benefits, may cause later problems if the policy is ever defeated on appeal.

32. Validity of Policy TU1 - use of tourism strategy[Policy TU1, p41]

We question basing a land use planning policy on a non-statutory plan - the tourism strategy. The local plan must be clear and certain in its policies. It should not rely on non-statutory documents which can be changed outside of the plan. This argument is explained in detail in objection 12 above.

The use of the term 'sustainable tourism' is also problematic because it is not defined. For the sake of clarity and certainty this term should be more precisely defined.

33. Application of Policy TU2 - use of 'support'[Policy TU2, p42]

We oppose the use of the word 'supported' in this policy. This overrides the requirement under section 54A to consider any planning application in terms of the development plan and any other material considerations. The use of the word support provides too strong a presumption in favour - perhaps even where approval of development would compromise other policies.

We request that the word 'support' be replace with 'consider', or that the policy be redrafted to remove the presumption for development.

34. Relevance of Policy TU3 - tourist attractions [Policy TU3, p42]

Although the first sentence of this policy is correct, the second part does not constitute a land use planning policy. This sentence really relates to the consideration of the application rather than the policy which enables it.

35. Application of Policy TU4 - use of 'support'[Policy TU4, p43]

We object to this policy because of the use of the word 'support'. See objection 33 above for a detailed explanation of this objection.

36. Relevance of Policy TU5 - waterborne facilities [Policy TU5, p43]

This policy is very vague, and does not clearly enable development. Unless a clear development proposal can be produced, this policy should be deleted.

37. Relevance of Policy TU6 - use of 'support' [Policy TU6, p43]

We object to this policy because of the use of the word 'support'. See objection 33 above for a detailed explanation of this objection.

38. Application of Policy TU7 - change of use [Policy TU7, p44]

Policy TU7 is in conflict with housing policies since it will allow dwellings to be converted. We therefore object to the use of the word 'support' - each application should be considered on its merits. See objection 33 above for a detailed explanation of this objection.

39. Relevance of Policy TU8 - duplication of policy [Policy TU8, p44]

This policy in part duplicates the functions of Policy TU7. This policy should be merged with Policy TU7.

40. Enforceability of Policy TU9 - hotels [Policy TU9, p45]

The criteria applied to this policy are over prescriptive, and it may be difficult in practice to enforce them. The criteria relate mainly to tourist issues, and not relevant planning considerations.

41. Application of Policy TU10 - holiday centres [Policy TU10, p46]

We object to this policy because of the use of the word 'support'. See objection 33 above for a detailed explanation of this objection.

42. Enforceability of Policy TU12 - change of use [Policy TU12, p48]

This policy in part duplicates Policy TU9, and likewise the wording of the policy is overtly prescriptive. The conditions may not always fairly relate to the proposed development. This policy should be merged with TU9 or deleted.

43. Relevance of Policy S1 - vitality & viability[Policy S1, p52]

This policy is a statement not a land use planning policy. The policy should state how the objective is to be achieved, not what the objective is. It should be redrafted taking into account the issues which can be considered in the assessment of 'vitality and viability' of shopping areas.

44. Structure of Policies S6-S9 [Policies S6-S9, p54-6]

Policies S6-S9 duplicate a similar function, and should be merged into one simplified policy on convenience food stores.

45. Application of Policy S10 - bulky goods [Policy S10, p56]

We object to the use of the word 'support' within this policy. See objection 33 above for a detailed explanation of this objection.

46. Relevance of Policy S14 - durable goods [Policy S14, p59]

This policy duplicates the functions of Policy S10, and should be merged with S10 to produce one straightforward policy on goods stores/factory outlets.

47. Classification of Policy S16 - amusements [Policy S16, p60]

We regard this policy as a tourism rather than a recreation policy, and we believe it should be relocated in the tourism chapter.

48. Enforceability of Policy S18 - hours of use [Policy S18, p61]

While we welcome this policy, we are concerned that it may not be enforceable in all cases, since the conditions on hours of use must relate fair to each development (under the Newbury tests) rather than being set as a standard for all planning conditions. /although beneficial in the short term, the result of one successful challenge may prevent its application on other sites. This policy should be deleted or transferred to supplementary planning guidance.
49. Enforceability of Policy S19 - car boot sales [Policy S19, p62]

This policy needs redrafting to consider the problems posed to its application by permitted development rights.

50. Relevance of Policy CF2 - school buildings [Policy CF2, p66]

This policy is not a land use planning policy, it is a statement of intent on matters which are not a matter for the planning system.

51. Enforceability of Policy CF8 - crime prevention [Policy CF8, p67]

This policy is not strictly valid since it expects all developments to include crime prevention measures, which in terms of planning guidance is overtly prescriptive. Conditions on crime prevention measures should only be applied where they are relevant to the development.

52. Application of Policy CF13 - Torbay hospital [Policy CF13, p69]

We object to the use of the word 'support' in this policy. See objection 33 above for a detailed explanation of this objection.

