Proposed relocation and expansion of Westward Ho! Tennis Club to land off Silford Road, Northam, north Devon.

Proposed relocation and expansion of Westward Ho! Tennis Club to land off Silford Road, Northam, north Devon. Torridge District Council planning application reference 1/481/2010/FULM on behalf of Westward Ho! Tennis Club. REPORT ON PLANNING POLICY ISSUES Prepared for Mr & Mrs J Horn, Mr & Mrs I Black, Mr & Mrs J Prank, Mr & Mrs B Stevens, Mr & Mrs J Boltman, Mr & Mrs F Catterick, Mr & Mrs McMurray, Mr & Mrs C Dobson, Mr & Mrs S Pearce, Mr & Mrs S Wiseman, Mr J Bennett, Mr D Jones, Mr J Daniel, Mr & Mrs P Gowar, Mr & Mrs V Patel, Mrs G Badcock, Mrs A Yeo, and others who object to this application. Planning Independent Planning Consultant, Bideford info@paulgreenplanning.co.uk 01237 471104 (v.3) July 2010

This page is deliberately left blank for printing purposes Planning 2

Planning Application for the relocation of Westward Ho! Tennis Club Torridge District Council reference 1/481/2010/FULM Planning This is a summary of a review of planning policy issues against which the application on behalf of the Westward Ho! Tennis Club should be considered. Summary The main issues are 1 The policies of the local plan should be read as a whole, not as a series of unconnected statements (para 1.6, Torridge District Local Plan) which is the case with most policy documents. 2 - the development boundary of Bideford/Northam has been drawn so as to accommodate the anticipated requirements for the area, including those needed to meet strategic requirements and other opportunities. Development outside of the boundary should be on the basis of a comprehensive review (policy DVT1and supporting text) 3 - the site is located in the countryside for planning purposes. The proposed use is not one that is identified as acceptable in this location (relevant policy DVT2C and supporting text) 4 - policy ENV 1 requires the protection of the conservation interest unless the need for the proposed development in this location outweighs the conservation interest 5 - the site is within a Rural Gap. The proposed use does not meet the requirements for development in such a location (policy ENV6 and support) 6 - the boundaries of Rural Gaps have deliberately been drawn to exclude those areas that may have potential for recreation use (para 6.61B, Torridge District Local Plan) 7 - existing (PPS7) and emerging (draft PPS on Natural and Healthy Environment) government planning policy seek to protect the countryside in a manner currently provided by the Local Plan, and the draft PPS notes the European Landscape Convention and the value it gives to all types of landscape 8 - enhancement of settlement edges is an objective in this particular Landscape Character Area of the District (policy EVN5 and Figure 9A), as is the management of historic field patterns 9 - if an historic field pattern exists, it might be regarded as a Heritage Asset in terms of PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment) and an assessment of its importance should be submitted 10 - policy HSC14 of the plan recognises that additional recreation facilities may be needed to meet private or community needs and provides criteria against which proposals can be considered which include recreation that is necessary, meets local needs and cannot be located in a settlement because of lack of other suitable sites Planning 3

11 - policy HSC 22 treats indoor sports facilities as community services and supports their provision provided that the site is located in the best available place with regard to the community to be served and the scheme would not be unreasonably detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring residents 12 - an assessment of the need for open space, sport and recreation in the district that complies with PPG17 is in preparation but not yet completed or approved for planning purposes by the District Council 13 evidence of need included in the local plan is dated and the draft of a PPG17 compliant assessment does not, in my view, support the argument of a shortfall in provision of indoor or outdoor tennis and badminton courts on either a quantitative or community preference basis. On the information available it is difficult to substantiate the view that there is a significant unmet need in the community (as opposed to within the Westward Ho! Tennis Club) for additional racket sports provision and certainly not sufficient to warrant a breach of the strong policy presumption against development in this locality 14 the application as submitted does not provide draft legal guarantees of community access and the suggested public access time of 2 hours per day is insufficient to override the strong policy presumption against development in this locality. In light of these issues, I do not consider that the proposal for a multi use rackets sports facility off Silford Road, Northam, accords with the development plan policies currently operating in the Bideford/Northam area. Neither do I consider that there are sufficiently convincing material considerations that warrant departing from these established policies. Independent Town Planner July 2010. Planning 4

