FoE

Mobbs' Environmental Investigations, 3 Grosvenor Road, Banbury OX16 8HN, England Tel./fax 01295 261864 Email mobbsey@gn.apc.org

Response to the Devon Structure Plan (Deposit) Draft Report prepared for Devon Groups December, 1996

A. Introduction

Four Friends of the Earth (FoE) groups Devon - Plymouth FoE, Exeter FoE, Culm Vale FoE and Torbay FoE - have come together to commissioned this assessment of and response to the Devon Structure Plan Deposit Draft. This report contains a number of objections to the plan as proposed and objections because of the lack of policy in the plan. In general most of the objections are technical, or are reinterpreting the approach of the plan. In some cases, such as the waste or sustainable development policies, whole new revisions are put forward since the existing policies are considered insufficient in detail, in error or inappropriate.

Some parts of the report reiterate the objections made in the response to the consultation draft of the structure plan. While Friends of the Earth accept that there have been positive changes to the policies in the plan, the 'vision' of a future sustainable Devon that members of FoE hold is still not realised in the plan. The new policies proposed which FoE members believe would enhance the sustainable use of land in Devon - such as the creation of green belts around Plymouth and Exeter - have also been carried into our objections to the deposit draft.

The remainder of this section introduces the Friends of the Earth Groups response to the structure plan deposit draft. It should be considered as 'background', and read with the other objections, although it does not in itself form an objection to the plan - it merely outlines the approach we have taken in phrasing the response to the plan.

Putting the plan into a wider context

In our main set of objections to the structure 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. However, when interpreting our objections to consider changes to the draft of the plan, these statements should be borne in mind.

From my experience in working on other plans, the Devon Structure Plan deposit draft, more than any other plan, has given serious consideration to the issue of sustainable development. However, in practice, I see many problems in applying the policies as phrased. It is not advisable to produce a 'good' statement of planning and sustainable development if, at appeal, you cannot defend it.

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 should have completed 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 Devon Structure Plan should be aiming towards the sustainability policies outlined in Agenda 21, and the UK Sustainable Development Strategy, and we will be framing our input to the plan EIP 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 guidance, there is the possibility of producing local plan policies which reflect the principles of sustainable development. This Common Inheritance, sets out the Government's 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 Devon Structure 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.

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."

Taking a pessimistic point of view, it is possible to take this definition and use it explain the underlying philosophy of parts of the plan.

The full statement from the Brundtland Report, given earlier, phrases 'sustainable development' in a wider social, political and economic arena. There 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. First, 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 'guidances' 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'.

It is possible to take a very narrow interpretation of the planning system. This does not inspire local creativity in development planning, and can build up to structural problems in the future. However, the planning system is written broadly so that it may be interpreted as local situations need, and that is what we would like the Local Planning Authority to do.

Examples of 'best practice' in planning are never generated by following the rules word-for-word; they are created through a constructive and positive interpretation of the substance of the rules.

Interpretation of objections

The objections to the plan are set out in general terms with reasoned arguments. Within each objection the modifications we require to the plan are stated in bold.

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 draft out precisely 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 within the plan EIP, in correspondence, or in meetings outside of the EIP process.

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 prime concern, and we will pursue them until such a time as we conside

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 prime concern, and we will pursue them until such a time as we conside

B Outline of objections to the Structure Plan

1. Devon's Economy [ 's.2.7/2.8, p4; .3.2, p11; chpt.8(II), p93-118]

Within the structure plan there is an emphasis on the continued support for four industries - agriculture, mineral extraction, fishing and tourism - but without any consideration as to their future 'sustainability'.

The plan must qualify the acceptable extent of economic development. The pursuance of economic development without restriction is not 'sustainable', and it is not acceptable. A further problem is that some of the industries that the economic strategy relies upon - particularly minerals extraction and defence - are questionable in terms of whether they fit into a sustainable strategy at all.

All references to economic development within the plan must be tied to some sort of 'sustainability' framework. Economic development while bringing the benefit of employment, also brings with it pollution, traffic and resource consumption. As far as is possible, and notion of 'sustainable' economic development must include considerations of these 'externalities'. The plan does not do this at the moment.

2. Roads and Prosperity [ .2.34, p6; 's.5.53/4, p25/6; .7.87; Policy T11/12, p67/68; .8.149]

Friends of the Earth object to the underlying assumption in various parts of the plan that a better roads infrastructure is a necessary part of a healthy economy for the County. We would like the County to produce validatable evidence to prove that this assumption is true. 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.

There is no link between road building and economic prosperity, according to new research published by Greenpeace. This contradicts Government policy which - for the last twenty five years - has presumed that road building stimulates the economy. Further reports by Dr. John Whitelegg of environmental consultants Eco-Logica also show that the notion that more roads bring prosperity is a myth - particularly remote from the main urban conurbations. Dr. Whitelegg used official Government data to plot job opportunities against access to roads in 34 areas. He found that "there is no relationship between accessibility and economic performance".

The Government has justified road building by claiming that roads bring jobs and prosperity and aid development. It has never produced any of its own research to back this claim. If it was true, a beneficial "roads effect" would have been revealed by Dr. Whitelegg's research. The reverse was often the case.

For example, Doncaster - less than twenty minutes from the M1 had only a fraction of the rise in job opportunity experienced by Grimsby, over seventy minutes away from the M1. Skegness and Horncastle - both more than 90 minutes away from the A1 - both did better in terms of job opportunity than Newark-on-Trent, located on the A1. Swansea and Port Talbot/Neath - with almost identical proximity to the M4/M5 junction - have experienced very different economic fortunes, with Port Talbot/Neath doing more than 70% better than Swansea.

The House of Commons highlighted the low rate of return on public road investment as long ago as 1969 and said "little is known about longer term development benefits". Despite this the Government is continuing with an 18 billion pounds road programme without taking the trouble to investigate if there are real benefits.

The Government says roads "assist economic growth" ('Trunk Roads, England into the 1990's, Dept. of Transport 1990). Yet, responding to a written question on July 14 1994, Robert Key, the then Roads Minister, revealed to Parliament that the Government had not carried out a single piece of research into the economic impact of road building in the previous ten years.

