Strategic Planning Committee, 3 September 2024

00:00:16Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Very nice. If you can come up to the lecture and just press the button on the right-hand side, and then you'll have three minutes to speak. What, that one? On the right-hand side, sorry. That one? Yeah. So just press that. Switch it off. And if you don't switch it off, we can switch it off. All right.

00:01:01Okay. Good morning, everyone. First off, a health and safety announcement. There's no fire alarm drill anticipated today, so if the alarm sounds, please leave the building through the nearest fire exit by following the signs above the doors. Make your way to the rear of the car park and wait there until you're told it's safe to return. Finally, please make sure all phones are either muted or switched off, he says, as he's doing so himself.

00:01:28Okay good morning everyone and welcome to this Strategic Planning Committee meeting on tuesday the 3rd of september 2024 I'm your chair Councillor Todd olive to my right is vice chair Councillor Mike howe supporting officers present are Ed Freeman assistant director planning strategy and development management matt dickens planning policy manager damian hunter planning Solicitor and Debbie Meakin, Democratic Services Officer. Can I remind everyone present that this meeting is audio recorded for subsequent publication on the Council's website, so please can members and officers making a contribution to the meeting use a microphone or your comments will not be recorded. We will now start the meeting then by doing a roll call of committee members. Debbie, please. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Can I start with yourself, please, chair Councillor Olive present thank you Councillor Mike howe present thank you uh Councillor Brian bailey present thank you Councillor Jeff bailey has given apologies uh Councillor Next on my list Councillor Colin brown I'll tick you as in thank you we'll resolve that in a second uh Councillor Bethany collins has given her apologies Councillor Olive davy please present

00:02:51Thank you Councillor Paula fernley present thank you Councillor Paul hayward present thank you Councillor Ben ingham please uh thank you we'll resolve that in a second a little technical glitch there thank you very much Councillor Jeff young thank you uh Councillor Hoodie levine good morning good morning present thank you Councillor Helen parr present thank you I can confirm that that we're core at today chair thank you thank you Debbie and for the benefit of members of the public we have a new microphone system that today is the first time we're using it so please bear with us if there are any hitches with the live feed on the screen hopefully you can at least hear everyone agenda item one then apologies for absence Debbie so as said previously I've received apologies from Jeff Bailey and from Bethany Collins thank you chef thank you agenda item two then the minutes of the previous meeting of Strategic Planning Committee on 6th of August 2024 does anybody have any comments on those canceling him okay well as chair then I'll move the minutes of the

00:04:16Meeting held on the 6th of August 2024 as a true and accurate record members please raise your hand if you're in agreement okay then those are carried agenda item three declarations of interest Debbie so members if you could please raise your hand if you members of the committee if you do have a declaration to make now and then we'll move on to if there is anyone else in the room who needs to make a declaration so rather than go through the names if you need to make a declaration can you raise your hand please chair I think I'll declare on behalf of everyone in the room on every item that we've all been lobbied extensively by everyone thank you chair noted do I have any other members in the committee who need to declare I will take that as Councillor Davey do we need to declare for town councillors I would say that that's not necessary in this case as you've already got that on your register of interest yeah okay thank you are there any other members who happen to be in the room

00:05:26Who are staying for us this morning who will need to declare an interest on this morning's if you could step up to the public speaking microphone sorry to put you on the spot there Councillor And I will make a note of your declaration thank you very much thank you I believe it's an effects nri as a member and planner of Exeter city council thank you thank you very much I don't see any more so chair back to you thank you debbie we come then to agenda item four public speaking on any of the matters not related to site allocations I have here listed First, [member of the public] and then [member of the public].

00:06:16[member of the public], are you with us? Okay, thank you. [member of the public]? Hello. This is in relation to the report on the coastal preservation area and green wedge designation, the results of the public consultation. We have heard certainly in our community, and I read from the summary documents, It's been raised on several occasions, concerns about infrastructure capacity to meet the needs of future residents in the area. So, I noticed that in your last minutes, you have some unspent SIL funding, which could possibly be used for this purpose.

00:07:10So, my question is, what urgent measures does this council recommend to ensure infrastructure development will be prioritised? I can add, in response to that, I'll come to Mr. Freeman in a moment, but you will see Agenda Item 7 in a few items' time, the notes of the SEAL Working Party, where we are bringing forward a spend process for that 8 to 10 million that we have in the bank via the strategic infrastructure providers. Beyond that, I will come to Mr. Freeman.

00:07:43Thank you chair um good morning members um yes as the chair says um we have a seal member working party who have uh established a process for spending uh of the seal money that process has commenced with us writing out to the main infrastructure providers identified within our infrastructure delivery plan uh who are responsible for delivery to priority one projects we've given them I think it's six weeks to submit bids to us uh with view to reconvening the working group later in the year to consider those bids but as things stand yes there's approximately 10 million pounds of money there that can be accessed for infrastructure projects that help to deliver development coming forward in the district so we look forward to receiving bids from infrastructure providers and considering them later in the year thank you okay thank you mr Freeman are there any other items of public speaking debbie no that's it for this stage chair thank you thank you in that case then we move to agenda item five matters of urgency I have

00:08:49None listed has that changed no there are none okay thank you uh agenda item six to agree any items to be dealt with after the public have been excluded again I believe there are none again none chair thank you okay thank you uh we move then to agenda item seven notes of the community infrastructure levy working party held on the 1st of August that's pages 24 to 25 of your agenda paper members are there any questions or comments on those minutes no okay in which case then as chair I now move the minutes of the civil working party held on the 1st of August as a true and accurate record members please raise your hand if you're in support okay that's carried thank you very much members we then move to agenda item 8 a report on our housing requirements [member of the public] thank you chair so this first report is a bit of scene setting really for the rest of the day in terms of this talks about the housing requirements that needs to be met through the local

00:09:55Plan and through the allocations that you'll be discussing starting later on this agenda and through the meetings later this month so members will recall at our last meeting in August there's discussion around the requirements of the new draft national planning policy framework which is out consultation at the moment and the transitional arrangements and the conclusion of that meeting was that we need to progress the Local Plan and the damage to transitional arrangements with a requirement of at least 946 homes per year now this is based on the transitional arrangements that enable us to develop a plan there's no more than 200 dwellings below the new requirement figure that's coming through in the national planning policy framework of 1146 dwellings per annum so the consequence of not progressing the Local Plan within those transitional arrangements which require us to publish a regulation 19 version of the plan within one month of the government publishing the new national planning policy framework would be an increase in our housing numbers of at least 200 homes per year so it's

00:11:01Very important that we progress the plan as quickly as possible with expectations that the new national planning policy framework will be really sometime I would imagine between mid-october and the end of the year so that's a key issue that I'd ask members to bear in mind as we move forward today in terms of decision making on allocations and the need to progress the plans those figures now obviously in terms of the total requirement figure for the plan that That is basically the annualised figure of at least 946 homes over the years of the plan.

00:11:38Now, the government policy says that the plan has to cover a minimum of 15-year period. And obviously, we started off planning over a period of 2020 to 2040. But obviously, as work has progressed and time has gone on, we now envisage that adoption of the Local Plan won't now be until mid to late 2026. so the first recommendation in this report is that in order to have the plan that's at least 15 years in lifespan from adoption that we amend the time period of the plan so a plan end date of march 2042 is recommended so therefore the new Local Plan would cover the period 2020 to 2042 now as I say in terms of the housing requirement figure there's this need to meet this figure of at least 946 dwellings and significant consequences if we don't we also feel as officers that there's a need to build in some supply headroom now and this is to take in fact account of the fact that not all sites will necessarily come forward or come forward

00:12:46Within the timescales that we're envisaging so we have within the plan that's currently adopted and it is standard practice within local plans to build in some headroom to enable some sites that don't come forward and to give the market some choice in terms of what's delivered this also builds in some resilience into our five-year housing land supply calculations which members will be aware of is quite critical in the long run through the life of the plan that we make sure that we can maintain a five-year housing and supply position and the default position of the presumption in favour of sustainable development doesn't kick in.

00:13:22So application of the 10% headroom would raise the annualised provision to 1,041 dwellings as they would ensure the supply flexibility and longevity post-adoption of the plan. There is currently an issue in terms of delivering that 10% supply position. um as as things stand uh based on the recommendations within the reports before you today and reports that are coming to you later this month uh we only have a headroom position of 1.2 or 253 dwellings uh so members need to bear that in mind I would suggest as we move forward uh the allocations that we're looking to consider today and at future meetings uh that there isn't a great deal of headroom within the plan as things stand and that's something that we need to try and address as we move forward a small word of comfort on that point though is that the national planning policy framework does allow us to identify what's described as broad locations for growth for meeting housing supply in later years of the plan period so there is an option to say that in the latter years of the plan we don't necessarily need

00:14:32Allocations but we need broad locations for where growth and those allocations would be coming forward in the future I don't consider that to be a desirable way forward but it's a fall back if we can't deliver the necessary allocations I would suggest we need to keep that very much to a minimum and ideally just for the additional two years the planning period that we're adding into this process given that we were working to the 946 year homes per year figure in the previous iteration of the plan the draft Local Plan that members will recall went out to consultation at the end of 22 and into early 23. In terms of those broad locations for growth it's important to bear in mind that the Local Plan has a strategic policies within it which set out that strategy. I think that's potentially giving us indications of broad locations for growth based around the principal centre of Eczema from the main centres local centres and service villages within the settlement hierarchy but again I think if possible it would be good to be more

00:15:39Precise in terms of those locations for growth if we're going down that route just finally in terms of this report I'd just highlight in terms of the Local Plan evidence work that's ongoing I'm sure we're going to hear lots of concern about infrastructure I think we already have from one speaker particularly in terms of issues such as wastewater infrastructure which I know are particular concerns among the community at the moment members will be aware that in july you had a meeting a presentation from consultants producing a water cycle study for the council on that issue and we've subsequently met with southwest water and are working with them to understand the position and understand what actions need to be taken to improve the infrastructure and deliver that in step with development coming forward through this plan um these are issues that should not however impact on where sites are to be allocated in districts we have relatively few options in this regard as members will be aware and in any event planning does not have control over wastewater infrastructure

00:16:41All we can do is phase the delivery of development in line with the required enhancements being delivered by southwest water so it's not about so much where development goes and the scale of development is about the phasing when that comes forward and we are working with southwest water to understand how they intend to deliver the infrastructure and what time scales so that we can do that in terms of wider infrastructure there is an infrastructure delivery plan in production as well members will be aware we have an idp that dates back to 2017 that is currently being updated and we're consulting with key stakeholders so we understand the infrastructure that's needed to deliver the Local Plan and understand what's funding is available and how that can be delivered so that is work in progress which will be brought to members at a future meeting so just turning back to the recommendations then you see there are three recommendations to this report the first is that Strategic Planning Committee agree to extend the end date of the new Local Plan period by two years to the year 2042 the Strategic Planning Committee

00:17:45Agree the emerging Local Plan total housing requirements which is 20 812 dwellings but it's currently short of the officer recommended figure for an additional 10 percent of supply head room and three that Strategic Planning Committee note that the emerging Local Plan housing requirement can be met subject to agreement on site allocations at this and future meetings of the Strategic Planning Committee thank you chair thank you mr Freeman uh in the usual order of business then are there any questions from members of committee Councillor Ingham thank you chair on recommendation two if we were to approve as printed we've got 10 there which could be used against us in the future because it suggests your intent is 10 if we ratify that the inspector could at a later date say that's what you said in September 2024 so I'm cautious about that I do like what Mr Freeman said about perhaps being more flexible later on during the time period is there a question here my question is why are we putting that in if it's just an observation because this is about recommendations

00:19:12I'd rather that was taken out as part of the recommendation okay mr Freeman why is that in there and is it a problem potentially in the future if it remains um it's in the recommendation to highlight to members that um we are currently short of of that 10 headroom which um I'm recommending is something we should try and achieve through the plan whether it's noted in the recommendation or not that issue will still remain it's whether or not members want to formally note that as part of the recommendations that's that's that's up to members really it's there to just flag up the importance of that headroom yes with that in my part I'd like to propose those yeah I have the question is I think we've got a headroom at the moment on our Local Plan and what is that and also is it normal practice with other local authorities to have a headroom of 10% I believe at one time we were looking at 20% so it's 10% the right one it's 5% right one or something else mr. Freeman um I would say yes it is normal

00:20:40Practice to build in some headroom as I say you can't rely on the fact that every site is going to be delivered during the plan period and that's going to deliver in the timescales expected you obviously got windfalls which which also is built into these calculations um so you can't rely on windfalls being your headroom or building in headroom as well um I think it is good practice it's common practice I would say in terms of plans generally uh you then to have sort of 10 to 20 percent so the 10 is on the lower end of the headroom I think we should be aiming for and I think it's particularly important as members will be aware in terms of maintaining a five-year housing and supply position having that flexibility within the housing figures it builds a more resilient five-year housing and supply position in the future so that's the main reason for doing it in terms of the current Local Plan I'm sure there was headroom built into that I couldn't say off the top of my head how much though thank you mr Freeman any further questions

00:21:42Okay we move to debate then I'm guessing there's going to be a hand on my left from Councillor Thank you chair I'd only want to put a proposal if there's no more debate but I intend us not to stifle that but if others were minded I just think it's unnecessary to put in the terms I totally agree with what Mr Freeman is saying that you have to have some whether that's 1.5% I think you said currently 5, 10 or 20 but I'm just cautious about someone quoting at us sometime in the near future. You said 10% and you're on one and our half. What are you going to do about it?