Planning Application for the relocation of Westward Ho! Tennis Club Planning Introduction This paper reviews the planning policy framework against which planning application reference 0481/2010 should be considered. It refers primarily to the Saved Policies of the Torridge District Local Plan 1997 2011, together with other policy documents as appropriate. Background In April 2010 Torridge District council refused planning permission for application reference 1/0980/2009/FULM which comprised The reason for the refusal of permission was The proposed development lies outside the Bideford/Northam/Westward Ho! Development Boundary within a rural gap, the material consideration of community benefit/enhanced recreational facilities on this site is not considered to outweigh the planning policy objection and would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the open countryside and an adverse impact on the amenities of surrounding residential properties contrary to the aims of Policies DVT2C, DVT11 and ENV6 of the Torridge District Local Plan.. Present Position A revised application for Multi-use Racket Sports Facility (including 4 Internal and 4 External Tennis Courts one of which can be used as 4 Badminton Courts), 3 Squash Courts and 2 Sports/Gym/Recreational Rooms and associated facilities, Landscape Scheme, Terraced Car Park and Associated Works was validated by the Local Planning Authority on 8 th June 2010 and given the reference number 1/0481/2010/FULM. The application was submitted on behalf of the Westward Ho! Tennis Club. Although apparently The application has been revised to accommodate concerns expressed on the previous proposal by the Planning Committee. Amongst other amendments, the revised application includes a detailed Planning 5

assessment of the need for this facility, a revised landscape scheme incorporating landscaping and ecology enhancements, and an agreed Framework Travel Plan (applicants Planning Statement para 2.1). it is substantially the same as that for which planning permission was refused in April 2010 and there do not appear to be any significant changes to the proposed uses. The site is generally adequately described in the submitted documents and this description is not repeated in detail here. It is sufficient to say that there is agreement that the site is open countryside, in agricultural (grazing) use outside but adjoining the development boundary of the Bideford/Northam area. Policy Background Unless material considerations warrant otherwise, planning applications are required to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan in force for the area if that Plan has relevant policies. In addition to the policies in the development plan, a very wide range of issues are capable of being material considerations in the determination of planning applications but the weight to be given to them in decision making varies considerably. For the purposes of this application, the Development Plan comprises any adopted parts of the new Torridge Local Development Framework (LDF) and older but saved policies. As yet there are no adopted LDF documents, and older policies of the Torridge District local Plan continue in force, the principal documents relevant to this application are - The saved policies of the Devon Structure Plan 2001 2016 (DSP) - The saved polices of the Torridge District Local Plan 1997 2011 (TDLP) - Relevant Supplementary Planning Documents, and, - Relevant national planning policy in Planning Policy Statements (PPS), or equivalent. The policy provisions of the local plan are used as the framework for the remainder of this paper. (The Government revoked existing Regional Spatial Strategies, on 6 th July 2010 although this has little impact on the consideration of this application). Relevant Policies Development Boundary The TDLP identifies a hierarchy of settlements to implement its development strategy. Strategic development requirements are accommodated within the strategic centres of which the Bideford/Northam/Appledore/Westward Ho! Area is identified as the Principal Centre. The settlement strategy and settlement policies of the plan use development boundaries to guide the location of new development to appropriate locations. This ensures that acceptable development in appropriate locations is facilitated and prevents ad hoc proposals from undermining the general provisions of the development plan, in the interests of sustainable development, settlement self sufficiency and countryside protection (TDLP para 3.6A). The development boundary, as provided for in Policy DVT1, and shown on the Proposals Map, is therefore a central element of the plan s approach to, and provision for, sustainable development. Specifically, it contains development allocations needed to meet strategic requirements and other Planning 6