53. Relevance of Policy CF14 - Paignton hospital [Policy CF14, p70]

This is not a land use planning policy, and doers not involve matters which are the reasonability of the local planning authority. It should be deleted.

54. Application of Policy 15 - Brixham hospital[Policy CF15, p70]

This is not a land use policy, it is a statement of objectives, and we object to the use of the word 'support'. See objections 12 and 33 above for a detailed explanation of this objection.

55. Application of Policy CF18 - care in community [Policy CF18, p70]

We object to the use of the word 'support' in this policy. See objection 33 above for a detailed explanation of this objection.

56. Application of Policy CF19 - change of use [Policy CF19, p71]

We object to the construction of this policy as it is over prescriptive. The change of hostels to a 'sui generis' class does not enable the local planning authority to specify its own prescriptive criteria. The determination of any planning application must consider the development plan and other materials considerations such as policy guidance notes and planning law.

57. Relevance of Policy CF20 - libraries [Policy CF20, p72]

This is not a clear land use planning policy, it is a statement of intent. If no clear development proposals can be identified, the policy should be deleted.

58. Relevance of Policy R2 - indoor leisure facilities[Policy R2, p75]

This policy is non-specific, and as it does not relate to definite proposals. It is more a statement of intent rather than a land use planning policy. This argument is explained in detail in objection 12 above.

59. Application of Policy R3 - indoor leisure [Policy R3, p75]

We object to this policy because of the inclusion of the word 'supported'. See objection 33 above for a detailed explanation of this objection. The policy also fails to address land contamination issues even though it is proposed to redevelop a gas works.

60. Noise consideration in Policy R9 - motor sports [Policy R9, p77]

This policy is overtly prescriptive since it does not reflect the guidance in PPG24. The policy should be based on noise impact, and the setting of tolerable noise limits, rather than completely prohibiting development.

61. Protection of public rights of way [Policy R22, p80] Development which affects any public right of way should not be permitted since it is contrary to the law. This policy should protect all rights of way, not just those that are used for recreation.

62. Protection of Allotment sites [Policy R24, p81]

All allotments should be protected from development - relocation is not acceptable unless agreed to by all plot holders on the site. This policy should also seek to create new allotments where there is a demonstrable demand.

63. Relevance of Policy IN1 - foul sewers [Policy IN1, p83]

This policy is not strictly a land use policy since it is a matter for building regulations and the legal duties imposed upon statutory undertakers. It is also overtly prescriptive in not accepting other types of foul sewage treatment.

Friends of the Earth wish to introduce a new policy to the environment or infrastructure chapters of the plan relating to alternative forms of septic sewage management such as composting toilets, reed beds, and anaerobic digesters. By giving a greater variety of options to developers in the countryside, local conditions can be overcome. For example, composting toilets need no tank or soakaway, and so greater protection is afforded to sensitive watercourses.

We leave it up to the Authority to find an appropriate wording for the policy which suits their needs, and we will comment upon it in the deposit draft.

64. Application of Policy IN6 - telecommunications [Policy IN6, p85]

This policy needs redrafting to consider the effect of permitted development rights on telecommunications development. We also object to the overtly detailed nature of this policy, and the failure to identify alternative development options. Friends of the Earth also request that Policy IN6 be expanded to give greater consideration to other non-radio telecommunications - such as the proposals to lay fibre-optic cables to replace copper trunks and the economic benefits this may bring.

65. Enforceability of Policy L1 - countryside [Policy L1, p88]

This policy is legally incorrect. A presumption against is only possible for development in green belts or scheduled ancient monuments. For the sake of legal correctness it should be replaced with another phrase.

66. Relevance of Policy L15 - tree planting [Policy L15, p93]

This is not a land use planning policy, it is a statement of intent. This argument is explained in detail in objection 12 above.

67. Protection of wildlife [Policy NC3, p96]

While supporting the policy in general, we object to the last sentence and wish to have it deleted. Accepting the 'compensation' for habitat loss is not acceptable given the authority's responsibilities under various international obligations - for example the Biodiversity Convention or the Habitats Directive.

68. Development of wildlife corridors [Policy NC4, p96]

Whilst supporting this policy, it does not go far enough to encourage the protection of existing corridors and hedgerows, nor does it seek to protect the natural seedbank on sites.

We request that the policy be improved to require the provision of ecological buffer zones. Under the EU Habitats Directive1, Member States are required to designate areas sufficient in number and kind, "to maintain or restore, at a favourable status", those natural habitat types and populations of species of wild fauna and flora that are held to be of Community interest. As a body with nature conservation responsibilities, Torbay Borough Council has a duty under this Directive to protect, maintain and enhance the diversity of the natural flora and fauna within its area. This requirement is further defined in the Biodiversity Convention, as explained in the Government's conservation strategy, 'Biodiversity - The UK Action Plan'2.