00:22:29I wouldn't want that. I'm quite happy for all of us to say perhaps it's 10% and agree that informally in committee. That's different from putting it in black and white. Okay. Does anybody wish to anybody else wish to speak on this point or do we take that proposal from council out I actually think the opposite we should set ourselves the ambition of 10% it is really dangerous and having twice now gone through the state of not having a five-year housing land supply and again you've got to remember the two things are different we need to have some headroom to try and avoid putting the council in future years back into the situation of going I know mr. Freeman will actually correct me but a free fall for developers because that's effectively what you end up with if we don't achieve it so to strive at this point that's all we're doing and no they can't quote us saying you should have had a 10% all else it is exactly that you should have had a

00:23:3710% we should strive to get a 10% but it is about five year housing land supplies what you're referring to which is a separate bit which is when we're not achieving the builder rates we need to do so I think it should be staying in I'm happy to close that if there wasn't a second of the first motion yeah I'm not sure the first motion was formally made so if you want to know so if you want to propose that the recommendations I am happy to pose the recommendations as they stand do we have a seconder for that Councillor Defeat okay does anybody he wish to speak no okay in which case mr hunter could you take us to a vote please certainly chairman thank you uh all those in favor of the proposal if you could raise your hands please that's one two three four sorry uh can you raise your hands a little bit higher thank you you very much one two three four thank you five six seven all those against two three any abstentions

00:24:49One okay that's covered then chair thank you okay thank you mr. Freeman and mr. Hunter um in which case then uh we come to the moment that you've all been waiting for um agenda item nine housing requirement and site allocations for Exmouth and surrounding areas and I will come to [member of the public] to start us off. Thank you Chairman this item on the agenda will consider the settlements of Exmouth, Limston, Woodbury, Exton, Budleigh, Salterton, Otterton and East Budleigh so we will run through them in those orders it's important to stress and repeat after the previous item that we do need to allocate sites in the local plant to meet housing numbers so this report is very much about officer recommendations on sites to allocate in the plan we will start with ex-murph and I just wanted to give a a bit of an overview of some of the key themes about ex-murph to set the strategic scene so as members will be aware it sits at the top of the settlement hierarchy in our assessment work for the Local Plan it's a town with a significant

00:26:04Number of services and this has helped inform recommendations on allocations uh we recognize that the sites that have been promoted in Exmouth are largely on the edge of the settlement with the the town center being in the bottom left corner of Exmouth so that is a challenge it is an issue that we we do appreciate um but it is a settlement that is appropriate for higher level growth because of the strategic work and the assessment work we've undertaken it's also probably worth referencing that Exmouth in particular has a very high affordable housing need and one of the key mechanisms to deliver affordable housing is to deliver market housing with the affordables being a proportion of that in respect to Exmouth I'll flag up that there are four sites in Brixton Ward that we've effectively grouped together we will run through these individually but we've grouped them together in recommendations as an allocation because they form a a larger scale area for growth which is appropriate to look at in totality although as I said they

00:27:06Will be flashed up as separate sites and the other issue I'd flag up as reflected in the committee report is that whilst site 28 which is a large site on the eastern side of the town is not proposed as an allocation in the recommendations we have had discussions with prospective developers interested in land parts in respect to a larger scale site and I know through previous work there has been some support expressed for this as a development option in the term so hopefully that is something of a scene setting we will move on to presentations around the sites in order as I said starting with Exmouth but as you'll see there is a recommendation that the sites that we put forward are put forward as allocations in the Local Plan when we go through the regulation 19 version thank you chair okay uh thank you [member of the public] uh for members benefit then just to highlight some advice that we've had from legal in terms of how we go through these uh procedurally and vote uh the advice we've had is that we should only be voting on the sites that we

00:28:09Wish to recommend as allocations if we don't want to see them go forward as a recommended as a recommended allocation then we simply move on um so if members wish um to to make a proposal that we don't allocate a site then the appropriate proposal is that we move to the next site rather than that we uh reject it is that clear to everyone Councillor Ringan sure thank you what if there is of sites recommended to go forward and we disagree with it the same applies we simply vote to move on and we don't allocate it but we can discuss it yes absolutely okay we just don't vote to reject it and the the issue is if we find we don't have enough at the end of the process we've already voted to reject all of the ones and that we haven't voted to allocate then we've tied herself in a bit of a legal knot that would be difficult to unpick so that's that's the basis of the advice that we've had okay then and with a deep breath we'll start

00:29:16First up with site reference Exmouth 50 [member of the public] thank you so actually just before we get there a bit of scene setting there was a logical process that we followed in site assessment work so it was a process set out in this flow chart it starts with site identification we've done some sifting assessment site selection and it's important to reiterate that the choices of allocation the recommendations are a product of looking at housing requirements so we again go back to this number of 946 homes a year that we need to accommodate in East Devon it also is a top-down component looking at the spatial strategy so we're looking at the hierarchy and the work that has informed that and if you like the bottom up element is the more rigorous site assessment and looking at the individuals of the site so on that basis we starting with Exmouth you'll see a plan that gives you an overview of the sites that we have looked at and we'll come on to but we start with a site in the town centre ish location expert police

00:30:24Station it's a product of the police rationalizing their operations and expressing a desire to see some redevelopment on this site so that is Exmouth 50 okay we have one public speaker registered [member of the public] on behalf of Escape Exmouth and I believe we have a statement to be read out by [member of the public] thank you thank you very much so this is a statement from [member of the public] on behalf of Escape Exmouth and it reads as follows Escape would like to thank the chair and members of the council for the opportunity to share this statement, which is speaking to Exmo_50, but also applies to all other proposals that will feed waste water to Maer Lane Treatment Works, Exton, Limston, Exmouth and Buckley-Solveston. Between 2011 and 2021, the population in East Devon saw the second highest growth in the southwest of 13.8%, now 150,800. Since privatisation of the water industry in 1989, the East Devon population has grown by 28%, yet many of the permits for wastewater treatment still remain at levels set in 1993. The original Exeter and East Devon

00:31:47Water Report of 2010 showed that Maer Lane Westwater Treatment Works was over its permitted capacity by some 2,500 households. The report was predicated on building a new treatment works in East Devon which is never materialised. Can Southwest Water be trusted to complete plans to upgrade Maer Lane? Southwest Water has repeatedly refused to share the consented dry weather flow rates for Maer Lane treatment works but has previously stated that capacity is available however as councillors will be aware sewage pollution alerts are a regular feature in eczema under non-exceptional conditions one example last march after less than four millimeters of rain over two hours the mayor road cso spilled sewage into the sea for over 56 hours we asked at South West Water for details of the spill, but they refused for over a year until Escape appealed to the first tier tribunal court and forced them to share the information.

00:32:58Water UK, the industry trade body, claims that the current proposed settlement figure from Ofwat for the period 2025 to 2030 is insufficient to improve the water infrastructure and puts the planned 1.5 million houses at risk. That's a quote from David Henderson, CEO, Water UK, on Radio 4 on the Today programme on the 28th of August, 2024. Exmouth's sewer infrastructure is in a perilous state. It has failed a number of times in recent months at Fear Park, Imperial Road and most recently, Mayor Road with Do Not Swim notices over the last three weekends.

00:33:39South West Water plans to increase pump capacity to move more sewage to the treatment works, yet the rising mains are clearly at capacity and the increase is repeatedly leading to bursts, failure of the network and damage to the town and tourist economy. Even with the planned doubling of Maer Lane capacity, South West Water acknowledged that this will only treat up to 60% of storm flows. The planned expansion will not manage the current requirements and certainly not future expansion.

00:34:12In conclusion, ESCAPE does not believe that the Mayer Lane Westwater Treatment Works has the capacity for the plans proposed for Exmouth and the other sites in the catchment. South Westwater has plans to upgrade capacity at Mayer Lane, but this is not likely to be completed until 2028 or later. southwest water predicts more spills from the Maer Lane cso until the upgrade is completed in 2023 off what highlighted southwest water as the second worst in the country for completion of wastewater improvement works underspending by over 60 percent so there is little confidence the upgrade will be delivered before 2030 given the population increase the information presented in the 2010 water report, previous broken commitments from Southwest Water, the East Devon District Council motion of no confidence in Southwest Water and ongoing issues. ESCAPE recommends planning development is refused until Southwest Water carries out a full review led by an independent expert. Then for Southwest Water to produce and deliver a fit for purpose sewage infrastructure for Exmouth and its future residents.

00:35:31That's a statement from Escape. Thank you, Chair. Okay, thank you. Slightly more than three minutes, but given the importance of the issue, there we go. I'm not going to do this for every item of public speaking, but I think in virtue of the significance of the issue, I should come to Mr Freeman for a response to that one.

00:35:50Thank you, Chair. Well, as I mentioned earlier, we've got consultants working on what's called an water cycle study, which considers issues about wastewater infrastructure and members received a presentation a few weeks ago from them so they continue to work for us and with Southwest Water to address and understand these issues I think as I said earlier a lot of this is about the timing at which development comes forward given that we're talking about a Local Plan with a 15-year lifespan during that time scale issues of lack of capacity in terms of wastewater infrastructure that exists now will be addressed and potentially other issues will come forward during that time scale so while we understand the concerns that are being expressed and share them to a large extent with the current situation that we see on the ground I don't think it really affects the decisions today in terms of sites and allocations it's about when those sites and allocations come forward which would be controlled through the planning application process and members will be aware we have a

00:36:52System whereby we can impose what are called grampian planning conditions which would potentially allow planning permission to be granted for development that say that no homes can be occupied until the infrastructure that's required to support that development in this case wastewater infrastructure has been put in place and delivered so that we ensure that we're not overloading the system any more than it already is and really that's the the only powers we have as a local planning authority uh to to address these issues um so um well I understand the concerns are being expressed and and to large extent share them I don't think they really have a large bearing on discussions for today in terms of sites and allocations in the plan which as I say has a 15 year delivery time scale during which time that position is is likely to change but we'll continue to work with southwest water and try and align sites coming forward with the infrastructure that's needed to support them coming forward thank you chair okay thank you mr Freeman I have

00:37:54No other public speakers registered to speak um so we come then to committee and I've seen Councillor Davey first uh well this one's in my ward and so I have the honor of being the first speaker uh on uh on site allocations unfortunately for me it's a relatively uncontentious one It's right in the middle of Exmouth. It's in very, very good access to a range of services.

00:38:25So I have no hesitation in bringing it forward. The only query I note that the report suggests that it could accommodate more homes. And I think everybody in Exmouth would like to see these being affordable, preferably for young people. And so I have a question. Can we put any kind of limitation on what kind of homes are built here? and can we somehow resist having this made into a site for retirement homes like the Juicers site we had recently I'm sure the answer is going to be no but I've got to say it anyway and well I might change my mind in a few years time anyway and I wish I'd gone for it but it would be nice if we were somehow able to control what kind of housing comes forward on this site because much as I appreciate that we need retirement homes and sheltered housing and so on, I wouldn't want to see it on this particular site.

00:39:39Thank you. Subject to an answer to your question then, was that a proposal, Councillor Davey? Yes, I'm happy to propose acceptance of this site. Okay, do we have a seconder? Councillor Brian Bailey. Mr Freeman, did you want to come back to Councillor Davey' question?

00:39:57Thank you, Chair. I think Councillor Davey answered his own question. I mean, I think the problem, the challenge here is that there is a recognised need for retirement housing as well. So it's going to be very difficult to justify precluding that from a site like this, which, as you point out, is probably in a prime location for that sort of housing. But our own local housing needs assessment identifies quite a significant need for retirement housing, that will need to be met on some of these sites.

00:40:25So I think it would be difficult to justify actually precluding it from this site. Councillor Ingham.

00:40:34Thank you, Chair. I agree with Councillor Davey. My gut reaction was only 20. It was irresponsible. And depending on who the landowner, I would suggest there's a moral obligation to do the right thing rather than the greedy thing. And, yes, at least double that number is achievable, if not more. So I'm going to support Councillor Daly.

00:41:02Thank you, Councillor Ingham. I sense a letter to Commissioner Hernandez coming on, perhaps. In any event, Mr Hunter, could you take us through a vote on this site, please? Is that on the chair? Oh, sorry, Councillor Bailey, I didn't see you. I take issue with Mr Freeman, unfortunately. I'm taking issue with Mr. Freeman. I think being an excellent Councillor For the ward of Lytton, excellent is desperate for housing for young people.

00:41:40And I support Polly entirely in this fact that we're inundated with elderly people. I can say that because I am one. I'm not being disrespectful to anyone. but the future is the young people and the young people in Exeter are living with their parents living with their brothers and sisters houses overcrowded because there is no affordable homes available it's 20% cheaper than market price it's a load of absolute rubbish because in Exeter as in most of East Devon the average wage would not respond to buying a house at the average price which is about $3.50 something like that It's not going to work.

00:42:22So I think if you could, in your heart, [member of the public], find a way around. I know it's in there somewhere. Find a way around this situation that we could do what Councillor Olly Davey wants to do, which I'm totally in support of, and put a restraint on this. I've been speaking to Alison, a man who's very keen to get this done, because she's at the moment technically the owner of the land.

00:42:48And she's very keen to get the affordable homes in there, and to get a police station modernised and open to the public, which would be a great thing for Exxon, rather than another McCarthy and Stone or something like that, which just had a huge run at Tesco's, which has taken all our employment land. So, we don't want to be known for being full of retirement homes, and that's where, at the moment, we're retirement homes in charity shops and sewerage, which is not much to be known for for a town of Exxon. And these things have got to be addressed so it's more than just well you know we'll wait and see I'm sure I'm sure you can do it and I've got every confidence thank you chair thank you Councillor Bailey I think I'll answer on [member of the public] behalf that the point is heard very much um and what we can do we will the problem is simply that that is not very much with that being said then Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Chair. So, members, all those in favour of including this particular site

00:43:51In the draft regulation plan, if you can raise your hands, please. Is that unanimous? Lovely. Saves me counting. Thank you. I suspect possibly one of the only unanimous decisions we may have today, but we will see. In that case, that brings us on to site number two, Exmouth 03, which is not proposed for allocation. Thank you, Chair. Very briefly, a small site which has limited capacity to accommodate development should it be allocated, but it's not recommended.

00:44:24Okay, we have no public speakers registered for this one. Does anybody on committee wish to speak? Councillor Bailey.

00:44:33Thank you, Chair. I live just around the corner from this site and I see it's recommended not to be allocated and I actually agree with that because it's a very small site at Cunysac at the rear of the garden centre and I would say we'd go with officers' recommendation. I'd like to put that forward. Thank you, Chair. Just a reminder we don't need to vote not to allocate.

00:45:01If we're not allocating, we can just move on with no speakers and in view of the time, we might want to do that on some of these. But no, no, of course, appreciate that.

00:45:10Thank you, Councillor Bailey. Are there any other speakers? no okay in which case we move on then to site reference Exmouth 23 a site on the northern edge of Exmouth recommended as an allocation for 12 dwellings I have Councillor Tim Dumper registered to speak for this site we're still on the still on the normal system, aren't we, for this? Good. Am I getting an echo? No? Just sounds like it here.

00:46:00Yeah, this particular site, I would like to speak against it, partly because of the coastal protection area, which is actually mentioned on screen there, but also because it forms part of the channel, the link, if you like, between Exmouth and Limston. We have been anxious over the years to prevent coalescence between the two settlements, and I'm sure my colleagues from Limston will take this up when they speak of Limston 07, which of course is the site opposite.

00:46:48It is a fairly small site, but it exemplifies in my mind the 30s problem of ribbon development. We had ribbon development going up Exeter Road and then down Cortland's Lane. And what we're trying to do with Exmouth 23 here is to infill. Now, National Trust, as we know, acquired the land of Lower Halston Farm and this site is an important link across from the National Trust land.

00:47:30And I would appeal that as it's only 12 dwellings, that the committee actually rejects this as a site for development. I think that's probably all I need to say at the moment. Infrastructure is obviously relevant in this case, but that is being discussed and will be discussed further, I'm sure.

00:47:56Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Dumper. I've got no other speakers then so we come to committee members of committee wish to speak I'm aware Councillor Ingham had asked it's not in Limston Parish so I will it's not in Limston Parish though I'm aware it's adjacent it's not in Limston Parish we have to be had to be very strict on this no exceptions inside committee then Councillor Ingham yes chair um Councillor Dumper spoke well he mentioned uh if you're as old and as wrinkly as he is and I am then you'll have done geography o-level field trips about ribbon development and this is a prime example and we wouldn't want to exacerbate that by joining up the dots on courtland's lane and as you know there's a coastal protection area is relevant and I feel um as we seem to be embracing a continuity with regard to green redges in coastal protection areas from one uh old plan to the emerging plan then I feel it is correct to recognize the location of that site and to reject it so I agree

00:49:23With Councillor Dumper Councillor Thank you I agree with Councillor Dumper on this allocation it shouldn't go forward it's down a very narrow lane it's already busy because there's a hotel down there um limston parish council doesn't support it uh nor does uh the town council so I think we should move on from this one was that a proposal to move on to the next site Councillor Is there a seconder okay thank you Councillor Are there any other speakers Councillor Davey yeah I was just going to put a counter view actually um it is in phil as As Councillor Dumper stated, there are houses down there, they're mostly large, well set back from the road.