development opportunities (para 3.34). The application site lies outside the identified development boundary. Policies ST1(3) and ST3 of the DSP provide the starting point for local plan policy DVT1. These refer to the inclusion of a range of community needs and facilities when local authorities provide for development, including social and cultural needs and recreation. The local plan reference to strategic requirements and other development opportunities indicates therefore that it has had regard to meeting this strategic requirement within the defined development boundary. The release of any additional land for development outside of the boundary should be part of its comprehensive review as part of the preparation of LDF documents and not undertaken on an ad hoc basis. This is a key part of the plan-led system.. and the certainty and predictability it aims to provide, is central to planning and plays the key role in integrating sustainable development objectives. (PPS1, Delivering Sustainable Development, para 8). The fact that the other sites (within or outside the development boundary) which have been considered as alternative locations for the proposed multi sports centre are not considered appropriate is not, in itself, sufficient reason to breach this fundamental policy of the plan. Countryside development As the application site lies outside the development boundary of the Principal Centre and not within another settlement (whether or not identified in the local plan) the relevant location policy of the plan is DVT2C Development in the Open Countryside. It is useful to note that the plan s definition of Countryside is Land outside the development boundaries of the Strategic Centres and not at the Villages (pg 212). Only a limited range of development is acceptable in such locations. Subject to acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area, possible uses are (a) the conversion of a previously used building or a redundant agricultural building for employment reuse; (b) agricultural, countryside recreational, and /or identified types of tourist development and /or other development that is related to appropriate farm diversification; (c) the alteration, improvement, redevelopment and /or minor extension of a building for purposes directly related to its established use; (d) the provision of small scale rural business developments and other local services and /or utilities for which there is a proven need. (Policy DVT2C). Countryside recreational and tourist development mentioned in clause (b) of the policy refer to... development that is related to appropriate farm diversification not to any form of countryside recreation or tourist use. This is confirmed by para 3.52 which states that The policy facilitates farm diversification... and by the list of acceptable types of tourist development included in the Structure Plan and retained without amendment by the local plan (para 4.62A). Planning 7

Although the applicants supporting statement makes reference to possible tourism benefits from the sports centre the use does not fall into one of these acceptable development categories as it does not relate to farm diversification. Therefore the proposal is contrary to policy DVT2C. Also, it is not a form of countryside recreation. As this policy directly implements strategic policy and national guidance as set out in PPS7 (for example, para 16) it must be given considerable weight in the decision on the application. Designated Landscape Areas and other Environmental Protection The Councils keynote policy that sets conservation needs at the heart of decision making on development proposals (para 6.8) is Policy ENV1. It requires, inter alia that Development will be expected to effect.. to protect or enhance the distinctive... landscape features and characteristics of the area.. and requires incorporation of conservation and enhancement measures and the maintenance or enhancement of biodiversity. The policy includes a requirement that, where the benefits of the development outweigh the conservation interest, loss and disturbance to the natural environment is minimised and mitigation measures secured. Para 6.9 identifies the following (among others) - important landscape features, special qualities of designated areas, the setting of settlements, the unspoilt nature of the rural area, the tranquillity of the countryside and landscapes of historic interest - as important features that must be protected. The key test of this policy, therefore, is whether the need for the development is so great that it outweighs the conservation interests the plan seeks to protect. Only if that is the case does the adequacy of the mitigation measures become a key issue. This issue is considered further below. On the local plan Proposals Map the site is identified as being within a Rural Gap, and subject to Policy ENV6. The relevant part of Policy ENV6 is Within the Rural Gaps as defined on the Proposals Map, development will be expected to mitigate any adverse effect on the natural appearance of the designated area or the separate identity of settlements with measures that seek to maintain or enhance the surrounding landscape. The purpose of the Rural Gaps is to conserve and enhance the character of the gaps between settlements and the plan refers specifically to amenity land, historic field systems and mixed woodland that may occur in these locations (para 6.59A). The areas subject to the Rural Gap policy are also Countryside, where policy DVT2C applies. Other aspects of the Local Plan reasoned justification (i.e. the supporting and explanatory paragraphs) for Policy ENV6 are important. These include - Para 6.60 The policy provides for development necessary for the economic or social well being of such areas - Para 6.61B The Rural Gaps are areas of development restriction. The gradual and mature Planning 8