As a general obligation on developers, we suggest that consideration be given to the provision of wide belts of 'green space', either as hedgerows, scrub or meadow (but not formally maintained gardens) to encourage the movement of wildlife. This is especially important....

alongside large rivers and streams. The present a physical barrier to the passage of wildlife, and so buffer zones should always be provided between large developments/urban area, and large watercourses or lakes;

on the edge of urban areas, where growth outwards may restrict the movement of wildlife. In such situations, where new developments are built on the edge of town or in the open countryside, measures should be taken to protect migration routes along hedgerows or through dense ground cover/woodland;

in parks and river corridors through urban areas. Unless sufficient space is maintained along river corridors, and unless there is sufficient green space between urban parks and the countryside, wildlife will not move into urban greenspaces where the public can enjoy them.

What we seek is a policy to encourage the creation of wildlife corridors, and 'buffer zones' for wildlife, around large developments of at least 25 metres to 50 metres, dependant upon the scale of the development. Where a development is going to damage an area of ecological interest, provision should be made for...

Wildlife corridors around the site so that species populations are not prevented from moving around. For example, where a system of hedgerows is being destroyed, new hedgerows should be planted to ensure that local wildlife can still move freely; and
That ecological buffer zones be required as part of any large development. By retaining areas of undisturbed land in or around the perimeter of a large development, a seedbank containing a mix of the natural local flora will be preserved. We see this as being more favourable than later 'restoration' of the site with wild species since these restoration works do not always reflect the local mix of shrubs and flora.

At the moment, we are not proposing a particular wording for such a policy - we leave it up to the Authority to find an appropriate wording for the policy which suits their needs, and we will comment upon it in the deposit draft.


References:

1. EC Council Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Flora and Fauna. Directive 92/43/EEC.
2. 'Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan', Cm 2428, HMSO 1994.

69. Relevance of Policy EP3 - renewable energy [Policy EP3, p102]

This policy does not adequately implement the framework created in PPG22, and it is adversely skewed to considering wind energy development. At the moment the draft plan does not contain any specific guidance on renewable energy projects (except on wind turbines) as suggested by PPG22 and its technical annex. Friends of the Earth would like to see policies in the local plan which address the location/design of....

wind turbines;
micro-hydro power projects;
pyrolysis/gasification/incineration projects;
digestion of organic wastes to produce gas;
mounting of photovoltaic cells or thermal solar panels on buildings;
passive thermal design of buildings;
utilisation of low-grade heat using 'heat-pumps'.

In its current form the plan does not presume against the development of renewable energy projects (because all applications are assessed on their merits). However, because of the problems renewable energy installations can present (for example landscape impacts), it would be better to consider the location of these projects now, so giving sufficient guidance and certainty to those wishing to develop such projects.

Also, while not seeking to control the selection or design of the technology involved, setting a framework now ensures that the development will have a minimal environmental impact because conditions can be applied at the time of the planning application to meet the requirements of the development plan.

We leave the wording of such a policy to the LPA, and if it is unsatisfactory we would propose our own wording as part of a proof to the Local Plan Inquiry.

70. Application of Policy EP4 - pollution [Policy EP4, p102]

This policy is not correctly worded in terms of the restrictions imposed by PPG1 and PPG23. We suggest that the policy is redrafted to cover pollution in the broadest sense, perhaps by referring to the 'material considerations' listed in section 3 of PPG23.

71. Application of Policy EP7 - hazardous sites[Policy EP7, p103]

This wording is incorrect since it seeks to implement a presumption against, and it considers issues which are not the responsibility of the local planning authority.

72. Relevance of Policy EP8 - contaminated land[Policy EP8, p103]

This is not a land use policy, it is a statement of intent. It also does not properly develop a framework for decision making under the guidance in PPG23. We suggest that this policy is merged with Policy EP9.

73. Application of Policy EP13 - water supply [Policy EP13, p104]

This policy is not technically correct in terms of the 'ultra vires' restrictions under PPG1, and does not recognise the legal obligations on statutory undertakers.

75. Relevance of Policy BE1 - urban design [Policy BE1, p109]

While the policy is technically correct, the last sentence is superfluous and should be deleted.

76. Density variation in developments [Policy BE5, p110]

As well as recognising local densities, in larger developments density should be varied to provide higher densities at the centre of the development, or near to the urban centre, to give a sense of space and direction. Having the same density built over the whole development provides a very monotonous urban landscape.

77. Relevance of Policy BE9 - amenity [Policy BE9, p112]

This policy is not worded as a land use policy, and it is very vague. It should be redrafted or deleted.

78. Application of Policy BE13 [Policy BE13, p113]

This policy is vague in its application, and simply considers the age of the building rather than considering its overall historical or architectural value.