00:50:19It's not publicly accessible land, so I'm not quite sure what Councillor Dumper means about it being a valuable link, unless it's seen as a wildlife corridor or something like that. but I really find it quite hard to see the harm in a small development on that site but I'm willing to be corrected by those who know it better than I do I don't usually walk that far I walk down as far as the East Devon Way and then join that Did we have a seconder for Councillor Ewing's proposal I have Councillor Howard to speak next Yeah, I take a contrary view to the proposal and second there, unfortunately. We are at dire straits of housing numbers. And if we take every category, green wedge, coastal reservation zone, and take all of those out, we won't have a five-year housing supply, we won't have a Local Plan or anything else.

00:51:33It is quite simple, the numbers. There are challenges to be had. There are a number of sites that could be questionable, but a small infill gap between an already developed line of houses is not one of those fights we should be having. It is quite simple, and it should be recommended for approval or to go through as part of our Local Plan. Thank you.

00:51:57Do we have any further speakers on this point? Councillor Hayward. Thank you. I can only agree with Councillor Howe. Some of these battles we're going to have are incredibly contentious. This just appears to continue what's already there. And I appreciate there'll be some local opposition, but we're looking at this from a district level. And in filling 12 properties into this space just seems logical. Thank you.

00:52:29Councillor Bailey. This site is on a single-track road, which comes out at Cortland Junction, which is exceedingly busy most of the day until quite late in the evening. With the next one coming on, with a proposal of 100 dwellings, these are unsustainable on traffic issues alone. and the fact that there's no pavement that people are going to move into these houses with young children who have to go to school which is a long walk so they have to go by car just adding to the traffic problems and I don't think it's sustainable or the one in the future the one behind it so I can't support this I'm sorry any further speakers?

00:53:28In which case we have a proposal to move on to the next item will take us to a vote if nobody else wishes to speak. No, proposal to move on to the next item. No, no, Councillor Jung proposed that we move to the next item, seconded by Councillor Ingham. Okay, in that case then, those in favour of the motion to move on to the next item and to not allocate.

00:53:59I see four in favour, those against. Seven, any abstentions? no okay in which case the proposal falls do we have any other proposals council out yes to allocate as per offers do we have a seconder Councillor Hayward okay those in favor of allocating the site six I count Against? Councillor Brown could nice and high please. Five. Any abstentions? No? Okay. The proposal is carried. We move then to site Limston 07.

00:54:58So in this instance we're crossing the road to Cortland's Cross, Limston 07, a larger site with a recommendation for allocation for 100 dwellings. Okay, we have a fair few public speakers registered for this one. [member of the public], we have you first, and then [member of the public]. The limestone community do not understand the justification for recommending this site for allocation. It's very clear in the coastal preservation area, and planning has been refused historically in order to maintain the separation between limestone and eczema.

00:55:46There is also some opposition within the community to the proposal to move the limestone boundary in order for this site to be counted as an Exmouth allocation. The landscape assessment in your document states that the site has an open character comprising of large fields that are particularly visible in views from the north and the west. It's notable that the site is located within the existing green wedge in the current East Devon Local Plan and any development would erode the physical separation between Exmouth and Limestone.

00:56:19The site itself has a mixture of an urban fringe and countryside feel with development to southern and western boundaries. The development of the site would extend the built form of Exmouth into open countryside areas. The site has provision for 100 houses, which at the Office of National Statistics average of roughly two people and two cars per household means 200 extra cars using single-track Devon lanes to access services and 200 extra people, an increase of 20% on the current Nibstone population.

00:56:51The site is agricultural and close to the excess tree SSSI. There is no evidence of a water quality risk assessment. The site drains outside of the Woodenbrook catchment but into a small stream flowing into the excess tree through a wetland, all vulnerable to pollution from a development of this size. In view of the above, development on this site will be difficult to make sustainable. In conclusion, this site should not be allocated, but if it is, a robust surface water treatment system must be required.

00:57:24Provision must be made to ensure the treatment system is maintained, and a temporary surface water treatment system must be developed before construction work commences.

00:57:33Thank you. Okay, thank you. Worth mentioning that some of those things at the end would be items that we pick up at planning stage rather than here, but point taken. [member of the public]. This site was deemed to be unsuitable for development by a planning inspector following a week-long public inquiry in 2012. Some of the reasons for rejecting the site have been reduced because of subsequent actions by the owners.

00:57:59The creation of an earth bank blocking views from the East Devon Way the establishment of belted trees on the northern boundary albeit conifers rather than the native tree planting promised in the landscaping plan In addition, easy access to the site can now be provided using the roundabout being created at the junction of the Demon Way and the A376 However, the inspector's concerns regarding the erosion of the integrity of the green wedge that separates Exmouth and Libston are still valid As he concluded, the development of this site would considerably damage the setting and individual identity of Limston.

00:58:35As far as the expansion of Exmouth is concerned, this is a better site than 09 and 10A, with direct access to the A376. The site selection report notes that in view of the distance from facilities in Exmouth, residents would be more dependent on the limited facilities in Limston. This needs to be borne in mind when considering the overall allocation of sites in the parish. OK, thank you. I have [member of the public] for Limstone Parish Council.

00:59:12We cannot understand Limstone's 7 journey from being a second-choice site to preferred and now recommended for allocation. When the Agenda Pact states, land north of Cortlands was highlighted as being a very unpopular choice for development, There is also contradiction in the site selection report which states, on account of matters to include landscape and heritage constraints, this site is not identified as appropriate for allocation for development. How can this site seriously be considered when your own paperwork shows it was not recommended by your own officers?

00:59:52This site is in the coastal protection area. It has sensitive ecology of the estuary in close proximity and must be further evidence not to allocate. This site received the joint highest opposition during our last public consultation and has already been the subject of a public inquiry finding against development. That ruling was hard work and very dear to the hearts of Livestromers. Part of it stated that 400 metres green space should be left to prevent coalescence.

01:00:29As recently as 2022, an appeal for just one dwelling was refused. When planning decisions have consistently resisted, and if you allocate today, coalescence will become a reality and a very sad day for our village. Previous rulings against development have also highlighted the unsuitability of Courtland's Lane for increased vehicle traffic and the danger to pedestrians using it to access the village centre. Courtland's Lane is narrow, with few passing places, it has no footways and is unlit.

01:01:08It is madness to have such increased traffic and footfall. Even if a new access point was punched through a mature hedge and bank off of the new Dean and Way extension junction, giving cars better access to the site, to get to the village centre, cars would still have to use Courten's Lane or go out onto the A376 and in at the Sadler's Arms, which is already a severe pinch point.

01:01:34A new access would not solve the problem of pedestrians having to walk to the village centre and school along dangerous lanes or through fields via unpaved, unlit public footpaths, which are often impassable during wet weather anyway. The parish council were disturbed to learn that there have already been meetings between the developer and Limpston Football Club about the possibility of a dedicated facility within the site. However, experience has shown what is sometimes promised or planned in the very early stages does not always come to pass so these grounds are unsound when you weigh the need to achieve a target number of houses please consider our concerns and arguments very carefully as these fields are the green wedge recommended by the public inquiry and keep us a village properly separate from eczema sorry could you just turn the microphone off thank you I have Councillor Jung next All I'll add is I totally agree with all three speakers absolutely, thank you Councillor Jung you are strictly supposed to go to the public speaking lectern, yes I do support what's

01:03:12Been said before and so I'm going to list those reasons where I think it should not be considered the main deal being that it was refused at a public hearing and that was at appeal and yes, there was reference made to the damage to Limston Parish and of course Limston Village undermining the Green Wedge which is very significant the coastal protection area access and its unsustainability as a site because it is so far from the centre of Limston and the centre of Eczema.

01:04:00It's not anywhere near the built-up area boundary. It's in open countryside. It's adjacent to a grade one listed building and wall, which also were referred to at the public hearing. it would have a very negative effect on Limston Manor and you may say well so what well there aren't too many Michelin Star Hotels restaurants in East Devon in fact it's the only one so that has a negative effect on its economic sustainability of the area which we should be protecting the community as you just heard of Limston and Exmouth are diametrically opposed to this site being developed the Limston neighbourhood plan was certainly against this and so if you are minded to approve this you're flying in the face of the intent of the Localism Act in my opinion and it would increase the risk to pedestrians and cyclists using Courtlands Lane and the pedestrians hikers using East Devon Way. I'm very disappointed that this one has come forward as it is. I find it hard to believe that we can fly in the face of a public opinion in the way we do. Thank you.

01:05:47Councillor Ingham, I appreciate that you've not declared an interest in relation to this site, but clearly you've predetermined the application because you've said here it's unsustainable, it's not near a development boundary, it's in the open countryside, it will have a negative effect on Limston Manor. So in my view, you've predetermined this matter. So I don't think that you should be voting in relation to this particular site being included in the Local Plan.

01:06:12You should leave that up to your colleagues to decide whether that's appropriate. No, I disagree. I'm representing my community and they expect me to do that. I've checked them before on that. Woodbury Parish and Limston Parish, they expect me to speak on their behalf. Councillor, you're perfectly entitled to speak on their behalf. That's absolutely fine. And as you say, that's what they will expect you to do.

01:06:39But obviously from what you've said it appears to me and I think anybody who's a reasonable person who would have heard that is that you've made your decision already that you don't think that this is a suitable site on that basis you shouldn't be taking part as a member of this committee voting upon it having already made your mind up before you've heard everything today so I don't think that it's appropriate for you to take part in the vote in this particular application you can then in relation to the other side that you haven't spoken about that's my advice to you you can ignore my advice you may then get a complaint in relation to your conduct to the monitoring officer which you'll have to deal with it is your choice ultimately I'm here to give you advice my advice is I believe you've pre-determined this so don't vote it's your choice now thank you you okay committee members Councillor Levine thank you jack could I just ask matt something on page 72 it said should the site be allocated yes reasons for allocating the site is not identified as

01:07:53Appropriate for allocation but for development um what have I got wrong yes I uh I meant to come Mr. Freeman on this point but has you been named [member of the public] sorry can you repeat the line again it said on it should the site be allocated yes and then it says on account of matters to include landscape and heritage constraints the site is not identified as appropriate for allocation for development I see a little contradiction yeah I think there is a contradiction it's clearly a sensitive site in landscape terms but I think that could be replicated for a number of sites I think it's a contradiction that needs clarifying and amending in redrafting but it is a recommendation for allocation thank you just to add to that I mean I think lady from the Parish Council pointed out that this was in the previous iteration upon the second choice sites so that was the reason I think given as to why we weren't recommending it for allocation at that time um fair assessment work suggests that as you know we're struggling to find suitable sites

01:09:08We think the landscape and heritage constraints can be mitigated through design and layout within the site to minimize their impact although we accept that there are issues in terms of those factors um but and acknowledge the points have been raised about the previous public inquiry into this albeit that was 12 years ago um the fact remains that we are struggling to find suitable sites to meet our housing need which is dictated to us by government and we have to meet those numbers um at the time 12 years ago this site wasn't uh necessary for it to come forward to meet our housing need at that point in time we had better sites fundamentally uh now we don't those better sites have been developed they've been built out and now we're having to revisit this site and reassess it in light of the current circumstances the current housing requirements and as a result our assessment is that while we acknowledge there are significant landscape and heritage constraints we feel the site needs to come forward to meet the housing need and we

01:10:08Need to mitigate those issues as much and as best as we can through the design and layout of the site Councillor Park well I must say I found this report totally confusing because firstly it in the landscape section it did say it was located within the existing green wedge in the current East Devon Local Plan then moving on where you get to be in bold section within Green Wedge in adopted local panel made neighborhood plan no answer then should the site be allocated yes and as has been pointed out by previous speakers then a reason why not allocating so is completely undermines my faith in the reports and I hope other reports are not inaccurate in this way finally I do not see the point of us having green wedges if we are going to allow large areas of them to be developed and I think this is completely unacceptable and totally confusing to people who think a green wedge is there to be protected and we have said we will protect them and I cannot possibly vote for this this site I'm going to come to the

01:11:49Defense of officers slightly on the subject of the report um you've got 350 pages in front of you today another three four hundred were published yesterday um and another seven eight hundred possibly more are in the works to come out next week I think for the meetings on the 20th and the 23rd there is an awful lot of work going on and things do get missed we have collectively tried very hard to make sure it's all picked up and I'm sorry that there are problems with this particular chapter of this report it's inevitable with the volume that's being processed that something will go awry it's unfortunate that it's gone awry twice in the same paper and on a significant report I'll give you that but just some words in defense of the team there then I have Councillor Hayward.

01:12:40Thank you, Chair. Can I just ask a question first of an officer? On the page 71 under infrastructure, it says the HELAA work advises the site is dependent on a new junction on Exeter Road. Just seek clarity that that is the case because previous speakers have mentioned access to it from Cortland's Lane. And it would seem that wouldn't be necessary for the traffic if there was access from Exeter Road.

01:13:05So could someone answer that, just clarify that if this were to proceed, then the planning requirement would be that the junction would be onto Exeter Road? Yes, so that is the advice from Devon County as the Highway Authority is that access would need to be off Exeter Road. Some members may be aware there's the Dean and Way extension that comes across there and comes out to a roundabout junction on Exeter Road at approximately that point.

01:13:35So I think they're working on the basis that they would need to have an arm off that roundabout, basically into the site, so access wouldn't be dependent on Cortland's Lane.

01:13:48Thank you, Chair. So obviously this is the first of many that we've got to consider, and points have been made about green wedges, about coalescence, and essentially it's going to fall to this committee to make these decisions, and they won't be popular. some may be popular most will be unpopular but as Councillor Howe alluded to right at the beginning if East Devon fails to provide these sites it will be open season for development so all of the objections all of the concerns that members have will be moot because people will just build so we have to be pragmatic again I don't mind [member of the public] advice I don't want to predetermine any discussion on the next one which I see is recommended for refusal but this is close to existing development if you look at the map on page 70 there is a significant amount of housing already here so which isn't present on the map for the next site adjacent and I hear everything that's been said but this is going to be a constant theme throughout our discussions today for sites in the

01:15:00Middle of the district and in sites in the east of the district and I'm I don't live in Exmouth so I have to take this from a purely sort of looking at an objective view and for members who are present and for members of the parish councils who have sat through public inquiries who have listened to debate over decades about these sites it comes back to a point if East Devon according national planning policy framework doesn't build here then we have to build somewhere else if they're not a new town then each other town in East Devon will have to accommodate growth a lot of our coastal towns can't because essentially if you draw a semicircle around them 50% of it's in the sea and we're not at a point yet deferring to my colleague at the point of reclaiming the sea to develop for housing. So I will listen to the rest of the debate with an open mind and see what other members have to say, members who have far more knowledge of

01:15:59This area than I, but some of these sites we are going to have to make a decision based on pure pragmatism and mindful of if we don't what else is going to happen in the future that will be outside of our control to strategically plan thank you Councillor Jung thank you chair this is not a straight yes or no one it's it seems to be very finely balanced there is coalescence to consider there's green wedge to consider and the coastal protection area to consider I would like to propose that this we move on to this And we might have to come back to it. We might not. But I would like to suggest that we move on on this on this one.

01:16:52Was that a second in Councillor Park? OK, we have a proposal to move on then from Councillor Jung, seconded by Councillor Park. I still have Councillor Davey to speak. Well, I'm simply going to echo what Councillor Hayward has said. If you don't put 100 houses here, where are you going to put them? And as Councillor Hayward has pointed out, if we don't allocate sufficient housing, it becomes open season for developers.

01:17:19We don't have a Local Plan. They can just build pretty much anywhere they like, and we do not have many defences. So it's with a heavy heart because I do know this area well. I walked through it last week. I have to say most of the pine trees have died that were put in. But I think you could have a sympathetic development here. Yes, it does erode the gap between Limston and Exmouth, but it doesn't remove it.