Given the weight of evidence in opposition to the position taken by the County in relation to roads infrastructure and economic development, we require that the LPA either withdraw these comments from the plan or produce validatable evidence to support these claims.

The plan must redefine the link between the economy and roads. There is no definite link between economic growth and roads development, and the support for new roads and better communications links should be reconsidered. The plan must only consider only local transport problems, and the solutions to those problems, and ignoring any perceived need to improve national connections. Instead

3. Defining Sustainable Development [All of plan]

In practice the references to sustainable development, while being welcome, are inadequate and do not set out a meaningful framework within which planning decisions can be made and upheld if challenged. It is interesting to note that none of the policies in the 'sustainable development strategy' actually user the word 'sustainable'.

In order to make sustainability an implementable it is necessary to define policy in more elaborate terms, with proper targets, indicators, and background information to provide clarity and certain to the public and developers. In terms of better defining the sustainability policies, we suggest that policies be modelled around the following five policies. We do not expect a word-for-word use of the following, but the policies in this chapter should reflect the general meaning...

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.

The above could be taken additionally, or as partial amendment to the existing set of policies in chapter 5. These amendments should also be taken with our suggestion for a new policy on 'planning obligations' (our objection no. 33).

As it currently stands, the plan does not implement any meaningful set of policies on sustainable development. The plan should be modified to include policies similar to those defined above.

4. Application of Aims and Objectives [chpt.4, pages 13-16]

Friends of the Earth are concerned about the status of the 'aims and objectives' section of the plan. It is not clear how the content of this section will be used in the consideration of planning applications, the conformity of subordinate local plans, or the consideration of enforcement action/retrospective applications.

An aim, in terms of a logical structure of policy making, is a philosophical end point. It is a 'wish' as to where we want to be. Objectives are specific achievements which must be delivered in order to attain the final aim. But how objectives are met is a matter of strategy and policy setting - something that is not done in this section.

Chapter 4 must be redrafted making specific reference to the policies in the plan, and how these policies/strategies help deliver the aims and objectives specified in chapter 4. Without such definition the aims/objectives specified - which FoE has very little problem support - are nothing more than a wish-list that has no value in the implementation of the plan.

5. Cultural Values [ .5.2, p19]

If you actually read Agenda21 and the Rio Declaration, the consideration of 'sustainability' also involves the consideration of cultural issues. For example, traditional land management practices, linguistic differences, or distinct cultural pursuits. This is not considered within the plan.

Paragraph 5.2 should be amended, inserting the word 'cultural' after the word 'social'.

6. Rural Transport [Policy S2, p23]

Friends of the Earth object to Policy S2 because of the use of the phrase 'public transport and the highway network'. This division seemingly separates functions which, in any integrated transport system, should be united. It also neglects the need for the local centres to have links to the regional and sub-regional centres.

We suggest that Policy S2 be amended, deleting the words 'well related to public transport and the highway network', and replacing with the words, 'with suitable links to regional and subregional centres, preferably by public transport'.

7. Self-sufficiency [ .5.33-5.35, p23; Policy S3, p24]

Friends of the Earth support the idea that communities should be self-sufficient, but we believe that the concept should be defined in more detail. Likewise Policy S3 should be required to be implemented through local plans, developing the idea of self-sufficiency not only through infrastructure, but through the development of local economic systems.

Within rural communities sustainability can be more easily achieved. Local farms can supply the local need for produced. In turn the development of small enterprise provides non-food goods and services, and creates local employment. The ability to market these goods locally then completes the loop by returning money to the producers of goods. All of this reduces the global 'footprint' of the local community, and through the promotion of the localised economy over the national/international economy the rural community will be better insulated from economic recession.

We should also incorporate the idea of local 'social' trading alternatives such as 'LETS' schemes and worker cooperatives. These can enable people in rural areas to improve the quality of their life through cooperative exchanges of goods and labour, outside of the normal economic system.

The policies on the self-sufficiency of local communities should be strengthened by incorporating the concept of localised economic/trading systems, in addition to the current consideration of purely 'infrastructure' issues. The same process can also be used as a method of attaining more sustainable lifestyles in rural areas. As well as the development of formal economic systems, the plan should encourage development which assists rural cooperatives or local trading schemes which seek to address rural poverty/quality of life.

8. Environmental Capacity [ 's.5.58-5.60 & Policy S4, p26]

Friends of the Earth request that the policies on the provision of infrastructure be amended to start from the issues of 'environmental capacity', and from the determination of that capacity the 'need' for infrastructure provision can be more securely made.

The concept of environmental capacity starts with the notion of how much resource extraction, development or pollution the local environment can sustain. This can be expressed across the whole range of environmental indicators - transport, pollution, soil erosion, etc. This level of 'sustainable use' then becomes an absolute limit. Provision of additional development must therefore keep within the limit, or provide mitigation measures in the proposed or existing developments to ensure that the limits are not exceeded. Planning from the point of view of broad capacity is therefore much more sustainable because it recognises absolute 'limits', rather than infrastructure 'restrictions'. For example, the provision of additional car parking is obviously unwise where there is insufficient road capacity to serve it, or the provision of new sewerage treatment facilities can be equally problematic where increased flow rate mean that overall more pollutants are discharged.

A few years ago planning using capacity criteria would have been difficult, but the development of catchment management plans for the water environment, or the compilation of parish plans and environmental audits by local groups/local authorities, makes the process easier. The baseline data from which we devise the capacity exists - we just need the will to develop the limits on development.

Policy S4 should be amended to adopt the concept of 'environmental capacity' as the basis of development and infrastructure planning. Through the local plans, as part of the design guidelines for each community, limits on development should be set. Developers must therefore limit projects so as not to exceed this limit. Alternatively the proposals must provide more efficient use of land and resources within existing development to ensure larger development proposals keep within the limit.