transition from urban to rural landscapes between Bideford, Northam, and Westward Ho! will be conserved and enhanced. Intermediary areas of transition between the built-up urban area and the open countryside have not been included in the gaps. Such areas of urban fringe may continue to evolve and may have recreation development potential - Para 6.61C Forms of rural development that would give a gap a developed appearance will not be permitted. Taken together, these statements mean that 1 appropriate development is permissible in the rural gap providing it conserves and enhances the character of the gap, 2 only development that is necessary for the social or economic well being of the area (i.e. the area covered by the designation) is permissible, 3 areas locally that may have recreation development potential have already been omitted from the boundaries of the rural gaps, and the application site is not regarded as an intermediary area of transition between the built-up area and open countryside, and, 4 a developed appearance to the area is not acceptable. While the extensive landscaping proposals for the site are acknowledged, the proposal does not meet these requirements associated with the rural gap. In any event the boundary of the areas of special landscape are drawn to enable recreation needs to be accommodated within the development boundary or in locations without special protection. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy ENV6 of the Local Plan. Existing national policy guidance on landscape protection is in PPS 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, 2004). This notes (para 1[iv]) the Government s overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all. Since publication of PPS7 the government has proposed a new PPS on Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment (Draft March 2010). This would require planning to conserve and enhance the natural environment (page 15) and, in the background Policy discussion, notes that The Government signed the Council of Europe s European Landscape Convention in February 2006 which became binding from March 2007. It requires all types of landscape, whether they are outstanding, ordinary or degraded to be valued, and advises that the characteristics of different areas be identified and assessed and landscape quality objectives identified for them. These objectives can then guide policy making and decision taking. Although as a draft the PPS does not have significant weight, it is clear in requiring (in Policy NE3.3) that in local development documents the policies should provide sufficient protection for these areas (i.e. landscapes outside nationally designated landscape areas that are particularly highly valued locally ) of landscape while not unduly restricting acceptable, sustainable development and economic activity. Planning 9

that it seeks to retain the broad approach already incorporated in the TDLP that the proposed development fails to meet. The site lies within the Settlements sub area of the Torridge Estuary and Setting Landscape Character Area as identified in The Torridge Landscape. Policy ENV5 of the Local Plan looks to ensure that development conserves or enhances the natural and historic character, natural beauty and amenity of the Torridge landscape on the basis of local landscape character, historical and cultural associations and identified landscape priorities. At this location the landscape character area objectives include Enhancement of settlement edges and Management of historic field patterns (TDLP Figure 9A). I understand that local research has identified the application site has historically been used for the winnowing of grain. This might indicate that the field boundaries may be of historical importance and the loss of the north south field boundary through the site might be significant. The submitted Landscape Statement does not appear to address this issue and neither does the consultation response of the County Archaeologist. The existing field system may be capable of classification as a Heritage Asset within the meaning of PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment) and as such the lack of an assessment of the asset means the application fails to meet the requirements of policy HE6 and should not be determined. Recreational Development and Community Needs The Planning Statement forming part of the application includes the following justification for the facility based on need 3.1 It is beyond doubt, and a commonly accepted principle, that there is a recognised shortfall in recreational space within the area and an overriding local need for greater levels of formal sports provision; specifically in terms of racket sports. To that end the application proposal presents an overriding community benefit which is considered should be afforded significant weight in its favour and 3.33 It is an accepted fact that Northam has a particularly acute shortfall in youth and adult sports provision, with Bideford also having a shortfall. Therefore, the identification of a location that serves the needs of Northam is a priority. With links to good access for residents of Bideford being important. The publically available documents submitted with the planning application contain no further information or justification for these statements. Two elements are covered by local plan policies the development of additional recreation facilities and the provision of community services. These elements are closely linked both in the policy Planning 10