01:17:53And if you're looking for places to develop, it is one of the better ones. It's right on a bus route. You could have a cycle access down Corkman's Lane onto the Ex-Estuary cycle path, which would take you both ways towards Exeter or down to Exmouth. and there is a walking route the East Devon Way which does I appreciate, yes it's not always particularly level and not muddy but it's possible with the right footwear to walk across the fields and down into Limps and in fact I did it last week and visited the Red Wing pub so with that plug I'll leave it Thank you Councillor Davey, Councillor Levine I've already heard you so unless there's anything very very quick OK thank you, are there any other speakers before we move to a vote?

01:19:01Councillor Bailey Thank you Chair I feel like Councillor Jung, I feel where can we go on this because it's not that long ago that Plum Park and Exxon was built and it was built purely because we didn't have a four-and-a-half-year land supply. It's a hideous development. It's built outside the building line. So the consequences of tearing this down is we're going to end up possibly on the same site in a few years' time because we haven't got a four-and-a-half-year land supply with something going here which is going to be beyond our control.

01:19:40And that's the place we are at the moment. we know that and I'm not too sure for members of the public I'm very sympathetic with members of the public but I'm also sympathetic with Ben's view and I'm also sympathetic with Geoff Young's so we are, as the Americans would say we're in a rock and a hard place whatever we do is wrong and it's difficult so I think I can't support it but I see the consequences of not supporting it which is pulling at my conscience.

01:20:18And that's all I have to say. Thank you, Chair. I think you've just summed it up pretty well there for us, Councillor Bailey. Any other speakers before we go to a vote? We will be. Okay, Councillor Howe? I think most things have been said, but I do think we need to point out to the members of the public, particularly the speakers, some of the reasoning we've got to challenge and work out.

01:20:47And I think in particular the appeal um where appeals have been made they've been on the current existing Local Plan we are redrawing a Local Plan which means a total change in emphasis for any appeal inspector so we although we need to take hints from an appeal an old appeal we are redrawing those policies now so it's not relevant for the future or determination here so it's not quite as easy as we would hope but nevertheless we I think we all the whole committee fully understands the comments made okay with that said then we have a proposal to move on and not to allocate the site for the time being those in favor of moving on sorry Councillor Hayward just from your wording that was yeah no that's fair enough the proposal is to move on those in favor nice and high please those against and those abstaining okay sorry check and

01:22:09I'll just clarify as well Councillor Ingham you took part in that board okay we move on then to site reference Limston 12 and we now have a hundred more houses to find. Limston 12 is land through which the Dean and Way extension will pass when built assuming will be built a sensitive site in heritage terms in particular given buildings gardens to the south of the site and an open aspect to the site recommendation is not to allocate. Okay, public speakers then. I have Councillor Jung first. I'm going to be worn out by the end of the day.

01:23:19Yeah, with this one, because it's the Deenum Way is coming straight through it, it's obvious that we can't support it. So I would recommend that we move on.

01:23:31Thank you. Councillor Jung? I would say that if all you're going to do is agree with the officer recommendation, feel free to stay seated. just to save time I am minded for us to move on but I have to say that we're going to revisit potentially this and other sites that we may change our opinion on at a later time today or at another meeting Thank you. Members, this is advice obviously to the two people who have just spoken then, the ward members but to you in general, you're more than entitled to speak in favour or against allocating a particular site to the Local Plan because you feel that that's the appropriate thing to do for your ward and that's fine.

01:24:40You can speak in relation to the sites but if it is apparent, which it was clearly I thought with regards to counselling in the first application that we just dealt with then that a decision had already been made in his mind to predetermine whether or not to include the site my advice is to you speak but don't take part in that particular vote because you could have a complaint raised against you if you choose to ignore that advice in your vote anyway it's entirely up to you at the end of the day if you are not bothered about having a standards complaint putting in against you and you'll deal with it at that stage that's fine but my advice to you is if you do speak in relation to any of these applications and you do come to a determination before and in your own mind sit out the vote thank you thank you mr. Hunter okay I have no other speakers registered for Lipson 12 committee council part is Sorry, is that a proposal to move on?

01:25:46Okay. Seconder, Councillor Davey. Any other speakers? Okay, those in favour? That's unanimous. There we go, that was nice and quick. Shall we do them all like that? Limston, 08. I have [member of the public]. Am I saying that right? Sorry. Hello again. this site is within the current green wedge now according to policy development should not be permitted if it would conflict with the purposes of a green wedge and as a lay person this is all I can rely upon the site is earmarked for housing 14 dwellings which would conflict with the policy aims of maintaining the open character of a green lung contributing to health and well-being for residents providing valuable wildlife corridors and habitat, and protecting areas of landscape importance and visual immunity.

01:26:54There are views from the north of the site, where the site is more open and is not seen against the backdrop of the built-up urban edges of the town. In this respect, despite the proximity of some Exmouth-related urban development, the site has a countryside feel. This site in particular is visible from the north side, i.e. Wooten Lane in Limston. Residents here have recorded a variety of mobile wildlife species on a flight route from the top end of Wooten Lane, approximately 250 metres away.

01:27:26In addition, many other wildlife have been recorded in the fields between Wooten Lane and Summer Lane. This site drains into the Wootenbrook catchment along small tributaries with a very low base for flows making them very vulnerable to pollution. Surface water runoff is known to be high in this area and this increases the risk of pollution. And for reference, I'm directed to the Upper Woodenbrook Catchment Study Phase 2 report and the limestone flood risk model. In conclusion this site should not be allocated, but if it is again we'd need a robust surface water treatment system and a temporary surface water treatment system before construction work commences. Thank you.

01:28:10Sorry members, just quickly I went slightly too fast on the last one and Mr Hunter didn't catch who seconded it. Was it you, Councillor Jung? No, it was Councillor Davey.

01:28:22Thank you for clarifying that one. I'll go slightly slower in future. Councillor Jung, I have you to speak next. I will hold fire on this one, taking the advice of the solicitor. Councillor Ingham? I said on the previous one, we're minded to move on, which I believe is the correct thing and we'll have to possibly revisit the ones we move on from in the future but I do note that the proximity of this one within the coastal protection area which should be noted.

01:29:12Okay, that's the end of the public speakers list then. Councillor Hayward coming into committee.

01:29:18Thank you, Chair. Mindful of the eloquence of the last public speaker and our previous decisions especially the one that just went before a very modest development here very close simply across the road within shouting distance of Hullam Road to Thomas Close development sensitively done I think would be quite a nice development and for those residents who ultimately would live here essentially they've just got the benefit of the deferral of the site to the west so on that bearing in mind the comments within the report I'm happy to propose that this is included in accordance with off the recommendations site 08 land of summer lane okay before I come to Councillor Jung do we have a seconder for that proposal counts for how yeah we are if we're not very careful storing up real problems for us at a later time so as such I'm happy to second this I do think using a phraseology of a supermarket everyone can't shall we say and you know 14 very low numbers again what the resident or the protect that the objectors have said

01:30:42Should be dealt with as a full application not at this stage unfortunately so as such I'm struggling shall we say not to okay we have a proposal and second for allocating them Councillor Jung I'm afraid I don't agree with the proposal mainly because there is a suggestion from coming from County Council that Summer Lane would be made into a cycle route because of Denham Way and by having this development off Summer Lane that will be detrimental to obviously a cycle lane also it's in the coastal protection area I think we should be protecting that and it's going to be a very busy Junction you can see that the Deanum Way is just there and the new the top of that site will be right next to Deanum Way so unless we can have a junction of Deanum Way into it which I don't think the County Council would approve, it would be detrimental to the proposed cycle wave that is coming forward at the moment.

01:32:09Mr Hunter, do you want to come in now? Thank you. Sorry, Chair, I just wanted to clarify something because I think it might hopefully assist members. It's no criticism as such. I was away on holiday last week, so this is the first that I've seen of the set-up and how we're doing things. but the way that this works is that if you speak as a ward member and you go up and speak you know from the lectern and you've got some pre-prepared notes and you're reading that and you've made that decision in your own mind that is predetermination having said that you are if you're a member of this committee perfectly entitled to speak and say whatever you feel about the application site being allocated when it comes to the debate so it may well be in your interest not to bother standing up and saying your piece at that stage you might want to wait and then discuss it in debate when you can say whatever you feel about it having heard all of the public speakers

01:33:05Who want to speak beforehand the problem that we've got is that if you speak before a public speaker and you've not heard what they've had to say and take that into account you're not coming to things with an open mind so if that assists you in anywhere I hope it does, thank you Chair, on that very point when I was speaking on Limston 07 the notes I took were while the public was speaking I took those notes, Jeff saw me do it, that wasn't I didn't predetermine before I came, I listened to what they said and I said one or two things that I thought they'd missed out, I don't think that's predetermined, that's why I voted thank you That's fair comment to be honest with you, but from what I was hearing it sounded to me that it was if your argument is that it wasn't because you've taken that into account you've now clarified that then that's fine but as I say to avoid this confusion going forward members if you're a ward member on the committee don't bother getting up to say what

01:34:09You want to say when it comes to debate thank you okay I'm going to move us on I think the advice has been heard it's for members to decide what you want to do with that advice we have a proposal from Councillor Hayward and seconded by Councillor Howe for Limston 08 to go forward as a recommendation in the plan. Are there any further speakers? Councillor Davey. I can't support that at the moment. As Geoff said, Summer Lane is scheduled to be turned into a cycle and pedestrian route if the Deenorm Way extension goes ahead. I'd rather see this one come forward after the genome extension has actually come to fruition and at that point we'd be able to look at the issue of access but access onto Summer Lane would be a no-no in my book. It's only 14 homes so I'm going to support moving on if we get to that point.

01:35:12Mr Freeman. Thank you Chair. Just to make the point there are already properties accessed off Summer Lane that wouldn't prevent what is being proposed in terms of the cycle lane it would just be for access only if those properties are not a through route as I understand it so I don't think it's necessarily precluding what's being proposed in terms of the cycle lane if it were allocated just to make that point Can I just come back on that now the fact is if you've got 14 houses using one entrance I appreciate the other buildings there and the other homes the church they will need that access so I would presume the proposal would be to cut it off half way along so it can no longer be used as a cut through which it is regularly at the moment so it would be access only but it's adding another 14 potential residents to what would, well it would probably double the number of residents trying to use that end of Summer Lane for access okay

01:36:25With all that said then Councillor Ingham sure I disagree in the interest of being open minded on this particular one I think you have to we should move on and then not cross this off the list any more than any other one or include it in a list We're in a tricky position, you're saying, because it seems that officers and members are in disagreement on a number of sites, and yes, I understand that this one would have to have some sort of bollards arrangement to make sure that it was pedestrian and cyclist-friendly in some context,

01:37:17But that depends where you do that as to whether this site would be acceptable or not. I would understand that because this is in a coastal protection area, my instinct for any site would be to not allow it to go forward. but in the juggling process which we seem to be engaged in now then there's a hierarchy of sites which can be developed and I don't necessarily agree with some of the opinions of other councillors here or what they've done so far so I remain open-minded on this one and I think we should move on to the proposal then from council hayward is to allocate this site in the regulation 19 plan all those in favor of that proposal four in favor those against seven against any abstentions

01:38:35No okay the proposal fails do we have a counter proposal council apart I propose we move on. Okay, do we have a seconder? Councillor Davey, I saw first. Those in support? Everyone except me and Mike, however many that is. And those against? Okay, in which case then, we move on. We're cooking up quite a list of sites to come back to. Lympstone 13 then, and I have first up, Councillor Jung.

01:39:16Again I'll wait until the debate thank you Councillor Ingham okay into committee then Councillor Park just Chairman what's happening about Limston 12 sorry I'm confused I don't know where we are in our I mean it's Limston 13 next on my list it is but it's not in the order we should be running it yeah okay Okay. Was this the one that was in the report as being in Littleham when it's possibly?

01:40:13Okay. What do others have next? Is it Exmouth 4? Yeah. Okay. As that takes us on to a new area, then, in Exmouth-Brixington, is anybody opposed, as we've been going for nearly an hour and three quarters, to a short five-minute break? No? Okay. We'll break, then, until 10 to 12. okay welcome back members I'm going to exercise my prerogative at chair just to speak very briefly

01:51:10And do bear in mind that everything we choose to say move on to at this point if we don't make the numbers we have to come back to and if we don't make 946 a year plus within a month of government publishing the new NPPF so realistically by perhaps mid-november then we have to find another 200 a year on top of that within the next 18 months otherwise government's going to come in step in make a Local Plan for us and in the meantime we'll have to deal or planning committee or accurately we'll have to deal with the presumption in favor of sustainable development I just wanted to make that reminder, because to me that's quite a stark prospect and one that we really want to avoid.

01:51:58With that being said then, I'll stand corrected on Limston 13, and the next site then is Exmouth 04, which is a cross-boundary site in both Exmouth-Brixington and Woodbury and Limston wards. For public speaking, then, I have [member of the public].

01:52:26Good morning. On behalf of the North East Exmouth Residents Group, we yet again ask the committee to reject the officers' delusional plan to develop greenfield sites in North East Exmouth and Limestone. There is no so-called master plan linking these disparately owned sites. It's only in the minds of the planning department. The sites are completely unsustainable. Only EDDC would measure distances from the site to facility as the crow flies, ignoring actual distances and dangerously fast roads.

01:53:03Surface water flooding is a significant issue in all of these sites and would have a profound and negative impact on both Wootenbrook and Littlehambrook. There is deeply felt concern over the threat of coalescence between Exmouth and Limstone that will be brought about by the development of Limstone 09 and 10. I'm sorry, but I would prefer to cover Exmouth 04, Limstone 09 and 10 all in one go.

01:53:33That will probably save the committee another six minutes. So if you will bear with me, I shall cover three sites rather than just the one. Exmo_04, the brief is extremely badly written with confusing mapping references and irrelevant comments on the 400-metre exclusion zone from the SSSI. Where are officers actually allocating the 50 dwellings? Are they recommending dwellings on Exmo_04, sorry, 4A, 4B, or 45? There seem to be some great confusion in the papers that have been presented.

01:54:12This site is part of the historic Mali estate, and the lawns contain numerous veteran locomotives that would be damaged by the development and their proximity to the required attenuation ponds. The previous plans that were put forward some time ago included a huge attenuation pond right in the middle of the trees. Dangerous road access onto higher Hullam Road is overlooked in the assessment, and no mention that the site was rejected for planning in 2014.

01:54:50So I'll just move on quickly to Limston 09, which is on the other side of Hullam Road. But there are dangerous access issues off Hullam Road. It has high volumes of traffic. Assessment doesn't recognise the site as adjacent to historic woodlands. The hedgerows along Exview Road and Hullam Road contain lots of veteran trees that would need protecting. Removing TPO protections must not be allowed. It's in the coastal protection area, so the site should not be built on.

01:55:23Limston 10 is beyond belief. How did this get through the initial sifting? The site wasn't recommended by Heeler. There's no pedestrian access down the Hullam Road. I've offered the officers to come and walk down Holland Road, but I've not really had any people take it up. It's a dangerous road to walk down. It's completely unsustainable. It doesn't comply to the 1,600-metre rule at all. It's in the coastal protection area, again, so it shouldn't really be built on.

01:55:58The site assessments are broadly unchanged since the unnecessary assessments were made two years ago and indicate that EDDC have taken no notice of residents' views and information supplied. Local EDDC councillors from Limston and Brixington have also been ignored. Views of Limston Council and Exmouth Council are equally ignored, as have any comments from the public consultation. We urge the committee to note these points, do the right thing and exclude the North East, Exmouth and Limston sites from the emerging plan.