9. The Precautionary Principle [Policy C1 & 's.6.6-6.8, p29]

Friends of the Earth consider that there should be specific and detailed policies on the precautionary principle. Current references to the precautionary principle in the plan are, in our opinion, minimal and unclear.

In 1994 the DoE issued a planning guidance, PPG23, on planning, pollution control and waste management. We would wish to see a policy on the precautionary principle relating to potentially polluting development along the lines of those in PPG23, as well as the use of the principle in other development proposals.

In relation to polluting development the Government's White Paper on the environment, "This Common Inheritance", outlines the Government's policy on planning and environmental pollution. 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."

In relation to the general application of the principle, the European Community's Fifth Environmental Action Programme, and the UN's Agenda 21 Programme, make it clear that 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'.

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.

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

Policy A: THERE WILL BE A PRESUMPTION AGAINST 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.

Policy B: 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.

10. Local Biodiversity [Policy C2, p32]

While supporting Policy C2, Friends of the Earth believe that there should be specific reference to the "distinctive local characteristics" of biodiversity, and how these relate to landscape quality. The use of inappropriate landscaping or planting can be equally as damaging as the damage or removal of the 'solid' features such as walls or hedgerows or buildings.

FoE suggest that an additional point is added to the list in Policy C2... "5. the use of planting or vegetation schemes that reflect the local biodiversity".

11. Protected Nature Conservation Sites [Policy C14 & 's.6.78/6.79, p41]

Friends of the Earth object to Policy C14 as it does not accord with the current legislative framework on 'European' nature conservation sites as defines by PPG9, the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations, and the EC Habitats Directive.

Any site that has been listed as a 'candidate' or 'designated' Special Area of Conservation (SAC) or Special Protection Area (SPA) in accordance with the EC Habitats Directive or the EC Wild Birds Directive must be given a greater level of protection than that normally afforded any other SSSI. Furthermore, under Articles 12 to 15 of the Habitats Directive, measures should be taken to prevent the damage to, the trapping of, or deliberate disturbance to species listed in Annexes II, IV, and V of the directive. The only instances in which these provisions may be waived is where the action is permitted within the criteria specified in Article 16 of the Directive, and then the Member State must issue a derogation to allow the activity to proceed.

The provisions of the Habitats Directive have now been enacted in UK law by The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. In relation to the above, Regulation 49 makes it clear that where works, which are not beneficial to protected species listed in the Directive, are undertaken, then such works must be authorised by the Secretary of State for the environment. But in the fist instance the 'responsible authority' - English Nature - must undertake a full review of the proposed action to determine if it will have a detrimental effect upon listed species. If works are considered necessary, they must then seek guidance from the European Commission, from the Secretary of State, or both.

Local planning authorities therefore have a statutory obligation to ensure that the proposed works do not detract from the designation of the SAC/SPA, and furthermore, that the works do not damage or disrupt any species listed in Annexes II, IV and V of the Directive. Article 13 of the Directive also requires that any indirect damage to and SAC/SPA, perhaps caused by pollution, is not permitted to take place.

Given the statutory framework, Policy C14 contains fundamental errors. For example, SAC/SPA must not be given the protection equivalent to SSSIs, they must be given the protection defined within the UK and European legislation. In effect this means a presumption against all economic or recreational development unless a derogation is issued by the Secretary of State.

Likewise in terms of the indirect effects of development on SACs/SPAs, the policy does not implement the requirements of the regulations/directive.

Policy C14 must be amended to properly implement the legal restrictions on any development that affects a candidate or designated SAC/SPA.

12. Waste Management [Policies C18-C21 & 's.6.90-6.108, p45-47]

Friends of the Earth consider that this whole section needs deleting and new policies drawn up reflecting the latest UK/European guidance. At its simplest, this section should put in place policies which create a waste management system, rather than a disposal system.

What FoE seek is a five part strategy...
Policies which encourage the minimisation of waste through the use of better development standards, the recycling of waste and the promotion of the use of secondary aggregates;
Policies which encourage the highest level of recycling by the identification of a network of recycling banks across the plan area;
Policies which facilitate the easy working of kerbside collection of waste materials from residential areas by designing homes with storage areas, or alternately domestic or community composting facilities;
Policies which enable developers to process the materials collected on construction sites, which enable the building of materials recovery facilities, and for putrescible wastes the building of anaerobic digestion plants;
Policies which restrict the amount of space available for the disposal of waste to holes in the ground, or disposal in the sky via incinerators.

At the moment the plan, while referencing the issues involved, does not specifically do these five things.

Friends of the Earth also object to the inclusion of references to the 'Devon Waste Strategy' in paragraph 6.102. This document is still in draft, and it has not statutory basis to affect any decision made under planning law. If Devon County Council wish to make a relevant contribution to waste planning they should meet their statutory obligation by proceeding with work on the Waste Local Plan.

The current waste policies in the plan do not represent a sustainable framework from which waste planning in Devon can be developed. We suggest instead that the following policies are adopted instead...
Policy A: THE AUTHORITY WILL CONSIDER PROPOSALS FOR WASTE DISPOSAL AND OTHER TYPES OF WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY WITHIN A HIERARCHY OF PRIORITIES:
I. WASTE AVOIDANCE AND MINIMISATION;
II. REPAIR AND REUSE;
III. MATERIALS RECOVERY AND RECYCLING;
IV. ENERGY RECOVERY;
V. DISPOSAL WITH MINIMUM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
THE AUTHORITY WILL SET WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING TARGETS IN THE CONTEXT OF A STRATEGY TO REDUCE WASTE ARISINGS. THE AUTHORITY WILL ALSO APPLY STRICT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS TO ALL WASTE TREATMENT, DISPOSAL OR WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES USING PLANNING CONDITIONS TO IMPLEMENT STANDARDS WHEREVER APPROPRIATE.

Policy B: THE AUTHORITY WILL REQUIRE ALL NEW INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE WASTE PRODUCTION IMPLICATIONS INVOLVED IN A DEVELOPMENT. THE AUTHORITY WILL NOT GRANT PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENTS WHICH CANNOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING OBJECTIVES.