framework and the application. Analysis of the proposal follows a summary of the policy framework. Policy Framework PPG 17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation is the current government guidance on this issue. It was originally published in the mid 1990 s but reissued in 2002. The Guidance requires Local authorities should undertake robust assessments of the existing and future needs of their communities for open space, sports and recreational facilities. Assessments will normally be undertaken at district level, although assessments of strategic facilities should be undertaken at regional or subregional levels. (para 1), and, Local authorities should also undertake audits of existing open space, sports and recreational facilities, (para 3). A Companion Guide provides detailed guidance on how such assessments should be undertaken and this has become the standard approach. Essentially, the process requires the local authority to adopt a rigorous, evidence based approach to existing provision and future needs. The Draft PPS on Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment, issued in March 2010, is proposed as a replacement for PPG 17. It is clear that the Government (subject to consultation) intended to retain the broad approach of PPG17, although the reissue of companion guidance has yet to be resolved. Information on recreation needs in Torridge is available in the local plan from the work undertaken by consultants Bennetts in producing a District Recreation Strategy in 1997, and by local survey at about the same time. It is evident from references in the plan that this information is not PPG17 compliant i.e. it has not been collected in the manner required to be a defendable basis for planning decisions, even though it has been accepted for such purposes as being the best available. The results of the 1997 work suggest there was no established need for additional tennis or Badminton courts in the Northam/Bideford area at the time (Appendix 5). However, a model of need for facilities not fully researched by Bennetts predicts the need, in Bideford/Northam, for 4-5 tennis courts, 7-9 badminton courts and 4 squash courts (Appendix 6), although it is not clear from the document when these will be required and if they are total or additional requirements. I understand that the Council is close to completing a PPG 17 compliant assessment, but the final report is not yet available. An incomplete draft is available that does not provide full information and is difficult to interpret in relation to outdoor tennis court provision as it is included with other outdoor activities (such as pitches, playing fields, MUGA s and bowling greens). The overall, general, conclusion however seems to be... However; the community demand for new facilities is low, with the exception of pitches and ATPs /MUGAs. (para 5.4.27 Draft version v1.5 Oct 09). Planning 11

With respect to indoor court facilities (which appears to include tennis and badminton) the draft finds 5.10.20 The small level of oversupply helps with accessibility, reducing the need to travel, and it allows for some population growth. 5.10.21 The assessments are incomplete, so the conclusions are only provisional. (draft version 1.5). I have been provided with a copy of an additional extract titled PPG17 Outdoor Sports Facilities Assessment Report. Tennis and Squash. June 2010. I understand that this document is also in the public domain, as a background paper to consideration of the application. It was prepared by KKP, the Councils consultants finalising the PPG17 study. The Assessment is based on information included in the draft PPG17 study referred to above and during its preparation the authors have consulted the Westward Ho! Tennis Club. The report finds that there is no identified need for more outdoor tennis courts in Torridge, although there is a possible lack of floodlit courts in the District, and no public courts in Bideford Parish. There also appears to be no overall shortfall and the use of existing school courts could increase supply. With respect to indoor tennis facilities, the report concludes there is no identified need and no shortfall in the District, although users may have to travel out of the area (to Barnstaple, where the Tarka Tennis Centre has expansion plans). It is claimed in the extract that the lack of indoor facilities inhibits tennis development although no evidence appears to be included to support this. No current need is identified for squash courts, and the report notes the view that the recent closure of courts may be due to management issues. Policy HSC14 of the plan recognises that additional recreation facilities may be needed to meet private or community needs and provides criteria against which such proposal can be considered. These include (a) the site is located in the best available place with regard to community need and likely recreational demand; and (b) the site and the access routes can accommodate the additional traffic; and (c) the scheme would not cause undue loss of amenity to nearby residents; and (d) adequate arrangements are made for access by public transport and for secured community use, establishment, aftercare, and maintenance. It is clear from this and the plans supporting text that the totality of the proposal needs to be considered not just the recreational benefits i.e. all 4 criteria must be met. In dealing with Countryside Recreation (it will be recalled that the site is in the countryside for the purposes of the plan s settlement hierarchy) paragraph 5.114 Planning 12