01:56:34Thank you very much. Thank you, [member of the public]. I have then Councillor Jung. Would you like to speak now or in committee? I'll speak in committee. Okay, thank you. Councillor Ingham. Okay. In which case then, Councillor Chapman, if you'd like to step up to the public speaking mic. Morning, everyone. Land at Marley Drive. I understand this is put forward as a part site. Wildlife and natural habitat site, trees, bats, insects, wildflowers.

01:57:26A number of reports were sent to EDDC from a number of organisations saying that this site should not be built on. It is also close to the Pebblebed Heath. It has underground springs and the land is very wet and boggy. There are two ponds with wildlife. I would urge the committee to listen to Natural England. I, for one, wouldn't argue with them and the other agencies, so please reject this plan. Thank you.

01:58:02Thank you, Councillor Chapman. Short and sweet, the way we like it. Okay, I have no other public speakers registered then, so we come into committee. Nobody wants to speak on this side. Councillor Jung. A bit of a kickoff. Yeah, there's a lot of woodland in there, ancient woodland. There's – it's on the spring line as we've already heard. Access onto Holland Road would be really detrimental for loads of reasons, but because it's in the coastal protection area, It's 400 metres from the Pepperbird Heath, the top end.

01:58:59Because of the road network there, I don't feel I can support it. And the speakers have said very vocally the reasons why I would suggest that we move on at this time.

01:59:13Thank you. Councillor Ingham. Thank you, Chair. This site, I believe, is not in the Coastal Protection Area. But I take on board certainly what Councillor Jung says about the Pebblebed Heaths. and without any doubt at all I can assure you the northeastern end of that site is full of springs because of the nature of the geology in that area so I would support second moving on for this one at this time. I don't think we'd had a proposal at that point oh you meant to propose I meant to proposed okay so proposed that we move on by Councillor Jung seconded by Councillor Ingham then um it is worth noting for members benefit that the north east side of the site just past that pinch point by the garden center that's or sorry by the houses next to the garden center that's not proposed for allocation and if you look at the main maps in the Exmouth technical report you'll see it's the sort of southwestern um kind of half of the site um that officers are

02:00:39Recommending go forward just thought I'd clarify that one any other speakers on this site Councillor Three sites together none of them sustainable there's no footpath I don't know it's a very dangerous road and when it rains there's floods, there's pebbles literally rolling down from the pebble-wed leaves and it's very very dangerous. It's also, what can I say, you've got to walk, if you're brave enough or silly enough, to walk to the nearest shop or school. You're looking at probably 20 minutes to three quarters an hour, depending on how 50 you are. This area, if it's supposed to be in Exmouth, is actually a £12 taxi ride to the centre of Exmouth, which is a significant amount to pay, but I'm sure it's all done properly, and I've checked with my former colleague in a taxi company, this is how much it's going to cost you.

02:01:47So that's not sustainable at all, and I think if we were given other circumstances, we wouldn't even look at this twice. Thank you very much, Chair. Councillor Hayward. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Bayhue raises a very valid point. You know, we're not planning in the centre of Slough, and centre of Slough everywhere is sustainable, everywhere is accessible by a pavement or a road. We live in East Devon. This committee has tried for the past four years to argue to national government, previous government, this government, that we have some uniqueness that our landscape our layout doesn't allow for this level of housing it's fallen on deaf ears we've received legal advice from our offices that we do not have any argument to put forward that will just be thrown back in our face you know I love living in east evan I came from from slough um pretty much nowhere in east evan is sustainable wherever we build on a green field there are unlikely to be pavements we have single track roads this is the reality of what we

02:02:57Have to deal with so if we look at each site and say there's no pavement there's no drainage these things can be provided within the planning process but if we view it on the basis that it's not already there we are going to find ourselves in a huge problem and I come back to the point that the chair raised earlier Councillor Howe's referred we have got to find sites and it's all very well for this committee we could we could park all of these and then the next meeting is going to be whereabouts in honarton and Ottery do you want to put them and the people of honarton Ottery will say it's not sustainable it's not permissible there's a green field there's a view there's a coastal protection area there's woodland most of East Devon is covered in woodland some of it is going to have to come down unless there is a change in the NPPF which is unlikely to happen and I'm very grateful for the chair for clarifying earlier that if we

02:03:50Don't do this the numbers will go up they won't go down they'll go up so on this one I entirely agree looking at the map there is a beautiful area I have never walked around here so I can't speak with any confidence about it I'm looking at it from a map for you but I just beseech members to look at this realistically across the whole district you know in three weeks time two weeks time my own area is going to be considered and the good people of Axminster of Seton of Honiton of of the the eastern periphery of the district are going to have the same arguments why should you concrete over us when the whole of Exmouth is free to be concreted why shouldn't they take their fair share so that's just my point I wish to make chair everywhere in East Devon pretty much is unsustainable it has woodland it has green fields we cannot discount sites just for that reason as as as much as it might pain me to say it I loathe digging

02:04:54Up trees for no reason but unfortunately our hands on this are somewhat tired thank you you've you've saved me the trouble Councillor Hayward so thank you very much for that I think mr. Freeman just has some context that you wanted to add to this debate yes thank you I don't know if um someone can put hdmi 2 on there we go um so I just wanted to draw members attention to this plan which is in page 40 in the agenda which shows the relationship with the goodmorse farm development which some members may be aware of um is currently being built out at the moment and the butts uh this exmo 04a the part that's proposed to be allocated in the southwest corner that's green on the plan there so it actually abuts the goodmores farm development to its south western corner um the goodmores farm development I can't remember exactly how many houses I'm sure it says in the report but it does include land for primary school and some uh shops community facilities um so it's not as remote this is my point it's not as remote as it looks on the plan that was on

02:06:03The screen so I just want to make members aware of that um and obviously we're also looking at at this in relation to other sites that we'll come on to in that area that together make that more of a logical of an extension of eczema than it perhaps appears in isolation. Thank you Chair. You have already spoken, Councillor Ian. Very quickly. On the slide you had for number four, it said as you marked in there that eczema of 4B was recommended for moving on.

02:06:45So if that were the case, then surely if 4A did move forward, there wouldn't be access onto Holland Road because you wouldn't drive a road through just the open countryside to facilitate that. Would you, can I ask for clarification on that? What would be the feeling of that? so clarification on where the access is coming from yes but what would it be Marley Road or is it Goodmores or both or what is it I'll look to officers do we have any indicate if O4a were developed in isolation and you didn't have a strategic scheme there the likely point of access would be from that nib of land on the southeast side coming down and it's Marley Road I can't be this yeah so that would be if a bigger allocation were made if they included for example limp 14 as shown on that plan that would potentially be scope to access from the north as well but I think that would be a matter of detail I believe the potential to develop them 14 was to go through Goodmores farm so

02:08:08That's why I asked not to go on to Holland Road that's what I think it's worth highlighting that while the state of the roads is a relevant consideration the actual detail for access would be a planning stage rather than here today I appreciate it's a it's a bit of a gray area in terms of do we consider the sites to be acceptable but that that's worth bearing in mind do we have any other speakers for this point Councillor Davey and then Councillor Levine yeah I'm just gonna say very quickly I can't support development in this area I mean in contrast to limps the nose 7 which we agreed to move on from this has no sustainable access there is a cycle route down Marley Road but apart from that higher Marley Road anybody will tell you they have to reroute the East Devon Way because it was so dangerous Hullam Road as Councillor Bailey has pointed out it does you know it has a spring that runs out regularly into it every time it rains, it's a fast road. Councillor Hayward made the point, well, pavements can be provided

02:09:24Not in Hullam Road because it kind of has steep banks on either side. And there's nowhere even there's a pedestrian to jump to if a car comes. If there's a wide verge, you can kind of get into that. But there's nowhere. So I'm very uncomfortable about any development along this road. Councillor Levine.

02:09:53Thank you, Jay. I really want to support Councillor Hayward because I've been listening to all the contributions from the public and councillors. They're generic. They can be applied to every site in East Devon. What I'm looking for is something special about the site, something that tells me it is different, we've got to do something, we can't build it or we can build it. And at the moment, I haven't heard anything.

02:10:23So, unfortunately, because our hands are tied and we've got to find 20,000-owned houses for this district, I have to support the development of this site.

02:10:36Thank you. Okay, thank you, Councillor Levine. We do have a proposal to move on. Does anybody have anything new to add? I'm sorry, I'm not coming back out to public speaking. We're in committee now, thank you. Okay, in which case then we have a proposal to move on from Councillor Jung, seconded by Councillor Ingham. Okay, in which case those in favour of us moving on. Hands nice and high, please.

02:11:12Seven in favour of that. Those against. Three, those abstaining. One. I'm sensing a recurring theme is starting to emerge in our votes here. Lympstone 09 is next up then. If we go back to HDMI 1, please, on the projector. Okay, thank you. And I have... [member of the public], you've already spoken. Have you got anything to add? You've won that fight, so we'll move on then to [member of the public].

02:11:59Thank you. I'm a member of the Limston Flood Resilience Group, which has been working with the Environment Agency and Devon County Council to mitigate the flood risk in Limston. Sites 9, 10A and 01 all drain into the Wootenbrook. The Wootenbrook catchment is a rapid response catchment, as defined by Devon County Council and the Environment Agency. This means that it has a flashy runoff, which in turn can flood the village.

02:12:28The situation is made worse by the fact that the brook is tide-locked for a period of up to two hours. This means that the water backs up the brook until the tide goes out. The underlying soil on these sites is a clay loam, which has naturally low water permeability. Climate change is likely to result in heavier, more intense localised storms, leading to more rapid run-off. With inappropriate development, there is a likelihood of increased flood risk to the village, and the possibility of flooding on the scale experienced in such places as Boscastle or Newton-Popperford last summer.

02:13:03There is already concern about the possibility of increased flooding resulting from the Dinaway extension, particularly as this has not been designed to take account of the latest advice on the effects of climate change. There is no evidence of a water quality risk assessment which is essential to both sites, as the Wootenbrook catchment is a small, sensitive catchment which discharges in the accessory. Both the brook and the estuary are highly vulnerable to pollution and of high amenity value.

02:13:32Therefore, I'm concerned that this is a very unsuitable site for development and is likely to cause serious flooding in the village in the future.

02:13:39Thank you. Thank you, [member of the public]. Councillor Francis from Lindstone Parish Council. Lindstone Parish Council object to this site being recommended for development in another proposal that despite being located within our parish, It counts towards the eczema development targets. Lympstone 9 and 10 are in the coastal protection area and both of them have significant and distinct similar disadvantage, which means they should not be developed. Our reasons for our strong opposition are as follows.

02:14:20This site has serious flooding concerns and sensitivity. Lympstone Flood Resilience Group regard this site as very unsuitable for development. The Flood Resilience Group are a respected and knowledgeable body, and we take their concerns very seriously. We hope you will too. The documentation in the Agenda Reports PAC acknowledges that for nine to be a credible development site, the land to the south needs to be developed first. Crazy.

02:14:52There are access considerations and the suitability of Hullam Road to cope with increased traffic any development would bring is also a factor to be considered. There are already existing concerns about flooding along Hullam Road during poor weather. There are no safe pedestrian routes to a bus stop or to Exmouth Village or Exmouth facilities. The site is distant from schools, shops and doctors, meaning the use of vehicles would be more likely.

02:15:22These sites cannot be regarded as sustainable because they do not have accessible services and they do not align growth with infrastructure. There's also considerable concerns and sensitivities for wildlife. Both sides of Hullam Road from Common to Exview Road are covered by TPOs and contain veteran trees which would be adversely impacted by development. Proximity to ex-few woods and unregistered but ancient woodland will have serious environmental impacts. There is abundant wildlife and building on this green corridor will certainly, very sadly, impact the species there.

02:16:03In another meeting, there were salient points raised about the suitability, unsuitability and infrastructure of this area and how the new Local Plan should be building communities. It's hard to see how either Limston 9 or 10 could fit into a community. Consequently, on these grounds, it was felt that the sites were totally unsuitable in that meeting, but might present opportunities for other things, such as SANG's areas. We hope you feel that way too, and reject the recommendation to support.

02:16:39Thank you, Councillor Francis. I've lost where I am on the page. Which site are we doing? Let us to know nine. Councillors Jung and Ingham, would you like to speak now or in committee? Later. Okay. In which case then we come to committee. Members. Councillor Jung.

02:17:00Thank you. I know this site well. I cycle pass it pretty well every week. In the workshops that we had, we discounted all the sites off Holland Road. and I I supported it then and I thought now I support the idea that we don't have any development of Holland Road at this from from this from the top end yes I do understand it would create a really good things area it would or a nature reserve possibly football pitches but for development at that location I I don't support it but while was discussing what sites to oppose and what sites to support there are a lot sites that I will be supporting but these sites off Holland Road are no no for me thank you thank you chair I mean minded to agree you know all those sites that are in what's described in the pancreas as the Exmouth-Limston Gap I don't think it's appropriate for us to consider them I do think there's some other ones which Exmouth councillors have identified during our workshop and I agree with them. So it's

02:18:37A shame that we're not dealing with those first so we can agree with the numbers and then go back to these because we're going to be debating some of these twice. I feel unnecessarily. This is one it's in coastal protection area. Our community in Limston believe that anything north-northwest of Holland Road is inappropriate in our parish and that goes northwest of Holland Road northwest of Summer Lane northwest of Courtlands Lane as we saw so that's why I don't think it's appropriate for me to tell Exmouth where they should be allocating but they shouldn't I don't think it's necessary to compromise the coastal protection area let alone the green wedge so I'll be interested to see what we condone in the next few slides thank you yes I shall be interested indeed as well a slight correction there Exmouth doesn't decide where its allocations go Strategic Planning Committee does it's this committee's decision it's not my place to tell their community where they must go I don't think that's correct or for me to suggest that they must take that decision and once they've identified the right

02:20:02Numbers I'm sure we'll all agree with them. I'll move on from that point then. Just to draw committees and I'm sorry for labouring the point over and over again but just to draw committees attention back to the previous report that we considered at item 8 where officers have pointed out that the recommendations that they had put in front of us and would be putting in front of us over the course of September would get us to 20,812 dwellings nearly 9% or about what's that 1800 houses short of the recommended 10% buffer and we already don't have enough sites we've lost my vice chair informs me 164 already this morning and we're two hours and 22 minutes into the first of four of these meetings um that's all I'm going to say on that point then other speakers from committee Councillor Parr yes um this site is in coastal protection area and I'm reading the technical report and it says under other constraints there are no other significant constraints identified so what are constraints why doesn't it say coastal protection area is a constraint

02:21:20That that is why we had asked for the powerpoint presentation to show those so it was clear for members on that point Councillor How did I see your hand yeah I think I need to on this one in particular and I get everything that's being said but we have good mores farm directly opposite it you can't consider it unsustainable when you got good mores farm with a school some local facilities and everything else directly across the road and now with regard flooding and the water I get that I fully understand that but that is a issue for full planning application not to be considered at this stage again we can't skirt around this um you know I'm really struggling I really am struggling to understand we're going to be back here we will be back here um but who knows could I have an answer please what what where would in our reports perhaps in the future under other constraints shouldn't it say things like coastal protection area what are constraints that's what I want to know if it's not

02:22:40A constraint then you know what is this coastal protection area why have we got it I mean I I would point out it may not necessarily explicitly be there but it's on the presentation and everyone so far has seemed very able of identifying whether it is a coastal protection area or not I think we can take that point away for future reports in terms of making it clear in writing for absolute clarity whether these are in the green wedge the coastal protection areas or the national landscapes are there any other speakers on the actual site okay well in that case then I'm I don't think we have a proposal so I'm going to propose from the chair that this site goes forward as an allocation and as I've proposed it from the chair I don't need a seconder so we'll go to a vote then those in favor three those against is it seven one two three I know it's six because Councillor Firmly has left those abstaining no okay the proposal fails do we have a counter proposal

02:24:00Councillor Jung, I'll throw your hand first. Move on. Is that second from Councillor Ingham? Those in favour? Six. Those against? Three. Are you abstaining, Councillor Jung? Yeah, I'll abstain. Yep. Okay, there we go. We move on then to Limston 10. Worth mentioning that this is another of the split sites where officers are proposing that the southern half of the site, which is 10A, is allocated, but the northern half is not.