Policy C: THE AUTHORITY WILL PROMOTE THE REUSE AND RECYCLING OF DOMESTIC AND COMMERCIAL WASTE BY:
I. ALLOCATING SITES FOR RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING OPERATIONS;
II. PROTECTING SITES FOR EXISTING AND NEW RECYCLING AND REUSE INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS;
III. REQUIRING NEW DEVELOPMENT TO MAKE PROVISION FOR SEPARATED STORAGE AND COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLE WASTE;
IV. PROVIDING RECYCLING DEPOSIT FACILITIES WITHIN REASONABLE WALKING DISTANCE OF DWELLINGS IN THE TOWNS, AND WITHIN FIVE MILES IN RURAL AREAS.

Policy D: THE AUTHORITY WILL EXPECT WASTE TRANSFER FACILITIES TO MAKE PROVISION FOR SEPARATION OF RECYCLABLE WASTE FROM THE WASTE STREAM.

Policy E: THE AUTHORITY WILL NOT PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANDFILL CAPACITY UNLESS IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE WASTE CANNOT BE MANAGED THROUGH MEASURES TO PROMOTE AVOIDANCE, MINIMISATION, REUSE AND RECYCLING. NO RECYCLABLE WASTE WILL BE LANDFILLED, AND THE FILL MATERIAL MUST BE RENDERED AS BIOLOGICALLY AND CHEMICALLY INERT AS PRACTICABLE.
THE AUTHORITY WILL NOT PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANDFILL CAPACITY ABOVE MAJOR GROUNDWATER AQUIFERS, WITHIN 3KM OF A MAJOR WATERCOURSE OR DRINKING WATER SUPPLY ABSTRACTION POINT, OR WITHIN 2.5KM OF HOUSING (OR LAND DESIGNATED FOR HOUSING USE) OR PROTECTED NATURE SITES.

Policy F: THE AUTHORITY WILL NOT PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW INCINERATOR CAPACITY UNLESS IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE WASTE CANNOT BE MANAGED THROUGH MEASURES TO PROMOTE AVOIDANCE, MINIMISATION, REUSE AND RECYCLING. NO RECYCLABLE WASTE WILL BE INCINERATED. THE AUTHORITY WILL EXPECT INCINERATION PROPOSALS TO INCORPORATE THE HIGHEST DESIGN AND OPERATING STANDARDS TO MINIMISE POLLUTION, INCLUDING A COMMITMENT TO HANDLE WASTE ASH AS SPECIAL WASTE.

Policy G: THE AUTHORITY WILL NOT PERMIT INVESTIGATION FOR, OR CONSTRUCTION OF, FACILITIES FOR THE DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE. CODISPOSAL OF LOW LEVEL WASTES WITH OTHER WASTES WILL NOT BE PERMITTED AT CONVENTIONAL DISPOSAL SITES.

The current policies on waste in the structure plan do not implement a system of sustainable waste management. We do not suggest that the above policies are implemented word-for-word, but any amendments should reflect the general meaning of each policy. Together, this set of policies outlines a comprehensive, environmentally responsible waste management framework for the plan, beyond that already proposed.

13. Energy Conservation [Policy C22 & .6.109, p47]

Friends of the Earth support the remarks made in paragraph 6.109, but these positive remarks are not reflected in Policy C22.

Policy C22 should be amended to refer to the use of passive and active solar energy systems, and the use of CHP, in addition to the consideration of energy consumption. We leave the wording of the change to the planning authority.

14. Renewable Energy [Policies C23 & 's.6.110-6.114, p47/48]

At the moment Policy C23 and the 'Renewable Energy Developments' section primarily concentrate on wind farms, and there is no detail on the other options for renewable energy generation. The section should be expanded to include all forms of renewable energy development. Also, the policy is skewed towards large scale wind farms - there is no consideration of the nefits small, singular turbines can bring to remote areas - particular for small farms.

Although planning guidance guidance on renewable energy is minimal, and mainly concentrates on large scale development, we would like to see policies in the structure plan which address...
wind turbines (large and small);
micro-hydro power projects;
the pyrolysis of tyres;
the digestion of organic wastes to produce gas (particularly farm wastes, which are a problem in the South West);
the use of photovoltaic cells or thermal solar panels on buildings;
the use of passive thermal design of buildings;
the 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.

Policy C23 and the renewable energy section need to be redrafted to create a balanced approach to all types of renewable energy development - not wind energy development, or other large developments which are aimed specifically at generating energy for the national grid.

15. Water Resources & Sea Levels [Policy C24, p48]

Devon has a long coastline, and as part of the Coastal Planning policies under PPG20 the plan should incorporate consideration of the effects of global warming. The easiest way to do this is to define an area, related to height above sea level, where development will not be allowed. The current bracketed reference is insufficient.

Given the likely effects of sea-level rise due to global warming, FoE suggest that the structure plan limit developments on land lower than 5 to 10 metres above Ordnance datum (AOD), depending upon the location, type of development, and the presence of local flood mitigation measures. Although sea-level rise is quoted from various sources as 5mm per year, we have to take account of the fact that tidal flooding normally occurs around the time of the highest tides, in cyclonic weather (the low air pressure allowing the sea to rise) and with high rainfall inland causing local drainage systems to fill to capacity. Given the potential effects of flooding in terms of human life and property, we should apply the 5 or 10 metres AOD limit, for all but temporary developments, as a precautionary measure. It should be made clear that such a limit does not represent the potential level of flood tides given a worst case scenario, but such a limit would reduce the probability of coastal flooding drastically.

Additionally, Friends of the Earth believe that a new policy should be introduced to the plan to specifically restrict any development in flood plains. Development in areas which seasonally are saturated or flood to any depth of water can cause flooding problems downstream, and can generate problems of erosion, silting up, and damage to aquatic/wetland flora and fauna. Developments in the flood plain are also more susceptible to flooding leading to problems of local authorities having to take retrospective action to institute expensive flood alleviation measures. It therefore makes sense to prevent development in such locations in the first place.