79. Retention of building materials [Policies BE14/15 & BE20, p113]

Wherever possible building materials should be recovered from demolition and stored for reuse in other renovation or new developments. By exercising powers on demolition control it is possible to enforce policies on the retention/reuse of building materials, and utilising building waste as secondary aggregate.

Friends of the Earth request that these policies be amended to specifically deal with demolition controls available through the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. In addition, such as policy should create an obligation so that when a building is being demolished, the materials are retained and either reused for the upkeep and renovation of other buildings, or recycled as secondary aggregate, wood and metal.

We wish the amendment to be worded along the following lines...

'AS PART OF THE DEMOLITION OF ANY BUILDING, CONDITIONS ON DEMOLITION CONSENTS WILL REQUIRE THE PRESERVATION AND REUSE, OFFER FOR SALE OR RECYCLING OF THE MATERIALS GENERATED DURING DEMOLITION'.

This policy provides an effective way of ensuring that buildings are 'recycled', so reducing the need to use primary resources in construction.

80. Relevance of Policy BE24 - listed buildings [Policy BE24, p116]

The policy is a statement of objectives rather than a proper land use policy. The protection of listed buildings is in any case a legal obligation, and it does not require a policy as such action is not related to planning consent.

81. Protection of archaeology [Policies BE27/8, p117]

These policies duplicate similar function and should be merged. Also in Policy BE27 the word 'may' should be replaced with 'will'.

82. Pedestrianisation policies [Policies BE31/32 & 34, p117]

These policies are really transport policies - pedestrianisation should not be looked upon as an amenity issue. Pedestrianisation is a key part of integrated land use and transport policy.

83. Application of Policy BE35 - environmental works[Policy BE35, p118]

The legal basis of this policy is not clear, since planning enforcement powers and listed building conservation powers are not a means to achieve other alternate ends such as 'environmental improvements'.

84. Application of Policy BE36 - conversion [Policy BE36, p119]

This policy should be redrafted to reflect land use issues. Consideration of the responsibilities of statutory undertakers and building inspectors are not relevant planning matters.

85. Structure/basis of transport chapter[Transport chapter, p121]

This representation covers related objections on the transport chapter. These objections are being presented in one objection against the whole transport chapter since it raises issues of the underlying philosophy behind transport planning in the Borough.

Friends of the Earth are objecting to the transport chapter of the consultation draft of the local plan because it does not implement an 'integrated' approach to transport policy - we consider this a serious omission. The chapter does - in its current form - reference various forms of transport, but it does not, in our view, effectively coordinate transport provision and land use planning.

Out of all the parts of the plan, we see the transportation section as having the greatest bearing from the 'environmental' point of view. Access to transportation is a necessity of life - and it can be one of the most pollution intensive aspects of our 'personal environmental impact'. For this reason, it makes little sense to try and achieve some form of 'sustainable' development locally without a radical revision of how we achieve the necessary mobility to meet the needs of our everyday life ('needs' in terms of the Brundtland reports interpretation of sustainable development - see our introduction).

We do not wish to suggest wordings for how the plan might be amended since the breadth of the transport issues involves a wide range of issues which it the local authorities task to solve. However, at the very least we would like the points made in PPG13[1] to be implemented in the plan. These are:

Provision of a cycleway network in the Borough, with routes for cycleways shown of the 'proposals maps' as set out in
para. 4.15 of PPG13;
Restrictions on car parking in the urban areas and, at the same time, creation of 'residents parking' around the centre of the town to prevent cars spilling into residential areas;

Greater provision for pedestrians, in particular more pedestrianisation of town centres and 'pedestrian priority' at road junctions;

Greater support for public transport, both through encouraging the provision of bus/train facilities, and through traffic management measures such as bus priority or bus lanes to improve existing routes;

Through all of the above measures, restrictions on the use of the private car within the major towns of the Borough.

FoE's interpretation of an 'integrated' transport strategy 'Integration', as we see it, is more than simply making provision for certain modes of transport in the local plan. We see integration as...

the bringing together of various modes of transport so as to provide mobility to meet the needs of the everyday life of the citizens of the Borough, with the least environmental and resource impact;

giving 'choice' to local people as to the mode of transport they use - we do not have such options at the moment;

protecting and enhancing the local environment through the promotion of 'least impact' modes of transport, and implementing demand management measures to limit those modes which cause damage to the local and global environment.

The point about 'choice' is an important one. At the moment, we do not have the option of using a variety of modes of transport because of the limitations put upon us by the current system. The restrictions can be....

financial cost - the person cannot afford other modes of transport;

personal safety - the choice of other modes involves increased risk to the person;

accessibility - the choice simply does not exist.

While promoting the use of modes of transport other than the private car, we at the same time accept than in rural areas, cars are a necessity - we do not dispute this. But in the urban or semi-urban areas, we would argue that the population density could make other options viable, and so the use of one mode - the car - can be manage by encouraging a 'modal switch' to the other options available - walking, cycling, car sharing, buses and trains. But even in rural areas, greater provision for the needs of public transport, the provision of cycleways extending 8 to 10 miles from the major towns, and encouraging the use of car sharing or 'dial-a-ride' style community transport facilities can all reduce the need to use private cars.