02:24:33[member of the public], do you have anything to add on this site specifically? Okay, you have three minutes. I won't take three minutes. I did sort of cover it in my initial run. And I'll only make the point and maybe ask a question of Ed. How do you get from Limston 10A down Holland Road if you're either walking? There is no access past South and break. the uh I don't know whether you could bring back up the slide showing the overview which would be better but there is no pedestrian access past south and right so even if you come out of the corner by south and break you've got a chance your arm and I can show you a picture of an overturned car in hollum road um with just at that spot um so we're we're waiting for the uh for the accident Any chance of a slide?

02:25:35Your nice overview. There we go. As you'll see, there's a gap between Limston 10A and Limston 9 on the northern side. That's owned by somebody else other than the landowner of the two sites there. There is no access past that without walking in the road. If you've walked in, as I said, I don't think any of the officers have actually been down, allan road since I've made that suggestion because it's just impossible impossible to do so I I would just reiterate that point so thank you very much [member of the public] did you want to respond to that you're just responding on that point so if a larger scale allocation was come forward in this location uh on the pedestrian uh safe routes there would clearly be the option of building within the site boundaries so within within the the boundary of the tree line so there might be some tree loss to secure access but there would be a pedestrian potential pedestrian access along parallel with the road on the inside of the tree line in respect to 10A and 08 access certainly there would be

02:26:56An issue to look at well would there be scope for some sort of pedestrian access as a potential development but there's also the whole issue of coming southwards from 10a crossing the road through traffic calming on that road as part of a development scheme looking at safe access routes across as part of a development scheme to secure access to land to the south so providing safe pedestrian via that way but these would be issues that would come forward through the comprehensive development of the site should they be allocated and that's the reason part of the reason for a recommendation for a comprehensive scheme on those land areas. Council's had two years to think about the access issue and that's very plainly waffle I mean you can't go from 10A down Holland Road you can't cross the roads sorry okay thank you. [member of the public] okay thank you which brings us then to Councillor Francis again. The only thing I wish to add to the objections that I highlighted for 9 for 10 that the Agenda Reports

02:28:14PAC cites Lympstone 10 as being especially remote at its northern end. If it is remote by your own officer's assessment it must be illogical to want to put houses there. Please consider our concerns.

02:28:31Thank you Councillor Francis. Councillors Jung and Ingham in committee again. Okay in which case that brings us to committee and I have Councillor Hayward first thank you chair so another site I know I think I've driven down hull and road once um it's no different to a lot of east heaven roads uh looking at the map here um you know I would probably concur that the garden center there is responsible for thousands of car journeys someone approved it someone approved that site and I wish them every success. I love going to a garden centre but to say that it's unsustainable because there's no pavements, the officer has quite rightly said, you can build pavements within sites. Devon County Council at the planning stage, this is the point I need to reinforce this is plan allocation not planning considerations not conditions, not fulls not variants, not outlines this is, is it possible to allocate the site. The planning committee would deal with the minutiae of making sure that people are safe, that there's access, the roads are secure, that pedestrians can move

02:29:42Backwards and forwards. We are yet again conflating issues and if it's a case that this road is unsafe and we shouldn't be allowed to build anything because there's too many cars, then arguably we shouldn't have built a garden centre there because that throws thousands of car journeys at all times of day and night onto that road. That's just an observation, and I take on board everything that's said from members of the public, and for me, flooding issues are more pertinent because flooding is a risk to life.

02:30:15You know, I look at this, the point was made about coastal protection. I would say how many people would look at this site on a map and say it's coastal. Yes, it's near the coast. Most of East Devon, half of East Devon is near the coast. So the nature of coastal protection for me is where cliffs are falling into the sea. That's coastal protection, but perhaps that's just a landlubber's view of this because I live in an inland town. Yeah, sorry, that's just my observation on this. I think this could be built on. I certainly agree that 10B should be discounted, but 10A, it's road accessible, looking here directly opposite Marley Drive, all the people who live in Marley Drive probably have no objection to driving down there, you know, do they walk? You know, I think we can mitigate some of these things through careful planning conditions.

02:31:13Sorry, can we have quiet from the gallery please, thank you. I have did I hear that Councillor Ingham was going to go first this time, Geoff? You did, Geoff. So for similar reasons we were looking at coastal protection area maybe that's a clumsy name it was coastal preservation the idea being that if you were within half a mile or whatever of the coast or if you were in the middle of the estuary could you see this site?

02:31:51Yes you can and that's what it is but I have told you previously similarly that the site below to the west um it is in the coastal protection area is visible from the estuary it is north of um Hulham road and why that's special to our community yes officers unfortunately over the last 20 years have resisted from extending the green wedge and the coastal preservation area up to Green Ridge with the coastal preservation area up to would be common but the part of that ethos whether we dislike it or whether we dislike it is that our communities feel that you shouldn't be encouraging commuting to exit if all of your settlements so extensions of site allocations are around this major settlement and you put them all at the northeast or the north of Exmouth you're encouraging commuting which in this day and age in a climate crisis I would suggest you is a bad strategy and that's just one of the extra items we haven't debated yet today but I know our communities would be and feel strongly about so that's why you know I agree

02:33:27With your idea that officers say that 10 B shouldn't be considered because that's certainly going too far a higher profile but I would say move on on this one we shouldn't be allocating in this site it's it we can do better and we haven't come to all of the sites which I suggested we debated first sorry chair Councillor You thank you again another expert land grab for against Limston all the trees that are on there are TPO the roads that you see The opposite are cul-de-sacs. I know that. I've delivered leaflets there and lived cycling along Helen Road. I would agree that we move on with this, so I would second it. Thank you.

02:34:29Is that a proposal and a second it? Okay, so proposed Councillor Ingham, seconded Councillor Jung, that we move on. I have Councillor Davey next. we're looking to site future development in sustainable locations, this is not a sustainable location the 1600 metres to the nearest services must be the parade of shops in Brixington but there is no way you can walk or cycle without taking your life in your hands to get to those shops [member of the public] has said yep you could provide pedestrian access within the developments yes, but you'd emerge out onto Hullam Road at some point and there is just nowhere to provide pavements there. You'd have to remove hedges or something. So I'm afraid to me at the moment as things stand this is not a sustainable location. Are there any other speakers?

02:35:37No okay in which case we have a proposal from Councillor Ingham seconded by Councillor Jung for us to move on those in support of that eight in support those against and those abstaining okay thank you members Limston 14 then I have [member of the public] anything to add I'm afraid so um the best of the worst within this grouping that have been put forward having said that I am quite concerned about the additional flow of traffic through goodmores that would be generated that along with the traffic from the industrial estate that's going to be built at some point in the future for which we're not quite actually sure when but there are no shops as far as I'm aware to be added in there will make it quite dangerous if you're going to that primary school you're going to get heavy heavy vehicles you're going to get additional traffic from the site and you're going to get the site traffic from Goodmores itself which won't be any lighter so there's no additional recreational facilities been added in here I'm sure

02:37:33The argument is there's loads in Goodmores but there aren't there's a football pitch which has got eight parking spaces but no actual facilities for changing or whatever and it's got a an area I think it's called landscape which is basically a quarter of an acre of shrubland for kids to play in if they're of that nature there's lots of veteran trees and specimen trees talk about biodiversity gain I'm not sure whether that will take into account account that two fairly significant trees that the developers already taken down to make access into Goodmores. Perhaps they would like to make better on that. It's adjacent to the lawns, which is one we looked at in Exmo_04.

02:38:29That contains veteran trees and it's also adjacent to an ancient tree. Quite specific, covered by MPPF, as to what you should and shouldn't do with ancient trees. So I would say there's some significant issues within that area for tree preservation and making sure that the developer does the right thing. As I said, the residents will predominantly use cars. The services in Brixington are limited. I think the Brixington councillors already would say it's overstretched before Goodmores. Adding Goodmores was quite a task. I'm adding another, in this case, 50 houses. The developer yesterday said maybe up to 80, so we need to be a bit wary of that.

02:39:32So, OK, I'm against it, but I do understand that this may be out of the four that have been put up is the least worst option.

02:39:41Thank you very much. Thank you, [member of the public]. [member of the public], I have you on my list. Did you still want to speak on this one? OK, thank you. In which case, Councillor Francis. The Parish Council has already been approached by the developer who wishes to discuss the possibilities of this site with us. While it is within our parish, Lympstone 14 is distanced from our village centre, and we feel in the countryside.

02:40:21It is another proposal that, despite being located within the parish, counts towards Exmouth development targets. The site clearly has significant and distinct disadvantages. If developed, it would be isolated from our village, as well as Exmouth services and amenities. There are concerns about flooding and connecting the area to sewage infrastructure. Flooding issues associated with the site, access concerns with the suitability of Hullam Road and pedestrian safety and nature concerns of that whole area are key issues.

02:40:59In another meeting, there were salient points raised about flooding the infrastructure of the area and how the new Local Plan should be building communities. and there was strong opposition because of the previously mentioned constraints. However, we are mindful that despite the many constraints and problems within the site given, that we are here today to try and decide least bad options and that if some development has to take place within our boundaries, then we would extremely reluctantly concede that limestone 14 might be a logical one for allocation because of its proximity to Goodmores.

02:41:39We would support it if Exmouth councillors felt it would be appropriate for them to meet their needs.

02:41:45Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Francis. I have next for the first time today the landowner or developer, [member of the public]. Are you with us? Welcome to the Lion's Den. You have three minutes.

02:42:07Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon. I am [member of the public] of [member of the public] Planning, and I'm speaking on behalf of Eagle Investment Southwest Limited, which owns this land to the south of Hull and Road, Exmouth, identified as LIMP 14. The site adjoins the northeastern boundary of the current Local Plan W147 mixed-use allocation at Goodmores, which is currently under construction. Eagle Investment South West Limited supports the officer recommendation to propose the site to be allocated for a housing development.

02:42:42The site is available for development. It is also within a sustainable location adjacent to the existing settlement boundary of Exmouth and of a size that would mean it could be developed quickly and would be capable of forming part of the council's five-year housing land supply. Access to the site could be achieved from its western boundary through the adjacent Goodmore's development, the adjacent phase of which is within the same ownership.

02:43:06The site could therefore be developed as a natural extension to the Goodmores site. For this reason it would be more logical for the site to be identified as a stand-alone allocation rather than as part of a wider allocation. The site would still be capable of being masterplanned in a way that gives consideration to the wider area if other land nearby was also allocated. But importantly, it could be delivered without any reliance on other sites.

02:43:34The site is not within the nationally important national landscape, formerly AOMB, and neither is it within any current Local Plan green wedge designation. The landowners are working with a local SME house builder, and if allocated, the site would be delivered utilising local trades and local supply chain where feasible, ensuring that the allocation of the site would offer greatest benefit to the local economy. We therefore request your support for the officer's recommendation to propose the site as an allocation. Thank you.

02:44:06Thank you, [member of the public]. Councillors, Jung and Ingham in committee again. I'm seeing a theme emerging here. Okay, in which case then, we're in committee. Councillor Igan it was interesting what [member of the public] said to us wasn't it best of the worst quoting Ed Freeman back at himself that's quite funny but it's accurate we look at that the green wedge no coastal protection area no national landscape no okay that must be common sense wouldn't it be what I suggest the next few days if you know where Coles is you go up to Coles, you park in there and drive and you look over the gate this is a beautiful pasture and there are ancient trees there and it's absolutely stunning but apparently we need to build here I'll leave that to Councillor All I can say is it's the least worst and with access off Goodmore's Farm I don't know if we can insist on that but the developers are suggesting that but access onto Holland Road would be a no no I'm not going to make a recommendation at this point. Councillor Howe.

02:45:48I recommend we accept this site, as everyone said. It's the least of the worst. They're all worst, but nevertheless, it's the least of the worst, I suppose. Do we have a seconder for that recommendation? Councillor Levine, I saw first. Does anybody else wish to speak on this site? Councillor Davey. Yeah, I'll just agree this is the least worst option. The fact it's adjacent to Goodmores suggests that it's going to be possible to have some kind of access through that, which potentially gets you out onto Dinon Way.

02:46:21There is a potential here for a cycle route, I'm going to keep banging on about these, which could then go through good moors, join on to Dinon Way, and then you'd have access through Marley Road, the old Marley Road, down towards the town. So that one, it is the least worst. It does have some sustainable connections, I think. Any other speakers? okay in which case we move to a vote then we have a proposal to move this forward for allocation from Councillor Howe whose name I forgot for a moment there seconded by Councillor Levine those in favour six six those in favour nice and high please that is fine Those against?

02:47:32Two. Those abstaining? Oh, sorry, three. I think I saw Colin, did you vote against? Can we just make sure our hands are nice and high, please? Those abstaining? Two. That, I believe, then is carried. Yeah, okay. We're going to make a slight change to the running order at this point, and we're going to go to Limstone 13, as it's immediately next door to Limstone 14. um and for some reason appears right at the end of the um limestone sorry Exmouth sites um so we do limestone 13 it's not proposed for allocation um the only speaker we have registered is Councillor Jung do you want to speak now or in committee in committee Councillor Ingham in committee okay um in committee then does anybody have anything to add beyond the officer's recommendation or can we just move on? Councillor Ingham? As a local resident, you know, let alone councillor, given the choice, do we build in a green field across the road? Do we build there? Pull down the garden centre? They say pull down the garden centre. I'd

02:48:54Rather do that than build in some of the beautiful green fields. I'll leave it at that. Do you recommend it? Is that a proposal, Councillor Ingham? No? I'm telling you what I believe most people will say. I don't expect people in this committee to agree with me, but I think it's far better to build houses on that site than to ruin a green field that we can avoid.

02:49:21Would mean losing jobs of course but there we go Councillor Jung I disagree with my fellow ward Councillor I must declare an interest I shop there and it's a very good garden centre but there are other garden centres available I was about to say that I would suggest that we should keep the garden centre as a garden centre. Thank you. Was that a proposal? If you insist.

02:50:04A proposal to move on from Councillor Jung. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Hayward was that, or do you wish to speak? I wish to speak. I mean, we've entered new territory now, Because effectively, by approving or including Limston 13, effectively, we've excluded Limston 9 on the other side of the road. Now, with a pedestrian crossing, you've got cycle access all the way through. Because you can go right across the road, across a pedestrian crossing, nice and safe for pedestrians, nice and safe for cyclists, down through 13 into Goodmores Farm.