identifies the types of recreation development expected to locate in the countryside and these include (4) Other necessary recreation and leisure facilities that meet local needs and cannot be located within a settlement because of the lack of suitable space. This is not a policy statement and all applications need to be judged against the formal policies such as DVT1, DVT2C and ENV6, but it does introduce material considerations in the form of meeting local needs and lack of other suitable sites that need to be taken into account. Indoor sports facilities fall within Class D2 ( Assembly and Leisure ) of the Use Classes Order. Policy HSC22 of the TDLP regards such uses as community services and supports their development or retention subject to certain criteria as follows Development of new or improved community services... will be permissible within or adjoining the defined development boundaries and at Villages provided that the site is located in the best available place with regard to the community to be served and the scheme would not be unreasonably detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring residents. This statement also needs to be read with other policy statements and while, subject to the criteria, it offers support for schemes adjoining the development boundary it does not state or imply that this should override the additional protection given to special landscapes (through policy ENV6). Paragraph 1.6 of the Local Plan says The Plan should be read as a whole, not as a series of unconnected statements. In addition, the Council accepts that... a site is best placed where it is at a settlement and reasonably accessible to the population to be served with regard to local transport objectives. (TDLP para 5.167). Analysis A detailed appraisal of transport issues associated with the proposal is beyond the scope of this paper, as are issues related to amenity in respect of local residents (TDLP policy DVT 11). The issues that the policy framework for recreational development and community need raises include - Demand for the facility - Local community need for the facility - Community use and benefits (including securing such use) - Availability of other suitable sites. These are discussed in turn. Demand The demand for the facility is from existing members and the clubs desire to increase its membership. The submitted application documents do not identify the level of club members, or the proportion of members who play regularly. The submitted Planning Statement quotes the following as the current distribution of the Planning 13

membership Westward Ho! (17%) Northam (25%) Appledore (1.5%) Bideford (25%) East-the-Water (0.5%) Elsewhere south west via A39 (19.5%) Elsewhere east via A39 (11.5%) The location of the facility at Westward Ho! may not be ideal for such a distribution However, this in itself does not mean that any alternative site better placed in terms of existing demand for racket sport facilities than the existing site... would result in a reduction in the distance that people will need to travel for these facilities (Planning Statement para 3.35) because information on 1 where new members will live 2 where those who play other racket sports and may use the facilities currently live is not available. Community need No information on the need for additional tennis and other racket sports facilities is presented in the application. The Public Consultation Statement submitted with the application appears to be the same as that which accompanied the previous application in 2009. It refers to public consultations on the proposals. The initial consultation (Appendix 1of the applicants submitted Planning Statement) was with club members and relates to demand from them for new facilities. The second was wider (i.e. open to anyone) but related to views on specific proposals and did not assess need in the local community. The third consultation was similar. The Northam Parish Plan makes no mention of the need for additional tennis and badminton facilities although the Plan notes and supports the broad intention of the Tennis Club to relocate. The Town Council has, however, objected to both planning applications on this site. Reference to the general findings of the draft Local Needs Assessment is made above. The information is detailed, complex and difficult to interpret, but it appears that residents of Bideford Parish thought provision of tennis courts was not good (precise classification unspecified) but that it would not be beneficial to provide additional facilities nor were they a priority for future provision. In Northam Parish, residents appear to be evenly split on the adequacy of existing sports provision, but tennis is not identified as a priority future need (Section 5 Residents Survey, version 1.5). With specific respect to the Tennis and Squash Assessment summarised above, the overall impression of the report is that it would be nice to have additional facilities to aid the development of tennis, but there is no need or shortfall to justify these. Community use Planning 14