Providing for the private care

Another key issue is to challenge the underlying assumption in the transport chapter that provision must be made in the transport chapter for private car travel. This is a fundamental error. The concept that road access is essential for a healthy economy can be defeated on a purely logical argument. The idea that easier road access generates jobs and prosperity cannot be shown. Dr. John Whitelegg has conducted a study2 of the economic effect of road building on local businesses, and no measurable effect can be found. The argument that roads allow local businesses to easily reach markets further away can be defeated by the converse - such connections also allow businesses further away access to local markets, with a detrimental effect on local businesses. At the end of the day, some business will be gained, but some business will be lost - so the final effect is no overall gain.

Also, if we consider those areas well served by modern large road systems, they do not show an excess of prosperity. Glasgow and Birmingham have the largest and most up to date roads system, but neither is booming with industry. On the other hand, the City of London has a largely Medieval roads system, with restricted access, but has the highest prosperity.

We therefore request that all intimations that roads contribute to local prosperity are removed. With regard to all changes, we leave the wording of such changes to the authority, and we will comment upon them in detail when they appear in the deposit draft.

References:
1. Planning Policy Guidance 13 - 'Transport', Dept., of the Environment March 1994.
2. 'Transport for a Sustainable Future', John Whitelegg, Belhaven Press 1993,
ISBN 1 85293 146 9.

86. Local plan objectives chapter[Local plan objectives chapter, p141]

The plan should set performance indicators, and more especially locally agreed 'sustainability indicators'. At the moment the implementation/monitoring structure has no proper system of measurement.

'Development Plans - a good practice guide'[1] sets out specific guidelines on how monitoring of plans should be carried out, and this specifically identifies (paragraph 5.12 and shaded box on page 105) that policies should include performance measures.

In terms of monitoring, this cannot meaningfully take place unless performance indicators, targets and objectives are set. The monitoring framework set out in the plan is insufficient.

Additionally, we see the monitoring requirements for the local plan as the perfect place to set 'sustainability indicators', alongside the standard set of criteria used to monitor local plans. These indicators could be taken directly from documents produced by bodies such as the Local Government Management Board, or for more locally relevant indicators, a short public consultation could take place between the closure of responses to this plan, and the production of the deposit draft. If the authority have a problem with this proposal, I can provide additional help and guidance.

To remedy this objection we request that the objectives and indicators set in the plan have a more detailed monitoring framework, and that a key part of the monitoring of the plan should be the creation and tracking of 'sustainability indicators'.

Reference

1. Dept. of the Environment, 'Development Plans - a good practice guide', HMSO 1992.

87. Calculation of windfall housing[Appendix 1 - windfall sites, p145]

The consideration of windfall sites should reflect how many dwellings are likely to be constructed in order that no shortfall in provision arises. Therefore the position of extant permissions needs to be carefully assessed.

88. Relevance of appendix 2 [Appendix 2 - noise, p146]

The use of this appendix is fairly doubtful since it simply reproduces sections of PPG24. For the sake of clarity, appendix 2 should be deleted, and reference made to PPG24 where appropriate.

89. New policy - sustainable development

Friends of the Earth object to the plan as a whole because it does not properly specify policy/criteria for ensuring that development is made more sustainable. We require that comprehensive and integrated policies are prepared to implement sustainability principle into the plan, and we further require that a new 'general' chapter be set up to incorporate plan-wide policies such as these.

Since the Earth Summit in 1992, a number of papers have been issued by the Department of the Environment and the Local Government Management Board on 'sustainable development' - culminating recently with the Governments 'UK Sustainable Development Strategy'. In the light of the policies advocated by these bodies, and others such as the UN, we would like to see policies in the local plan which commit Torbay Borough Council to developing 'sustainable' systems of development, and to consider adoption of the targets and policies contained in Agenda 21.

Planning Policy Guidance 12 has limited references to 'sustainable development', but PPG12 was drawn up before the Earth Summit in June 1992, which for the first time set global objectives in the pursuit of sustainable development. There is also the European Union's Fifth Action Programme on the Environment which came into force at the beginning of 1993, and seeks to encourage more sustainable economic and social systems throughout all member states. In short - when PPG12 was written, the guidance did not exist, but since that day a number of international conferences have consider these matters and have issued basic guidance to national and local governments.

At the moment, the Local Plan does not fully meet the requirements for 'sustainability'. A good example would be that the plan does not consider the 'precautionary principle' - a policy which is central to UN, European Union and UK national advice on policies for sustainable development (see objection no.90).

There are a number of sources of guidance on how local plan can be made more 'sustainable', and this guidance works at national, European and international levels. Although it is often argued that 'international' conventions are not primarily a matter in local planning, the UK Government has committed itself to the international programmes for sustainable development, climate change, etc., and so we see that they are relevant in terms of the 'international obligations' referred to in PPG1.