We suggest that point 3 of Policy C24 is deleted and set up as a policy on its own covering flooding problems in detail. Flood risk and alleviation does not sit happily under the heading of 'water resources'.

16. Agricultural Land [Policy C27, p.49]

In terms of chapter 14 of Agenda 21, all agricultural land should be valued as a resource - no matter what its classification.

In terms of the effect of this policy Friends of the Earth wholly support the need to conserve agricultural land since it is an essential resource. However, the land classification system used by MAFF (referenced in Map 12) is entirely biased towards the level of production that the land is capable of achieving, and this normally entails the use of non-renewable resource based fertilisers and pesticides. In addition, by practical application of this policy, it is better to build on traditional hay meadows (normally given a low classification even though they represent the highest agricultural biodiversity) than Grade 2 agricultural land since the hay meadow is less productive.

We request that this policy is amended so that it does not put complete reliance on the land classification system, and so the policy protects all 'undeveloped' land rather than just 'agricultural' land. It should then be a requirement, perhaps stated as part of the reasoned justification of the Policy, that the developer must show that the land selected has no agricultural or ecological value, and that no more suitable development sites of any type (including sites within identified communities) exist.

17. Transport Strategy [Policy T1, p53; Policy T4, p57]

Friends of the Earth have two objections to the transport chapter...
Policy T1 should not 'encourage' alternatives to the private car - it must deter use of the private car and at the same time enable the development of the alternative to the car. This is a completely different emphasis from that in the plan as it currently stands.
Linked to the above, Policy T4 should require that all local plans develop a detailed network of cycle routes in the larger settlements, and the network must be marked on the proposals map, new routes must be protected, and where possible parts of the network should be funded from the development which it serves.

The plan does not implement policies which effectively control the use of the private car. This situation must be reversed through the inclusion of policies that enable planning authorities to demand the restriction or exclusion of cars. The alternatives to the car must then be specified in detail in this plan, and the local plans.

18. Highways Reclassification [Suggested New Policy]

The objection on transport considers solely the planning related aspects of transport planning and the integration of transport modes. It does not address the key feature of this structure plan - the protection of the Devon landscape, and in particular the National Parks.

The creation of a national park, and the maintenance of its character and utilisation for recreation/tourism brings with it problems not addressed in the planning guidance - most notably there is little policy available on how to tackle the large scale use of cars during certain months. The irregular nature of car loading then makes effective traffic management a more difficult procedure.

In Maps 15/16 the road hierarchy for Devon is defined. At the same time the tourism policies identify potential conflict between the protection of the environment and the expansion of the tourist industry (paragraph 8.188). What Friends of the Earth seek in this objection is a recognition that traffic management on the routes defined in Map 15/16 is the most effective way forward in managing the environmental impact of tourist development, and the effect of tourism in Devon as a whole.

The methodology used by the County Council to assess the roads network is similar to that used by the Lake District National Park as part of their exercise to reclassify roads. As the County Council have done the first part of this process, we seek proposals to implement the second part - a wholesale reclassification of roads, initially in the National Parks but then also across the rest of Devon's rural areas, with allied traffic management measures, and in certain cases wholesale closure of existing routes except for those who need access to their own properties.

The Lake District Traffic Management Initiative consultation document outlines a revised road classification for the Lake District National Park. It defines a purpose for each road in terms of the type of traffic it carries, the speeds that are appropriate and which destinations are served by each road. The revised classification will result in changes being made to direction signs, road standards and traffic regulation orders, such as speed and large or heavy vehicle restrictions. These would be individually consulted on after a road classification has been agreed.

The key aims of the initiative are:
to reduce traffic impact on the environment;
to reduce traffic and parking congestion;
to offer alternative modes of transport to the car;
to maintain the tourism industry within the National Park in accordance with Structure Plan policies, and to assist it to become sustainable;
to generally tailor traffic to the ability of existing roads to cope;
to enable the local community to proceed about its normal business;
to ensure that the National Park remains accessible for 'quiet enjoyment';
to improve the accessibility of the National Park so that it remains accessible to all people, irrespective of income or disability.

As in Devon, Lake District roads are narrow, steep and winding and they are simply not suitable for large volumes of traffic, fast traffic or large vehicles. Some are not essential as through routes; in addition to providing local access, their most valuable role might be in providing relatively safe routes for walkers and cyclists. Indeed, more opportunities for safe walking and cycling is one way of encouraging people to use their cars less and improve visitors' experience of the area.

It is proposed that, for management purposes, roads in the Lake District should be designated as follows:

Trunk Roads - intended principally to carry long-distance through traffic.

County Strategic Roads linking the main population and activity centres to the motorway and trunk road network.

Local Distributor Roads - carrying traffic between the main centres and linking all other centres of activity. Local distributors would be subdivided into three grades depending on their function, and with regard to their characteristics (particularly width and visibility standards) and the amount of traffic they would be expected to carry.
Local Access Roads - remainder of the network, which would be relatively motor traffic free routes for walkers, cyclists and horse riders.

Application of the Lake District Proposals to the Devon

By and large, the characterisation of roads in Map 15 is acceptable. Given that the road hierarchy has been defined in the plan, the following standards should be applied to the routes marked on the map...
Motorways/Primary Routes: National speed limit applies - traffic management/calming used only where there are road safety problems and traditional improvement/widening measures would be damaging to features in the park. Traffic management/calming measures will still be needed in towns;
Primary County Routes: 40/50mph speed limit along all section of road outside of villages, depending upon standard of road. Traffic calming measures to be applied in all villages/towns;
Secondary County Routes: Maximum 40mph speed limit and measures to deter trunk traffic - for example weight limits, and restrictions on vehicle size. Traffic calming in villages and at problem points/accident blackspots;
Local Routes/Collector Roads: 30mph speed limit, no entry to vehicles over 7 tonnes/coaches except for those needing access to premises on the road.
Other routes not identified in Map 15: 20mph speed limit - no entry except for local access.