02:50:38So, perhaps that one needs to come back at the tail end. and that gets us on that and this is the challenge we're going to have by agreeing one effectively you've opened up scope for another and that's how we're going to have to deal with this piecemeal fashion it's all very well putting them back but they're going to have to come back again for inclusion with then the knowledge of doing something and Councillor Ingen you raised a valid point, whichever order you do it in it's going to have repercussions there's ripples from each of these decisions going forwards and as soon as you agree, for example nine then you can say well now you can do 10 because you can join up that with a little road there this is how we're going to have to do it and it's a slow torturous process and we're going to have lots of these meetings people give me up lots of time but but anyway digressing on this one I know I talked about this garden center I'm sure it's a lovely garden center

02:51:31Um I think on this case there's bigger fish to fry defer it and if we are desperate at the end for 25 and the owner wishes to give up their garden centre and build house on it then we keep it in our back pocket thank you was that seconding yeah okay are there any other speakers on this site it's worth pointing out that actually by uh allocating 14 we've created pedestrian and cycle access to nine potentially but there we go by the by any other speakers on uh 13 no okay in which case we have a proposal to move on from Councillor Jung seconded by Councillor Hayward those in favor oh yeah calling yeah yeah okay nine in favor any against any abstentions very good closest to a unanimous decision we've had in a while okay uh in which case then that brings us back to the agenda and I think I'm right in saying back to Lympstone 17 and I have again the two, sorry, two ward members, councillors Young and Ingham, do you wish to speak

02:52:53Now or in committee? Committee, okay. But I do have Councillor Hookway from outside of committee. Is that right? No, that can't be right. Exmouth 17, yes, sorry that's an error. In which case then we're in committee. Does anybody wish to speak? Councillor Howe? Move on, Chair. Proposal? Yep. Any seconding? Councillor Jung? Does anybody wish to speak? No? Okay. Proposal to move on from Councillor Howe, seconded by Councillor Jung. Those in favour? That is unanimous. Exmouth 7, then. I have Councillor Chapman. Right, Chair. I have to say I find it very, very depressing

02:54:07Listening to the comments here on the number of houses. There's nothing about the quality of life or infrastructure. It's just housing and numbers. And I really think if you're doing a Local Plan, You ought to think about the people that live there. I find it really annoying. Right. Bystock Court is the listed building with the grounds. We can't really build anything there because you can't get out the land because it's privately owned and you won't get permission.

02:54:53We've asked this council to make it a conservation area because a lot of the buildings have been really, really well-preserved for the modern-day living, and we're still waiting on that. But I would like to say, at this point, north of Exmouth, up in Brixtonton, We have hardly any infrastructure and we've had so many estates built, Goodmores Farm being a prime example where the public, after three consultations, put forward requests, playing field, clubhouse and shops.

02:55:44And we've got absolutely nothing. Just sit here and listen to you putting forward a field opposite, which is right on the boundary of Limston, and Limston's miles away, and saying, well, it's opposite Goodmore's. They haven't even got a shop there. I've got 5,000 residents that have to go a mile and a half to get a pint of milk.

02:56:14Thank you, Chair. I'm going to speak at that point because I really resent the implication that any of us here don't care about our community's quality of life. I didn't say that, Chair. I said that I found it disappointing. I'm speaking. I'm very hard. I really resent the implication from you or from anyone else that anybody on this committee, anybody on this authority doesn't care about our residents, doesn't care about seeing infrastructure delivered.

02:56:46We do. We live here, too. We're East Devon residents just as much as everyone else is, just as much as you are, Councillor Chapman. we care as well. We are bound by a system that is not fit for purpose when it comes to delivering appropriate infrastructure alongside houses, alongside new jobs. We are all in agreement with that. Equally, we have a job to do or the government will step in, they will send the planning inspectorate down and they will do it for us with no regard for what anybody thinks whatsoever. You'll see on every single slide that has come up in this presentation so far, the page reference for the Regulation 18 consultation feedback report that came to this committee in July last year, because I ask that that page reference be on those slides, because the feedback that we have got from those consultations from the community is important.

02:57:46I don't know about other councillors on this committee going through these agendas. I have spend countless hours going back not through not only through our officer reports but through that consultation feedback as well through all of the other documents I promise we care with that said Councillor Hayward thank you chair thank you for making that point so clearly um I really would urge any Councillor Here not to use this committee as a platform for their next election campaign because it's not appropriate please thank you Councillor Chapman I don't recall some councillors speaking so passionately vociferously when hawk church parish which is sandwiched between three areas of outstanding natural beauty was covered in solar panels are those residents not entitled to their um their way of life their view their tranquility no because this is, as the chair has pointed out, is a national crisis. Also, for every person who's living in substandard accommodation, in slum dwellings, sofa surfing, are they not entitled to have a house, security of tenure, a roof over their home? It's all very well for people who've

02:59:01Lived here, who have mortgage-free properties, to say, I want my standard of living maintained. But if you're living in a house and it's not fit for purpose, you want somewhere to live, And that's the challenge we are tasked with as a committee. So we're all working together. And speeches like that, Councillor Chapman, are offensive to me. They're probably offensive to every committee member. I'm not sure if you've served on this committee, but you would have had to make decisions like this too. There are no easy choices. There are never going to be. We have a job to do, as the chair has said.

02:59:33Um so on this one however on this one I entirely agree with the proposal you know by stock court for all of its history and its checkered history I don't think this is appropriate for development so I entirely agree with the recommendation that we just move past it discount it and move on thank you sorry council how was that seconding yeah I'm more than happy to say okay we have a proposal then to move on in line with officer recommendation from Councillor Hayward seconded by Councillor Howe I haven't asked if you agree yet committee what ward members do you have anything to add or sorry yes you're quite right not a ward member as a committee member do you have anything to add within 10 seconds it's just a conundrum I want to point out chair is that let's have a look here green wedge no coastal protection area no national landscape no however there is an importance with a grade one listed building it seems that that is more important in a Strategic Planning Committee and planning policy from the

03:01:08Previous local plans going into the emerging Local Plan I'm not impressed just reminding you all I think I would point out and I've just checked with mr. Freeman to my left the listed buildings do have special protection in law above and beyond that which is afforded by the countryside or by local planning policy that that's not a decision that we can change that's down to the Secretary of State that's a big area yes and grade one listed buildings have special significance in, sorry, grade, am I being corrected?

03:01:52No, grade 2. I stand corrected then, grade 2. I mean, either way, they still have special significance in national policy, which goes above and beyond local planning policy. That's just, dems the rules, as the young people would say. That being said, then, we have, I am a young person, yes, so there we go. We have a proposal from Councillor Hayward to move on, seconded by Councillor Howe.

03:02:21Those in favour? It's nearly unanimous. Those against? And those abstaining? Okay. That brings us then to Exmouth 21, land east of Bystock Court. Councillor Chapman, do you have anything to say? can I suggest just because it gets us to the end of a section that we do this one and then take five um just because it makes me slightly happier with my spreadsheet we will yes brian not yet yeah yes Councillor Bailey I can assure you we will have a lunch break today Councillor Chapman Right. This one is really sandwiched between two large housing estates, both of which has no infrastructure, a lot of wildlife, a lot of badgers, and it's still got underground springs coming down,

03:03:30Which is why in this part of Exmouth, up in Brixton, part of Flintstone, we do have these underground springs, which Councillor Howe, I'm sure, knows all about, after the Goodmores Farm, which is where they're having a lot of trouble at the moment.

03:03:53And it's a good nature reserve. So I would go with the recommendation.

03:03:59Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Chapman. Speakers from committee. Councillor Bailey. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to endorse what Councillor Chapman has just said. This area is within the curtilage of the Greater Easton Building. There is also within this area Old Byshop Village, which is one of the oldest privately owned villages in the entire country. so it's historical significance and I'm very pleased that it's not recommended for development thank you very much Jack was that proposal to move on Councillor Bailey thank you seconded by Councillor Jung move on okay any other speakers no in which case we have a proposal from Councillor Bailey seconded by Councillor Jung to move on those in favour those no not quite unanimous those against and those abstaining okay there we go we move on having consulted you'll be pleased to hear Councillor Bailey that I've decided lunch will be now instead of later on so we will break for just over half an hour and committee will reconvene at 20 to 2.

00:00:29Okay, welcome back everyone. I think we're possibly, I know, Paula left earlier so we've got everyone. Brilliant. Okay, back to the agenda then. I believe we left off just before the start of Exmouth Withycombe Ward which brings us then to site EXMO20 I think. I can't see the presentation but while we resolve that technical issue the first speaker I have.

00:01:00For Exxon 20 is [member of the public], who is here. Very good.

00:01:13Thank you, Chair. Just so I'm clear, are we discussing 20A and 20B separately? That is a good question. I think they're on the agenda as separate. Yes. So if I speak on 20A now, I'll have another opportunity to speak on 20B. Yes, please.

00:01:30Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm speaking again on behalf of Eagle Investments Southwest Limited, which owns land at St John's, identified as Exmo 20A. The landowners welcome the recommendations within the report to consider this site as a realistic strategic site option for development. We have recently met with officers and confirmed that the site is available for development. As members will know, there is a significant need for housing, including affordable housing, within the Exmouth area, and this site is suitable for development to help meet those needs over the emerging plan period.

00:02:13Unlike some other identified sites, the site is not within the nationally important national landscape, formerly AOMB, where national policy encourages that preference should clearly be given to allocating suitable sites, such as this one, which are outside the nationally important national landscape over those which are within those designations. The site is not within a green wedge either. Many of the good range of services and facilities Exmouth provides are within close proximity of the site and would be able to meet the day-to-day needs of new residents.

00:02:49But an allocation of the site would also provide an opportunity to strengthen these services and provide new facilities where needed while opening up the site to provide public access to woodland and parkland within its boundaries to the benefit of existing and new residents. The landowner's overall vision for the site is for a contemporary development within a series of parcels, each set within woodland and parkland, where self-containment and connectivity will embed sustainable living and where walking and cycling will be the natural choice to access local day-to-day services and facilities.

00:03:27The delivery of infrastructure as required would help achieve the aim of creating a place where people can live, learn, work and play, all set within a strong landscape structure with ample open space and within a master plan that can respond positively to the setting of nearby heritage assets. connectivity to the west of the site will prioritise active and shared travel over private car usage this will ensure that nearby facilities can be accessed most conveniently by foot or cycle or other sustainable travel modes such as bus travel the most direct route to local services will favour pedestrians and cyclists and routes by car would be more indirect so as to discourage That's three minutes [member of the public]. Thank you very much. Thank you. I have Councillor Chapman is not back yet so I'll come to oh she's gone okay in which case I come to Councillor Matt Hall. Thank you Chairman. As the ward member for the largest allocation site today I would like to thank the committee for standing currently at minus 318. I do feel somewhat slightly hoodwinked here. There are a number

00:04:51Of issues with the proposed St John's site, namely ecology, heritage, possible access to the site considering the number of proposed dwellings. And I don't believe that currently as it stands as an area, is sustainable. It is important to highlight that this site proposes to accommodate approximately 1,000 homes, which will bring to Exmouth between, in my calculations, 3,000 to 4,000 extra people. Exmouth is currently in the middle of an infrastructure crisis, which is considerably more than just sewerage.

00:05:31It is about schools, places, it's about meeting doctors, it's about the myth of an NHS dentist. It's about you're lucky if you can get into Exeter by train without standing as things stand at present. However, speaking as a qualified planning officer, unless East Devon District Council is seriously saying that there will be no more development in Exmouth after this Local Plan or that we will be somewhat smuggling in across the border into the limestone or that we will be building on the area of land down towards the coast.

00:06:14The, as I call it, golden triangle of land which runs from St John's through Ting Tong and down to Sautertum Road offer the expansion of Exmouth in one central location for now and for future local plans. The current proposal before us, I believe at the moment, is too small to provide the necessary 106 and necessary other funding to provide the infrastructure. That is not to say that I'm totally against the proposal, but there are ways that this proposal could be adapted that could utilise the existing ecology and heritage to benefit all and would ultimately provide the infrastructure or help provide the infrastructure that this town needs.

00:07:08Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Councillor Hall. And I think you've taught me my favourite fact of the day so far, that we have somewhere in East Devon called Ting Tom. In and out of Ting Tom, so I gather. Very good. um uh so I I have no other speakers um registered uh on Exmouth 20a then so we come into committee unless there's anything officers want to add by way of an update on nope okay in which case thank you chair um I'd like to thank Councillor For for uh explaining so succinctly you know the possibilities with them.

00:07:59I've said before, Chair, it's not for me to tell Exmouth, in my opinion, where they should make their choices. But I'm fascinated when Councillor Hall speaks and tells us of the great opportunity as a triangle that expands further than what you're looking at. And this is why I suggested earlier, Chair, I think we should have been looking at this one first because it's not the first time when we were going through the workshop that was the first time I heard this one has been a coherent option to all the controversy around courtman's lane summer lane holland road on what's acceptable and what isn't and that what's so attractive and the MPPFs right now certainly was with this idea of sustainability it's so important if you can to have a sizable site allocated where you can provide coherent infrastructure over a period of time as you develop the site so I'm quite happy to propose that we recognise this site for consideration as for development.

00:09:29Can I clarify, is that a proposal to allocate? Yes. Councillor Jung, are you seconding? Because constitutionally I have to seek a second or first. Yeah, I'm there. Yeah, I would like to second. Obviously we need to consider the the church, St John's in the wilderness which needs to be a major consideration to the planning which might reduce the number of houses but seeing that the recommendation for allocation is not and we can possibly get 550 out of that does that bring the figures back to a realistic point of speech.

00:10:27Do you mean does it make up for all of the ones that you had us throw out this morning? Yes. Well, if we get 600, then yes, based on what we've got so far. I would point out that pursuant to the previous report on the agenda, we're actually substantially below that 10% headroom. We're looking for substantially more, not breaking even. This helps in that direction. The workshop was supportive of this and I listened to their discussions. And as long as we do take care of the natural landscape, which is on the boundary, and we take care of the around the church, some delicate design issues there.

00:11:21But I think that we should be supporting it. Thank you.

00:11:50Mr Freeman. Thank you, Chair. Just hearing the thoughts in the room so far, I just want to clarify that obviously this site, as things stand, I think this is something that came out of the working group meetings as something that was perhaps favoured more by members than it had been by officers up to that point. So there's just a slight caveat that there's further work needed in terms of understanding which landowners are still promoting land in this area.

00:12:22And I think there's still some reservations from an officer's perspective in terms of the access arrangements given the limitations of vehicle access to the southern part of the site, which means the primary vehicle access would end up being to the north, which is somewhat out of the town from a vehicle perspective. there are pros and cons there that that could encourage walking and cycling into the town because you'd have those walking and cycling routes to the south which would make that much more direct and convenient but from a uh a vehicular point of view you're encouraging lengthier journeys I would suggest by sending people sort of out of the town and around to get back in um so I think out of all of the sites this is probably one that if members are wanting to pursue this it needs some further work to be done so just to highlight that caveat but happy for members to consider it in the context of the information before you at the moment with the understanding that some further work would need to be done before

00:13:22We could put it in as a concrete fixed allocations for the boat proportion secondary happy on that basis yes I'm aware of the access issues and stuff that we need to work out and aware that we need to work on around the church. But I think it's too good an opportunity to [member of the public], thank you. Wider Committee, any comments? Councillor Davey? Yeah, just to say that of the sites we've been looking at it doesn't look like the worst.

00:14:09It does have some potential for sustainable connections. I'm looking at it on Google Maps. There are some areas of woodland within it, which I would want to see preserved. But with a sensible approach, I certainly wouldn't want to try and fit 1,000 houses in there. But I think you could, from what the developer was saying, you could have a sustainable, small-scale, well not small-scale actually, but a development that was broken up into smaller pockets.