Our objection to the consultation draft on the lack of a framework for implementing sustainable development is, by implication, an objection to the entire plan. The plan, despite the requirement of Government guidance and international and national policy statements, does not properly consider the need to plan for sustainable patterns of development. These issues must be addressed before the plan is adopted, and for this reason we suggest that the Local Planning Authority undertake the following measures...

A full environmental appraisal of the policies in this plan must be carried out. It impossible to begin to consider the detail of 'sustainable development' without first knowing the implications for resources, habitats, etc., of current policies and practice in the area (our objection no.91 relates to this);

To firmly establish the need to move towards sustainable systems of development, the plan should have a specific section/chapter devoted to an analysis of the results of the environmental appraisal, and suggesting targets/policies for how current procedures can be adapted/replaced to achieve a more sustainable society. We suggest the 'general' chapter outlined as a requirement earlier.
The plan should adopt specific sustainability-related policies. For example, the objectives/policies listed within the "Rio Declaration", agreed at the Earth Summit, provide a good starting point which to begin formulating policies (the precautionary principle is an example of this - principle 15 of the declaration).
The plan should make reference to the emerging 'Local Agend 21' process, and include necessary statements and conditions so that the content of the Local Agenda 21 plans, when they are produced, is taken as an 'essential' consideration within the determination of planning applications.

As a starting point, Friends of the Earth suggest the following wordings for policies...

Policy A: THE AUTHORITY WILL SEEK AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE QUANTITY, PATTERN AND FORM OF DEVELOPMENT, THROUGH LAND USE WHICH WILL FACILITATE THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE MINIMISATION OF POLLUTION.

Policy B: THE AUTHORITY WILL REFLECT AGREED NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND WILL SET APPROPRIATE LOCAL TARGETS. TARGETS AND OBJECTIVES SET IN THE UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT'S "AGENDA 21" PROGRAMME, WHERE THEY RELATE TO LAND USE, WILL BE CONSIDERED AS 'MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS' TO THE DETERMINATION OF ANY PLANNING APPLICATION.

Policy C: THE AUTHORITY WILL WELCOME NEW DEVELOPMENT WHERE IT IS MOST APPROPRIATE AND MOST BENEFICIAL TO CURRENT LOCAL AND REGIONAL NEEDS AND QUALITY OF LIFE, PROVIDED THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE AN UNACCEPTABLY DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT OR THE MEANS WHEREBY FUTURE NEEDS WILL BE MET.

Policy D: THE AUTHORITY WILL ESTABLISH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PROCEDURES AS PART OF THE CONTINUING MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TO ASSESS THE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT ON LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES.

Policy E: ALL PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE ASSESSED IN THE LIGHT OF THE EMERGING NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, AND ANY LOCAL POLICIES MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT'S "LOCAL AGENDA 21 PROGRAMME. DEVELOPMENT CONTRARY TO THESE POLICIES WILL NOT BE PERMITTED.


We must make it clear that these policies need to be set in a chapter on their own. They are not simply 'environmental' policies - they are universal in their nature, and should govern all day-to-day decisions in land use planning.

The main thrust of the policies outlined in point 1 is to get a general acceptance of any national proposals on sustainable development which emerge in the next few years, without the need to go through the process of altering the local plan. Also, it seeks to create an acceptance of any proposals drawn through 'Local Agenda 21'. This is important, as the Local Agenda 21 document itself will be a non-statutory plan, and so doesn't posses the status of the local plan. The suggested wording of the policy is not prescriptive, and it allows the authority - and developers - to consider the implications of emerging strategies on sustainable development as part of the planning process. It also allows the Authority to resolve the wider issues of sustainable development - which by their nature require that an environmental appraisal be carried out - in a way which does not require the current plan being scrapped to meet our objection.

All these changes, taken together, should make development in the
plan area more sustainable.

90. New policy - precautionary principle

We object to the whole basis of the plan because it does not consider the application of the precautionary principle. The Governments White Paper on the environment, "This Common Inheritance", outlines the Governments policy on the environment. In relation to planning and development control it states....

"Planning control is primarily concerned with the type and location of new development and changes. Once broad land uses have been sanctioned by the planning process, it is the job of pollution control to limit the adverse effects that operations may have on the environment. But in practice there is common ground. In considering whether to grant planning permission for a particular development, a local authority must consider all the effects, including potential pollution; permission should not be granted if that might expose people to danger."

Another important issues to consider is the 'precautionary principle'. This is a concept which was first considered in 'This Common Inheritance', and has since been taken up in the European Community's Fifth Environmental Action Programme, and the UN's Agenda 21 Programme. The precautionary approach urges that action should be taken, where there are good grounds for judging either that action taken promptly at comparatively low cost may avoid more costly damage later, or that irreversible effects may follow if action is delayed'1.