Adopting the above standards will achieve the aim of reducing traffic speeds, noise, and creating relatively safe routes for walkers and cyclists - this in turn may take pressure off some of the 'off-road' routes currently used by walkers, riders and cyclists. However, on its own this is not enough, in our opinion, to ensure that the wilderness characteristics of the central parts of the Dartmoor National Park are protected. For this reason we propose a 'Goyt Valley' approach - completely closing roads, but providing access in places by specially provided public transport. In essence, this means closing the 'pressure routes' and implementing park and ride schemes.

The areas which are best for this approach are the 'local' roads which cross the moors. Many of these are well used by tourists/coaches, and the effect of closing off these roads to motorised traffic, except for permitted buses and essential local access, will be to return parts of the moors to as near a wilderness state as can be achieved.

As well as creating accessible areas on foot, cycle or by horse, without intimidation from the heavy traffic of cars or buses, the setting up of park and ride facilities will reduce car use, bring extra money into the park (in the form of parking/bus charges) and create local employment through providing bus services and security at the car parks. This latter point - being able to securely park cars and then enter the wilderness by foot, cycle or bus, could be a significant tourist benefit, encouraging people to leave their cars in the car parks without fear of crime.

The reclassification of the highway network, and allying this to appropriate traffic management measures will benefit the tourist industry, the environment, and residents of rural areas. It will benefit people in rural areas by taking away some of the motor traffic in the summer months, and it will increase the ability of tourists to walk and cycle in safety. We request that the County Council implement these proposals as part of a sustainable approach to traffic management in the County.

19. Car Parking Strategy [Policy T14 & 's.7.131-7.135, p70/71]

Friends of the Earth object to Policy T14 because it does not require the setting of maximum car parking limits for the larger urban areas. In order to control traffic congestion in urban centres it is necessary to control the 'end point' of the journey. Only by controlling the end point by limiting overall parking in the urban centres, and shifting the demand into park and ride or other alternatives modes, will the plan be able to control traffic growth.

We request that the structure plan and local plan set guidelines for the provision of parking spaces in the urban centres related to the capacity of the roads in the area and the need to control/restrict peak hour traffic congestion.

20. Traffic Generation [ .7.157, p74]

Friends of the Earth object to the assessment criteria for traffic assessment. The contribution of 50 vehicles per hour must be qualified in terms of the area where it takes place.

In urban centres 50 vehicles per hour makes little difference, but on the edge of urban areas it might. In rural areas 10 vehicles per hour might be perceived as an appreciable difference in traffic flow. For this reason the '50' figure must be qualified by noting that in non-urban areas much lower figures will be considered 'significant'.

We request that paragraph 7.157 is modified to take account of the different impacts traffic generation has in rural areas.

21. Airports [Policies T22/T23 & 's.7.172-7.176, p76]

Friends of the Earth request that policies be included in the plan on air transport. It is not satisfactory that the text of the plan should allude to future expansion of the two main airports in the County, but provide no identified policy to control this growth.

The structure plan must provide a policy to control the development of air travel in the County. Such policy should seek to control transport to the airports, development of facilities on each site. The policy should also set environmental criteria to control the damaging effects of air transport development.

22. Telecommunications [Policy T24 & 's.7.177-7.179, p76]

The telecommunications section appears, in our view, to present a fatalistic acceptance that radio masts must be tolerated - we do not agree.

Under permitted development powers telecommunications companies have erected many telecommunications towers, primarily for cellular telephone networks. The towers, because of the laxity on the General Development Order, have been allowed to despoil the visual landscape. We believe that the structure plan should encourage local planning authorities to use article 4 directions to protect important scenic landscapes from any telecommunications development that would damage the landscape.

Additionally, Policy T24 only seems to consider radio telecommunications - this is not the only problem. There are also problems with telephone lines and power transmission lines.

There is an alternative not suggested in the plan. The main reason for the use of telecommunications towers (excepting cellular radio systems) is that microwave and UHF systems provide greater 'bandwidth' for the transmission of data as compare to the traditional telephone 'copper trunk' system. But with the advent of fibre optics and laser powered multiplex transmission systems, this is no longer the case.

When considering visually intrusive overhead telephone lines and microwave links, the plan should be promoting the benefits of replacing existing overhead copper trunk cables with fibre optics. This reduces power consumption, decreases the need for maintenance and improves the carrying capacity so enabling many lines to be carried in one fibre. These three factors together mean the overall cost of putting the fibre optics below ground is less than burying copper lines, when discounted over the life of the fibre optic. Services previously carried by radio or above ground cables can then be transferred to fibre optic systems and the visually intrusive poles, cables and masts removed. Increased use of fibre optics and digital technology also improves the information capacity of the line, enabling new economic opportunities to be exploited locally such as telecottages.

With cellular telephone/radio systems, unless there is an overriding public need for the services (such as the repeater stations used by police, ambulance and fire services), these should not be permitted in the National Parks in open hilltop locations, and they should be severely restricted elsewhere. Cellular radio systems could still be developed in the parks, but they should be developed at low levels, preferable as part of existing buildings/settlements.

The plan must seek to control telecommunications development where it has an impact on the landscape - both through controlling development s that require planning permission, and through withdrawing permitted development rights in important areas. The alternatives to radio communications, and the benefits of high capacity fibre-optic systems should also be promoted in the plan.

23. Housing Provision and Density [chpt.8(I), Policies H1, H3 & H5, p77-90]

The figures for housing 'need' used in the structure plan are based upon demographic data. However, once put in the plan, how those targets are acted upon is entirely dependent upon the whim of developers. Friends of the Earth request that as the figures are based on demographic data, and that the groups which make up that data all have their own particular housing need, the plan should set more detailed targets for general types of housing that need to be provided. These general guidelines can then be set in detail within each local plan.

Related to this, the structure plan should address the issue of housing density. Local plans can address the detailed design of housing development, but the structure plan should seek to address the issue of housing density, and the use of multiple occupation/low-rise housing developments in order to provide the required housing need with the minimum land take as possible.

It is not sufficient for the structure plan to simply calculate housing need. The plan must address the types and density of housing development in order to meet the 'need' of different groups in society, and to minimise the land take of housing development. We leave the wording of such changes to the planning authority.