Adequate arrangements for secured community use of a new facility are required to secure compliance with policy HSC14 of the local plan. The planning application form does not mention use of the facility by the community. The supporting Planning Statement identifies 3 elements that contribute to community use of the centre - Club membership - Ability of schools to make arrangements to use the club facilities (supported by the clubs mini-bus) - The facilities being available to non members for 2 hours each day. In my view, the only one of these elements that genuinely amounts to community use is the public access period. The application documents do not state the period likely to be involved, but I understand that in the past this has been proposed as 2pm 4pm Monday to Friday. I am not aware of any generally accepted standard for the definition of community use, but in my view, such a limited period of 2 hours per day - at a time when most adults are likely to be working and children are likely to be at school - does not meet the requirements for adequate arrangements in policy HSC14 in terms of length of time or security of use. The application does not appear to include a draft S106 agreement or Unilateral Undertaking to make the facility available for community use. This is surprising considering that the previous application was refused because this, acknowledged material consideration, was not demonstrated to be strong enough to outweigh policy objections. Indeed, the officer s report on the previous application did not even require such an agreement to secure the community use, despite its acknowledged importance. In considering the application, the District Council will need to have regard not only to the identified community need but also to other provision that may be available to meet it. In this context the imminent opening of the new Bideford College facilities with community use of sports provision when not being used by the school is significant. In addition, this education based facility is more likely to be the first choice for use by other schools, if available, especially as the proposal at Silford Lane does not appear to include provision for coach parking and turning, which may be necessary to make the venue attractive to accommodate larger school parties. Availability of other sites It is beyond the scope of this report to comment on the other sites considered and discounted, or to offer additional alternatives. However, in passing, it is appropriate to comment on the issues related to site flooding which has a bearing on the availability of some sites. Planning Policy Statement 25 (Development and Flood Risk, March 2010) provides examples, in Annex D, of uses that may be accommodated in areas affected by different degrees of flood risk. In Flood Zone 3a, i.e. areas with a High Probability of river flooding (i.e. 1in 100) or sea flooding (i.e. 1 in 200), the following types of uses can, in principle, be accommodated (subject to suitable detailed issues such as design and access) Planning 15

- Those that are water compatible including outdoor sports and recreation, and, - Less vulnerable uses, including assembly and leisure. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment prepared for Torridge and North Devon District Councils in 2008 suggests that most land at Golf Links Road is not included in flood zone 3a,although that at the Cattle market in Bideford is subject to more severe flooding in Zone 3b. I am aware that more detailed work on flood risk is in preparation, but any results are not available in the Council s website and the application documents do not reveal any additional work undertaken in preparation for the submission. Conclusion This review of the planning policies relevant to the consideration of planning application reference 481/2010 for a multi use racket sports facility off Silford Road, Northam, demonstrates that - The proposal is contrary to applicable saved settlement, countryside and conservation policies of the Torridge District Local Plan, - There is little evidence from existing or emerging studies of community need for, or benefit from, the proposed facility. Although I have not examined the detailed amenity, design and transport policies against which the application will also be assessed such polices do not affect the issues of principle covered in this report. Detailed matters such as amenity and transport cannot redeem a proposal that is not acceptable in principle. Overall, my view is that the proposal does not accord with planning policies for the area and any material considerations that may legitimately be taken into account in reaching a decision are insufficiently strong to warrant granting planning permission.. July 2010. Planning 16