This approach would also, from a policy point of view, advocate the adoption of policies and strategies at the earliest possible stage, rather than waiting to find 100% confirmation that the problem or situation actually exists.

We would like to see in the plan policies specifically relating to the potential to cause pollution. As part of our objection on sustainable development (no.89) we are recommending that a new 'general' chapter be set up to incorporate policies that operate plan-wide. We suggest that the amended policy on the precautionary principle is included in the 'General' chapter.

The wording Friends of the Earth suggests for these policies are as follows:

THERE WILL BE A RESISTANCE TO THE ESTABLISHING OF INDUSTRIES WHICH HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR CAUSING SEVERE HARM TO PEOPLE OR SEVERE DAMAGE TO PROPERTY OR THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OVER A LARGE AREA, OR WHICH HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR CAUSING MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION BY VIRTUE OF THE MATERIALS STORED, PROCESSED OR MANUFACTURED.

THE AUTHORITY WILL APPLY THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE TO THE POLICIES IN THIS PLAN AND TO PROPOSALS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT WHEREVER THERE IS UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

References
1 White Paper on the Environment, 'This Common Inheritance', page 11.

91. New policy - environmental appraisal

We object to the whole basis of the plan because there has been no environmental appraisal of the plan, nor has a compatibility matrix been produced. It is a requirement of Government guidance that the environmental effects of plans be formally 'appraised' this does not appear to have been done in this plan.

We require that some commitment is given by the Authority to conduct a full and proper environmental appraisal of the plan. Guidance on carrying out an environmental appraisal is contained in the DoE report on the environmental appraisal of development plans. This document set out how local authorities should proceed with an environmental appraisal of development plans. Environmental appraisal is also an important part of ensuring that sustainable development is properly considered and implemented at the local level. The report sets out, quite clearly, the Government's views on the importance of a proper environmental appraisal...

"1.3 Development plans now lie at the heart of our planning system and planning decisions are to be taken in accordance with those plans unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The strengthening of the plan-led system, together with the requirement that local planning authorities should take account of the environment in its widest sense when preparing their development plans, has potentially enormous benefits for the environment. It means, for example, that the quantity of development should only be that envisaged in the plan and take place in the intended locations, and critical aspects of the environment can be protected from adverse development.

1.4 The Government has made it clear in PPG12 its intention to work towards ensuring that development and growth are sustainable. Development plans have a key role to play in achieving this goal by ensuring that future generations are not denied the best of today's environment. Environmental appraisal is an essential tool to help achieve this in preparing development plans."

We request that the Authority conduct a proper environmental appraisal of the plan, in line with the techniques given in the DoE's guidance report, and that this information should be clearly highlighted throughout the plan as a part of the guidance to developers. If the Authority do not take this course of action, then the plan should be amended to indicate that the Authority have not conducted a proper environmental appraisal as required and set out by Government guidance.

92. New policy - self build housing

Friends of the Earth object to the lack of any policy on 'self- build' housing developments, and the failure to identify areas where people can set up self-build projects.

The Authority should create a policy on self-build housing, and identify areas where self-build housing would be acceptable. We leave it up to the Authority to find an appropriate wording for the policy which suits their needs, and we will comment upon it in the deposit draft.

93. New policy - planning obligations

We object to the plan because there is little consideration of environmentally based planning obligations. We request the addition of a policy in the plan covering general planning obligations/conditions. At the moment, the general policies do not adequately consider the essential structural requirements for sustainability - and unless these are considered within each development, sustainable development will not be achieved.

Planning conditions and agreements are a key tool in sustainability planning. They are vital to improve the quality of development beyond what can be done by the refusal of damaging development. Moreover, they can be used to compensate local populations for the impacts of development that should go ahead.

The authority should include a standard list of appropriate topics for planning obligations or agreements in the plan. Friends of the Earth believes that the following should be included:

provision of recycling facilities, particularly at retail developments;

minimisation of the quantities of waste arising;

provision of area-wide traffic calming and traffic reduction measures, particularly in residential development;

provision or improvement of public transport facilities; and improvement of the surrounding pedestrian environment.

Inter alia, planning standards should aim to:

ensure design and orientation for energy conservation;

ensure durability and long life to minimise resource consumption;

avoid use of air-conditioning, except passive systems, so as to reduce energy consumption and the need for use of refrigerants which are greenhouse gases or ozone-depletants;

provide for separated storage and recycling of recyclable waste for door-to-door collection;

provide adequate cycle parking;

prevent pollution breaching environmental quality standards;

reduce water use;

ensure restoration of contamination of land; and

limit traffic speed on highways within the development.

Agreements and standards can help protect critical natural capital, internalise environmental or social costs, compensate losers, support environmental quality standards or ensure implementation of shadow projects.