24. Gypsy Sites [Policies H8, H9 & 's.8.118-8.121]

Friends of the Earth object to the wording of the gypsy site policies since they are overtly racist. For example, the criteria specified in Policy H9 are not required for other types of housing development.

Recent legislation has removed the requirement on the Authority to provide sites, but we consider it essential that sites are created for travellers who inhabit the area. We wish to see a policy created which allows for...
The creation of sites by the local authority where they are needed, or by travellers who wish to purchase/operate their own sites;
Where travellers are able to purchase their own site, they should be able to develop it either for caravans, or for covered structures such as tents, benders, yurts and teepees. The aim should be to make the site as 'low-impact' as possible so that if they wish to vacate the land at a future date it can easily be returned to agriculture.

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.

Friends of the Earth request that the section on gypsy sites is redrafted to remove the bias against this particular cultural group, and to encourage groups to set up their own sites to meet their needs. Encouragement should also be given for gypsies and travellers to develop their settlements in as low-impact a manner as possible.

25. Employment Development and Job Creation [chpt.8(II), Policies E3 & E4, p93-102]

Policies E3 and E4 allocate employment development land in a very general manner. Friends of the Earth would like to see more detail regarding the 'aims' of these policies in terms of how many jobs per hectare we expect these policies to create.

We presume when devising these figures that the County Council used a formula that considered the needs of different employment use, and how many jobs each use creates. It is important that these 'ideal' figures are implemented correctly otherwise we may have too many jobs created, and there will be a greater demand for transport or housing, or there will be too few jobs and we will have more unemployment. Currently there are around 39,000 unemployed in Devon. If we assume that on average employment land makes 37 jobs per hectare (15 jobs per acre) the land allocated in the plan will only create 28,675 jobs. This is obviously not enough to meet current "need", and in fact it is an underestimate since it does not consider the effect of population growth and inward migration.

Policies E3/E4 should emphasise the need to maximise the yield of jobs per unit area. This will mean encouraging the efficient use of development land through design, and discouraging those uses which generate few jobs per unit area - this means restricting warehousing. We leave the wording of the changes to the planning authority.

26. Sustainable Tourism Strategy [Policies E5, E6, E8, & 's.8.186-8.236, p103-110]

There appears to be little attempt in the tourism section of the plan to consider the wider implications of how sustainable development relates to tourism. The impact of the tourist industry, especially in Devon and Cornwall, creates many problems - such as litter, waste generation and transport congestion - but at the same time it is a necessary part of the local economy. However, if the very landscape people come to visit is not developed sustainably for tourism, then badly designed facilities, the erosion of 'beauty spots', and the ever increasing need to build roads to serve car-bound tourists, visitors could destroy that which they come to see. FoE suggest that the County Council institute a consultation exercise, perhaps as part of the Local Agenda 21 consultation process, to get an agreement between all interest groups of a 'code of practice on tourism developments'. This COP could then consider issues of sustainability in details, and it would be expected that any new tourism development meet the conditions of the COP as part of the application. It could also set minimum standards, to be applied as part of planning conditions, covering things such as septic waste disposal, waste disposal and recycling, landscaping and design.

Additionally, there should be a general requirement for all tourist facilities to, wherever possible, be served by public transport, and in the case of large developments cycleways, bus stops and bus priority should be provided. Where the development is near to a railway station, consideration should be given to funding improvements to the station and links to it. All tourist developments should cater for cyclists.

The structure plan should seek to enable the compilation of a sustainable tourism code of practice, and the COP should be considered as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications for tourist facilities.

27. Public Rights of Way [ 's.8.237-8.242 & Policy E13, p110]

Friends of the Earth object to Policy E13 as it only relates to the long distance footpath and cycleway networks, and the failure to address the issue of the types of vehicle using these routes and the damage/erosion that this can cause.

Policy E13 should apply to all public rights of way, and it should address the problem of motorised vehicles using off-road routes and seek to restrict their use.

28. Minerals & Aggregates [Policies E14, E18 & 's.8.243-8.268, p112-114]

Friends of the Earth consider that the minerals chapter needs a major overhaul.

Latest Government guidance also stresses the usage of 'secondary' aggregates, such as construction waste and quarry spoil, and sets targets for usage. The plan should be setting its own targets and considering how the use of secondary aggregates can be encouraged.

Since PPG12 requires development to be 'sustainable', we must begin by considering if minerals extraction is sustainable within the national park. Consideration of the sustainability of minerals extraction is very difficult since the whole notion of the activity - the mining of a finite resource - is completely unsustainable. The concept of the 'sustainability of minerals extraction is discussed in paragraphs 18.4-18.8 of "Sustainable Development: The UK Strategy". The appraisal in "Sustainable Development" is vague, but it presents a rather different picture than that taken in the structure plan. The main points from the comment on the EC's Fifth Environmental Action Programme in paragraph 18.8 a sustainable minerals policy would be characterised by...
positive policies to conserve raw materials;
ensuring the efficient and effective use of raw materials;
encouraging recycling and use of secondary materials;
consideration of whether high quality resources which are limited in supply require special husbanding.

The policies in the plan are very much a 'business as usual' approach to minerals planning which gives a very low priority to the reuse of wastes as aggregates.

If we take points above as the main points of any 'sustainable' minerals plan, the deposit draft fails to properly consider any of the points in a structured way. The planning authority should be promoting these policies within the plan in order to meet the requirement to consider 'sustainability' within the development plan as a whole. For example, MPG6 sets a target for the reclamation/reuse of materials as secondary aggregates. We believe that the plan should set a Devon target for the production of secondary aggregates.

To resolve this objection we request that the planning authority...
Set a target in the plan for the usage of recycled/secondary aggregate up to the year 2006 (set at a mass at least equivalent to 15% of the area's annual aggregates production);
Include specific policies in the plan to promote the use of recycled aggregates in the area. This should encompass both the large scale use of secondary aggregates in construction, and the recycling of building materials by local companies.
Sites should be identified, in line with MPG6, where companies can set up aggregates recycling plants. These should, if possible, be located at existing minerals extraction sites where there would be little excess environmental impact.

