Save Our Sidmouth

SOS official response to the revised planning application for the Knowle

Leave a comment

Readers may like to extract information from the document below, to use in their own objections to the latest Knowle plans.




Comments on further documents submitted by EDDC.


  1. 1.    Derogation Tests, Protected Species and Trees and Bats Survey.

The Derogation Tests document submitted by Bell Cornwall, dated October 2012, sets out the 3 tests, the requirements of which EDDC should take due regard of prior to any grant of planning permission. Bell Cornwall refer to the requirement as set out in Regulation 3(4) 1994 Habitats Regulations. These Regulations have now been superceded by the Conservation of Habitats Regulations 2012. The legal obligation to have due regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive is set out in Regulation 9(5). The purpose of the 2012 Regulations is “so as to secure compliance with the Habitats Directive” (Reg.9(1)). The tests however remain the same.

Test 1 requires that the proposed development preserves public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.

Bell Cornwell simply assert that the proposed development will contribute to housing needs and the provision of a care home. No further evidence is provided in respect of this test.

The proposed development clearly makes no contribution to the preservation of either public health or public safety. The question for EDDC is therefore whether the proposed development can be regarded as satisfying an imperative reason of overriding public interest, which has beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.

Is the desire of EDDC to relocate an imperative reason, which overrides the public interest? The term imperative suggests that the project should be indispensable. That is clearly not the case here.

The term overriding suggests that the balance of the public interest must clearly outweigh the conservation interests of the European Protected Species present on the site. Conservation interests are long-term, whereas the interests of EDDC in relocating would appear to be medium term at best. In addition, the proposed development has yet to prove that it will have beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment. For example, the mitigation and enhancement measures proposed by the Applicant have yet to be approved by the statutory body responsible for biodiversity interests, Natural England.

Test 2 requires that there be no satisfactory alternative to the proposed development. This matter has been addressed previously, and, at the present time, it is clear that the issue of alternatives to the proposed development has by no means been exhausted.

Test 3 is addressed by Devon Wildlife Consultants (DWC), and requires that the action authorised (i.e. the proposed development) will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

DWC have produced 3 further updated reports regarding bats and roosts. Report 12/1882 confirms the presence of one pipistrelle roost and 3 lesser horseshoe bat roosts, one a maternity roost in Building B. Report 12/1906a, Tree Assessment for Roosting Bat Species notes that 7 trees due for removal have a high potential for roosting bats.

As a consequence DWC recommend that a number of further surveys be undertaken. These include;

  • A survey to ascertain important flight lines and foraging routes across the site, to be undertaken between May and September (presumably 2013).
  • A further internal inspection of Buildings A and B to be undertaken over winter.
  • A survey to ascertain the main flight paths to and from the lesser horseshoe roost in Building B, to be undertaken between May and September.
  • Further surveys of trees on the site for the presence of roosts to be undertaken between May and September.

Given this acknowledged lack of data concerning the presence of bats and their roosts, their flight paths and foraging routes, and the likely effects of demolition and construction works, all of which have relevance for the likely impact of the proposed development on this European Protected Species it is difficult in the extreme to reasonably conclude, at this stage, as do DWC and Bell Cornwall, that the Derogation Tests can be satisfied.

This lack of relevant information lends additional weight to our previous submission where we questioned the conclusion of the Screening Opinion dated September 2012. Without this information it is not possible to conclude, as did the Screening Opinion, that the proposed development would be unlikely to have any significant effects on the environment.

  1. 2.    Planning Support Statement, Bell Cornwall, amended October 2012.

The greater part of the amended report simply reiterates Bell Cornwall’s views on the merits of the proposed development with reference to planning policy. These matters have been addressed in our previous objection, and it is not proposed to repeat such here.

Paragraph 2.14 of the Amended Report acknowledges that as the emerging LDF is still at an early stage it will not carry any significant weight in the determination of this application. Nevertheless, Bell Cornwell refer to emerging Policy ED02 in support of this application (see paras. 2.45 and 2.49).

The sections of the Report from para. 2.23 et seq on housing acknowledge that 40% affordable housing has been factored in to the illustrative layout. However, Policy H4 of the adopted Local Plan requires 40% affordable housing subject to the viability of such provision. To date no viability assessment has been undertaken, and failing such, the viability of the proposed development has not been established, and consequently the provisions of Policy H4 remain unmet.

Criterion 3 of LP Policy E3 requires that it be established that there is a surplus of employment land in the vicinity (Bell Cornwall para 2.27), where a proposal involves the loss of employment land. No evidence has been produced by the Applicant to prove that there is such a surplus of employment land. Options for retaining the site have not been fully explored, and the requirements of Policy E3 are not met.

In addition, Bell Cornwall at para. 2.27, assert that the proposal does not envisage any loss of employment in terms of Council staff. Para. 3.10 of the same Report acknowledges the potential loss of 55 jobs in the Sidmouth area, with a net loss of 33 jobs being likely.

Para.2.30 of the Report recognises that a “critical part of the proposal” is to ensure that interests of nature conservation importance have been identified and adequately addressed through protection and enhancement. As set out above, it is clear that these interests have not been fully identified, that likely impacts remain uncertain, and measures to ensure protection and enhancement are still far from being secured.

Para 3.12 makes reference to efficiency gains, costs savings and/or a reduction in the local tax burden. There has been no evidence of any such gains, savings or reductions submitted to accompany this application, and consequently, unless such evidence is forthcoming, no weight at all can be given to such vague, unsupported, wishful thinking.

Para 3.27 et seq of the Report addresses concerns relating to the loss of recreational land, seeking to downplay the loss of 0.89ha, describing such as a “small” area (para.3.32). LP Policy RE1 envisages no loss of recreational land, however “small”, save where the criteria of Policy RE1 are met. As previously discussed, these criteria which could permit the loss of recreational land have not been met.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s