Some of the above overlap, in part, with other objections on transport, waste, etc., but these proposals should be considered as an essential part of the 'general' policies applied to all planning applications, no matter which particular category they fall into.

We leave it up to the Authority to find an appropriate wording for the policy which suits their needs, and we will comment upon it in the deposit draft.

94. New policy - 'European' designated sites

Although the plan refers to SSSIs and local nature reserves, it does not note the special protection that is applied to the sites designated under the Habitats Directive1. There should be a specific policy covering 'Special Protection Areas' (SPAs) and 'Special Areas of Conservation' (SACs). These designations are discussed in detail in PPG9.

Furthermore, unlike SSSIs, where a 'European' conservation site is adversely affected by proposed development, and there is no risk-free method of preventing damage, the planning authority does not have the power to grant planning permission. If the development is to go ahead, the issue must be referred to the UK Government in order that it be raised with the European Commission.

The plan should refer to the specific restrictions on development affecting an SAC or SPA. The new policy should also make it clear that it is not only direct development of a site that is prohibited under the law - under Article 4(4) of the Directive the 'pollution' or 'deterioration' of the site is also a relevant factor.

This policy also presents the most appropriate case for implementation of the Government's recent guidance on risk assessment - in this case specifically the risks of planned/accidental discharges causing damage to a protected site.

Reference:
1. EC Council Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Flora and Fauna. Directive 92/43/EEC.


C Outline of objections to the Local Plan (Consultation) Draft

1. Policy H10 - change of residential use [Policy H10, p20]

FoE support this policy since the change of use of dwellings will require more new dwellings to be provided, and therefore there will be greater development pressure on greenfield sites.

2. Policy H17 - rural areas [Policy H17, p24]

FoE support the special measures to restrict dwellings in rural areas. If left unregulated, the influx of residential use in rural areas causes not only land degradation, but also greater pressures on roads and services.

3. Policy H18 - workers dwellings [Policy H18, p24]

FoE support the approach to restricting 'workers' dwellings in the countryside.

4. Policy S2 - town centres [Policy S2, p52]

FoE support the policy of the planning authority to prioritise the preservation improvement of the town centres. This in turn will aid the development of a practical integrated land use and transport strategy.

5. Policy R11 - sports pitches [Policy R11, p77]

FoE supports the policies of the planning authority to protect sports pitches from development.

6. Policy IN3 - overhead lines [Policy IN3, p84]

FoE support the policy of the planning authority in adopting a precautionary measure to restrict development near to overhead power lines.

7. Policy IN5 - underground services [Policy IN5, p84]

FoE support the policy of the planning authority in controlling the excavation of underground services, although we feel that some modifications may be necessary to take account of permitted development rights.

8. Policy L8 - tree preservation [Policy L8, p91]

FoE support the policy of the planning authority to protect trees covered by TPOs

9. Policy L9 - ancient woodlands [Policy L9, p91]

FoE support the policy of the local planning authority to protect ancient woodlands designated by the countryside commission. We hope that the policy might be extended further after consultation with other wildlife organisations.

10. Policy L10 - tree protection [Policy L10, p91]

FoE support the policy of the planning authority to protect trees covered by planning conditions with TPOs.

11. Policy L12 - advance planting [Policy L12, p92] FoE support the policy of the planning authority to require landscaping/planting in advance of development. This will help to mitigate the visual effects of development on the edge of urban areas.

12. Policy L16 - hedgerows [Policy L16, p93]

FoE support the policy of the planning authority to protect hedgerows because of their landscape and wildlife significance.

13. Policy NC1 - nature conservation [Policy NC1, p96]

FoE support the planning authority in applying planning conditions to protect the natural environment from the effects of development.

14. Policy NC2 - SSSIs [Policy NC2, p96]

FoE support the policy of the planning authority on the protection of SSSIs and nature reserves.

15. Policy EP1 - environmental assessment [Policy EP1, p101]

FoE support the policy of the local authority in requiring environmental assessment for developments with 'significant' effects.

16. Policy EP2 - energy efficiency [Policy EP2, p102]

FoE support the local authority's policy on energy efficiency. We also suggest that a guidance is produced by the authority as a guide to developers on how energy efficiency can be incorporated into developments.

17. Policy EP5 - noise [Policy EP5, p102]

FoE support the policy of the planning authority relating to noise.

18. Policy EP6 - light pollution [Policy EP6, p103]

FoE support the policy of the planning authority to control light pollution.

19. Policy EP9 - contaminated land [Policy EP9, p103]

FoE support the policy on the identification and treatment of contaminated land.

20. Policy EP11 - recycling [Policy EP11, p104]

FoE welcome and support the requirement on new developments that provision for recycling of materials be made.

21. Policy EP12 - water quality [Policy EP12, p104]

FoE welcome the policy on the protection of surface and ground water. However, we would like to point out that since April the NRA has been absorbed within the new Environment Agency.

END OF DOCUMENT





return to home page