29. Shopping Facilities [Policy E20 & 's.8.269-8.274, p115]

Friends of the Earth object to Policy E20 because it does not place sufficient emphasis on the protection of the town centre retail areas above the 'ability' of developers to develop out-of-town. We do not consider that the policy institutes the guidelines of PPG6 in terms of the hierarchical approach to the location of new retail development.

Friends of the Earth propose that the words 'wherever possible' are deleted from Policy E20. This change puts correct emphasis on development in the town centres, but does not prohibit development on edge-of-town or out-of-town sites.

30. New Communities [ .5.32, p23; chpt. 8(III) & Policies N1-N3, p119-121]

Friends of the Earth object to the new community proposals as they currently stand, not because we object to the notion of the 'new community', but because there is no detail as to how these new communities will be structured.

If we consider recent Government guidance such as PPG13, or the Sustainable Development Strategy, these policies promoted by these documents are difficult to implement because of the problems of "retrofitting" modern practice on old development patterns. But by starting from scratch it is possible to build in modern sustainable features such as car-free housing estates, urban planning that allows use of walking and cycling as the easiest form of getting around, and the development of public utilities and residential design standards that implement the highest levels of resource and energy efficiency.

We also have to consider the function of the settlements. If the settlements are developed as satellite dormitories for the regional centres, there will be problems about developing an identifiable 'community'. The DoE published a research report, "Alternative Development Pattern: New Settlements" (1993), explored the whole issue of how it is possible to go about planning a new settlement, but no reference is made to it in the plan.

Friends of the Earth are concerned that there is insufficient 'thought' being given do the form/structure of the new communities, particularly with regard to the sustainability aspects. None of these issues identified above are adequately explored in the new communities section of the plan. Further specific details should be given in the plan on how these new communities will be designed/developed to be sustainable.

31. Implementation, Monitoring & Review [chpt.19, p125-127]

Friends of the Earth are concerned that the monitoring and implementation chapter fails to set performance indicators and targets as a means of quantifying the workings of the plan, and the achievement of policy aims.

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' 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 on pages 125-127 of 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'.

32. Light Pollution [Suggested New Policy]

Friends of the Earth request the addition of a policy in the plan covering the erection and design of street lighting and floodlighting. Recently, there has been concerned expressed by a number of groups, for example the British Astronomical Society, about the level of 'light pollution' in the UK. Especially in rural areas such as the Dartmoor or North Devon, badly constructed and inappropriate lighting can create a great deal of visual intrusion (Dartmoor Prison is a very striking example).

We seek a policy to require that developers, when erecting street lighting, floodlights or spot lights, to select types of light which minimise the light 'spill', and direct the light only where required. Excessive or intrusive levels of street lights or flood lighting should not be allowed.

We do not wish to specify a particular wording but we suggest...

ALL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE EXPECTED TO MINIMISE THE LEVELS OF LIGHT GENERATED DURING THE HOURS OF DARKNESS BY CONTROLLING THE PERIOD WHEN LIGHTING IS IN OPERATION, OR BY THE USE OF LIGHTING SYSTEMS WHICH DIRECT LIGHT TO WHERE IT IS NEEDED, AND MINIMISE THE SPILL OF LIGHT INTO THE SKY. CONDITIONS WILL BE APPLIED TO DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING PARTICULARLY INTRUSIVE LIGHTING SYSTEMS, REQUIRING RESTRICTION ON THE DURATION OF USE, INTENSITY AND TYPE OF LIGHTS USED.

As stated in DoE/Welsh Office guidance on planning conditions, where the control of light pollution cannot be adequately secured through the use of conditions, we would expect that planning permission would be refused.

We request that the planning authority include a policy on light pollution in the plan similar to that suggested above.

33. Planning Obligations [Suggested New Policy]

Friends of the Earth request the addition of a policy covering planning obligations. 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 that which 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 planning 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 and obligations applied to all planning applications, no matter which particular category they fall into.

We leave the detailed wording of such a policy to the local planning authority.

34. Self-build Housing [Suggested New Policy]

Friends of the Earth object to the lack of any policy on 'self-build' housing developments, and the failure to identify a 'quota' within the housing allocation for Devon to be met through self-build schemes.

Especially in rural areas, self-build offers a way for people to have access to affordable housing. There should be policies relating to self-build housing in the plan, and if possible some areas within the larger settlements.

The plan should set up a framework for permitting self-build schemes. We leave the wording of such a policy to the Authority.

35. Green Belts [Suggested New Policy]

Friends of the Earth consider that consideration should be given to the establishment of green belts around Exeter and Plymouth, some 6 to eight miles wide. This would perform the long-term aims of... {tab}{tab}Preventing the coalescence of the cities and their surrounding towns/villages; {tab}{tab}Encouraging the reuse of land within the cities instead of greenfield sites on the perimeter; {tab}{tab}By restricting the outward growth of the urban area, it may also encourage greater intensification of development in urban areas with a resultant lowering on the land-take necessary to meet housing and industrial land allocations.

Although the plan seeks to address the needs of future development through the development of new communities, FoE believe that in order to protect the countryside around the urban areas in the long term it is necessary to create green belts.

C. Support for policies in the Structure Plan Draft

Expressions of support for policies in development plans are not normally considered at inquiries or EIPs. For this reason we have simply listed those paragraphs and policies which we support. If a further detailed explanation of the reason why these policies have been supported, this can be provided on request.

Development Strategy - Policy S1
Environmental Protection - .4.6
Transport Strategy - .4.27, 's.7.6/7.7, Policies T2, T3, T5-T10, T13, T15-21.
Nature and Landscape Conservation - Policies C3 to C13, Policies C15 to C17, Policies C25/C26, Policies C28-C30.
Housing - Policies H2, H4, H6 & H7.
Employment - Policies E1, E2, E7, E10-E12, E15-E18, E21-E24.
New Communities - Policies N4, N5.
Environmental Appraisal

END OF DOCUMENT

return to home page