00:14:54So yeah, I think it's definitely got potential. So just to clarify the proposal that's on the table, are you suggesting that 20A, which excludes 20B, goes forward, or all of site 20, including 20B?

00:15:21No, that's true. We haven't. 20B is listed separately. Okay. No, I'm just making sure, because the diagram up there does cover them all. Okay, are there any further comments on 20A? Councillor Bailey.

00:15:40Thank you, Chair. I can see the attraction of the large numbers, and I can agree with Councillor Hall about sustainability. When you've got the large numbers, you've got the chance of putting in some decent services, shops, dentists, doctors and the like, which are desperate for an exit. My concern about the site in general is the lack of access. Do we know, have we got a proposal of how we're going to get in and out of this site?

00:16:12Because the easiest route would be from the top, the road that goes from Burley-Sort and Bright Street and Woodbury, but that's not going to be very effective. If you've got to do that all the time, you know where you're going to walk it. You probably wouldn't cycle it because it's too steep. so it'll have to be accessed onto Dinam Way somewhere and that is my concern I know that is a planning concern as well but there's got to be some form of a clue as to where they want to put it [member of the public] thank you very much the prospective developers have advised of road access coming through site 20B from the south so there would be a link through a housing estate and onto Deanham Way and also highway access to the north to Ting Tong but there would be all sorts of scope for pedestrian cycle and another sustainable transport travel modes at various points in the site but particularly on the southern edges okay any further comments no okay in which case then we have a proposal to take site 20a forward from Councillor Ingham

00:17:29Seconded by Councillor Jung okay those in favour those against and those abstaining okay 20a goes forward 20b then [member of the public] thank you chair I'm speaking again on behalf of eagle investment southwest limited which owns this land identified as exmo 20b we support the officer a recommendation to propose the site to be allocated for housing development. The site is available for development, it is within a sustainable location adjacent to the existing settlement boundary of Exmouth and of a size that would mean it could be delivered quickly and would be capable of forming part of the council's five-year housing land supply. As the council's own assessment acknowledges, the site is very well contained within the landscape with existing trees forming the boundaries on all sides. This would mean that any development of the site would result in very minimal visual impact in comparison with many of the other identified sites.

00:18:42Access to the site could be achieved from its western boundary from adjoining residential roads and evidence has been provided to officers to demonstrate that the existing highway network has a technical capacity to deliver an access to serve the development. It is also close to existing services and facilities and bus routes which would be conveniently accessible by walking and cycling. Information has also been provided to your officers to explain that nothing has been identified from ongoing ecology surveys that represents a constraint to the development of the site. A heritage assessment has also concluded that the site has no historical associations with or is visible from nearby heritage assets. We therefore request your support for the officers' recommendation to propose the site as an allocation. Thank you.

00:19:27Councillor Hall. Thank you, Chairman. If I could just be clear about one previous point, at no point was I suggesting that I supported 20A. It's just a question that if Exmouth is forced to expand, that this is the area that it should look to. With that in mind, and bearing in mind previous comments with regards to proposal 20B, I find that I cannot support 20B on its own. I refer you to my previous comments about the infrastructure crisis that is facing Exmouth. This site, although many positives have already been explained, would not provide the level of housing that provides the money that provides the infrastructure. It just won't happen.

00:20:20Therefore, all it would do is add to and compound the issues that the town faces at the moment. And I would urge you not to support such a development. It needs to be looked in the round, not in these small sides.

00:20:35Thank you. Councillor Hall, committee. Councillor Ingham. Chair, I think I certainly instinctively agree with that. But because of the debate we had on 20A and the adoption of that, it makes sense to add to that with 20B. so it all fits in and the opportunity for development and eczema to involve infrastructure and coherent development over a few years is just so refreshing I've been on this council long enough to have seen grixington developed over the years from just after its beginning right out to Goodmore's Farm and I remember listening to officers say well problem is no one wants to build shops, no one wants to provide all the extras and that was the kind of attitude that was acceptable in the last century but I don't think we can accept that if it's possible to avoid that, if it's possible to develop a small community as part of Exmouth, the greater Exmouth, in a coherent manner, by goodness, this is what we should be doing, not what we were looking at this morning.

00:22:15Thank you, Chair. So therefore, I recommend that this is accepted as an allocation.

00:22:23Thank you for that proposal, Councillor I would point out if you took all of the allocations around Hulham road that we considered this morning and added them up with goodmores you'd achieve a similar scale of development and a similar scale of infrastructure delivery um I I won't I won't say anything further there we have a proposer do we have a seconder I honestly I don't know who I saw first but I'll go with Councillor Bailey um proposal from Councillor Ingham seconded by Councillor Bailey uh the 20b goes forward I have Councillor How to speak I wish to pick up on Councillor Hall's actual point and that is should we be saying that actually we go back to the original of allocation 20 not splitting these two and that I think that's the point castlingham was also making I don't if we allocate them separately they can come forward separately um so I have got that question for officers in particular we really want to do it as one allocation and be coherent and deliver the

00:23:30Infrastructure that will hopefully come from it I'm not overly keen on allocating as a separate standalone choice so I'm reassured by mr. Freeman that we would look at a single allocation but of course the developer would be well within their rights to just bring bits of it forward this meal anyway so we can indeed they could do it in a hundred chunks if they wanted to a house at a time there we go are there any other members of committee wishing to speak Councillor Davey just to point out there is a belt of trees there and would require to be accessed through the trees so I want to see sort of additional planting in mitigation there is a hedge running through the middle of the site as well but it doesn't actually join up to anything which is interesting I think there may be walls there or something I'm looking on Google Maps but yeah with that caveat I think well it would be illogical to refuse this one or move on from it and then look at the whole site so yeah I'm quite happy with this one

00:24:48Thank You Councillor Davey Mr Freeman has some points to add and thank you I just wanted to clarify the point recently made in terms of the discussion that I think if we're allocating the site as a whole we would want a master plan of the site as a whole produced and a phasing plan as part of that so we can try and coordinate the delivery of the housing with the infrastructure coordinate the access arrangements and how this all comes forward so just to reassure you that we would seek to try and control all of those things okay we have a proposal from Councillor Ingham seconded by Councillor Bailey that this goes forward as an allocation any further comments no okay in which case then all those in favour. That's unanimous. Okay that brings us then to Exmouth 24 land to the north of Salterton Road and first up we have [member of the public] on behalf of Clinton Devon Estates. Good afternoon by way of introduction I'm representing Clinton Devon Estates as the lead on planning for about 16

00:26:11Sites today. As many of you know the estate holds land across the district agricultural residential commercial conservation forestry recreational and community space we're involved on many levels with discussions for the provision of sounds water and sewage infrastructure habitat mitigation and landscape recovery and we know the challenges of affordable rural housing and community infrastructure and at the moment our property manager is taking about five calls a week and about 10 viewings on each house in East Devon. There's a need for housing. In 2022 we presented to members our sites across the district and have been engaged with the Local Plan process since.

00:26:56The majority of our sites today have been subject to detailed reports that consider and analyse layout, landscape, highway access, community and green infrastructure. They're credible sites and a few of them I'll speak about today have been tested. We have a track record of delivering quality developments in this district with affordable housing and community assets. Exmo_24 today adjoins Liverton Business Park and lies to the north of Salterton Road.

00:27:31It can take the 124 dwellings and we have had scoped plans. it's co-located to a major urban area and the employment hub of liverton business park it's on a transport corridor with access from Salterton road and as one of the councillors today said it's located in the golden triangle it falls outside the east ebon national landscape and we believe that we would like to bring this forward for recommendation for allocation as a sustainable site that could deliver the housing required, but also with significant BNG and green infrastructure.

00:28:14Thank you. Councillor Hall. Thank you, Chair Committee. Very much in a similar vein before. Exmo_24, to my opinion, does not work as a standalone site. This would create a community within a community. It is different if it forms part of a wider master plan of the area. And I think we must be careful when looking at sites like this. If we don't think of future development, we're actually boxing in existing development.

00:29:03We need to be mindful of that. So, Chair, members of the committee, if this is a standalone site, I do not view this as sustainable. I view this as compounding the problems the experts faces and again as similar before if it's on its own my impression is that it would not bring a constructive 106 agreement that would provide infrastructure to the town however if it forms part of a master plan of the area some of those concerns melt away thank you chair I must say I fully agree with you Councillor Hall it's a little tongue out into the open countryside on the wrong side of an industrial estate so on that basis I'm going to propose from the chair that we move on from this site at this time does anybody on committee wish to speak Councillor Ingham.

00:30:00Yes, Chair. In generic terms for looking at Expo, if EXMO20 were to go ahead and Expo 18 were to go ahead, looking at 24, I would suggest there's so many houses, there has to be jobs on offer as well. And I heard the representative from Clinton-Devon Estates say they were minded that that sort of development could be residential or it could be for employment land. I think we may move on from this one at the moment but I'm thinking we may have to revisit it to see if that would help support 20 becoming a coherent community with jobs on offer as well as houses because however much national government talks about the need for housing chair. The new government has told us that it's important to rely on growth of our economy as well. And we can't do that if no one's got a job.

00:31:37Thank you. Indeed. And in that respect, the new government, same as the old government, can I say. That being said, this is proposed for houses, not for jobs, in the submission that we've had. as I understand the report. Any other comments from committee before we go to a vote? No? Okay. In which case, you have a proposal from the chair to move on from this site. Those in favour, those against, and those abstaining.

00:32:13Is that unanimous? Did you vote, Mike? Yeah. Okay. Very good. In which case, then, we come to Exmouth 18. [member of the public], welcome back. Exmo_18, we call it Liverton 3, but it adjoins Liverton Business Park and proposes mixed commercial use. It supports that need for jobs. This is one of the few sites proposed in this plan for Exmouth for the delivery of employment. There is a demand and a requirement.

00:32:56My commercial colleagues answer all the time calls from businesses that are startups businesses want that want to grow and develop and from national and international firms and I think if you go to liverton you'll see that mix but we know that there is still a demand this is a viable and sustainable site on the fringes of Exmouth adjoining the current Business Park and it would support and complement that need within the district. Thank you.

00:33:32Councillor Hall, there's a pattern emerging here. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. I think this is the final time for me today. Hooray. I cannot support a Local Plan for Exmouth that includes housing but does not include jobs. Because that's a recipe for disaster. Therefore, I 100% support the allocation of Exmo_18 for jobs, for the creation of jobs, for new jobs and expanding jobs within Exmouth. There are two slight caveats to that. One, that really should form part of a request to Devon County Council to improve the liverton junction onto Salterton road which is not fit for purpose now less loan if you add on additional commercial traffic and really let's keep our fingers crossed the dean and way does happen otherwise potentially this could force commercial traffic either to go through uh the town which we don't want or the unsuitable and I know you like the term chairman ting-tong road thank you thank you council hall committee Councillor Jung I think we should support this one. Is that a proposal?

00:35:02Yeah. Okay. I saw Councillor Parr nodding first. Would you like to second? Okay. There we go. Any other members to speak? Councillor Ingham? Well, this does gel with 24, doesn't it? So it would be interesting to see whether Clinton-Devon Estates come up with a proposal that we consider 24 for employment land or not, because Councillor Hall was right and he said this would go towards supporting the housing development but we know that's only a small number of jobs in proportion to the number of houses and we need to make Exmouth sustainable as a working and living town not the dormitory town which has been almost in terms for the last 50, 100 years.

00:36:00Okay, I'll move us then to a vote on Exmouth 18. We have a proposal from Councillor Jung, seconded by Councillor Parr, that Exmouth 18 goes forward as an employment allocation into the Reg 19 plan. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Okay, that brings us then to Exmouth Littleham. and the first site up is Exmouth 17 and the first individual registered to speak I have a [member of the public] I feel seeing as what's happened today that this particular site is a sitting duck but anyway in 2016 the Local Plan devised by Exmouth residents stated we must conserve the natural environmental qualities of the area, including the AONB, or Natural Landscape, and other countryside assets.

00:37:07The Labour government, I read, asserts that any development should benefit communities and nature. Building on this large tract of farmland that you've labelled Exmo_17 would do precisely the reverse of this. So what would be gained by proposing Exmo_17 as a building site? Well, number one in your minds, I guess, you will meet government targets, or partly. On a prime, beautiful site like this, it's going to be an expensive site, so developers will want to build expensive houses. And I don't think many of those will be bought by people who already live here. So you're going to get an increase in population. Using national averages, this could add 900 people and 900 cars to the town. This would put major pressure on infrastructure such as roads, medical practices and sewage systems. The third thing, third gain would be quite a lot of money for Clinton Devon. What would be lost? Well, ironically, first of all, you'd lose the coastal protection area. That would be torn up. That was there to stop building. You will lose, secondly, food producing farmland that will be lost

00:38:29Forever. We'll lose the beauty of this AONB or natural landscape land that will be lost forever. Wildlife and biodiversity on this land will be lost forever. We hope, and I'm sure it's true, that the council will be letting the government know that we have no grey belt, and that building of new large estates in Exmouth isn't really feasible. Another subject, if you're a young, low-paid individual or family, you know that you'll never have a permanent home.

00:39:04The crying need in Exmouth is not for high-end houses, but for modern houses and apartments for low-paid individuals and families that have affordable rents or rental shared ownership schemes. This won't happen on Exmo_17. In a previous consultation, Exmo people expressed the view that powerful landowners should not be calling the tune. We suggest, if farmland is the only option for building, looking again at land north of Salterton Road for building the homes that less affluent people need. It's neither AONB or Coastal Protection land. We think if you adjusted Exmouth 18, so maybe you take the southern half of it away, there would be room for expansion of the Liverton Business Park at the bottom of the slope with houses and flats further up the slope and alongside Salterton Road. And if that were the case, the houses would be adjacent to a couple of existing houses that are there.

00:40:08We hope that in the rush to meet government targets, you will be able to try and prioritise placing the homes we actually need in locations that minimise their impact on nature and the beauty of East Devon. Thank you for listening. Thank you [member of the public]. I think I probably speak on behalf of everyone in committee when I say we share your frustrations with the call for sites process that's set out in the guidance and indeed frustrations with government's failure to give us the powers we need to bring forward those affordable houses you mentioned. I'm not sure there's anything else I can add. So I won't. I'll come to [member of the public]. We see Exmo_17, the land south of Salterton Road, as an opportunity to meet all of these issues that you're raising about a site that creates a community, that provides infrastructure and also provides habitat for wildlife. We have, with professionals, undertaken detailed design and visibility studies on this land and can confirm that the site can accommodate the allocation of around 400 dwellings sustainably with affordable housing to meet the needs of Exmouth's community. From the scheme design,

00:41:39Thought has been given to its layout and landscaping focused to the north and eastern parts of the site taking into account the national landscape which isn't and shouldn't be held in aspect but is a living working landscape but it takes into account the topography of the ground the heritage features of the church and the adjoining settlement of Littleham. Green infrastructure laid out to the west is sensitive to the church and it can provide community infrastructure and some employment land. The site can retain connectivity to the strategically important cycleway owned by the estate and leased to Devon County Council and Liverton Business Park to the north with an improvement and suggested roundabout for the Liverton Business Park. We believe that this site is part of a master plan for the eastern side of Exmouth and by working with district council members and officers maybe we can meet the needs and objectives of the community. Thank you. Thank you. Over to ward members then. I have Councillor Hookway first. Thank you chair. Is that better?

00:43:17Okay, thank you. Right, okay, so I'm objecting to this site. It's outside the built-up area boundary. It's open countryside. I'll come back to that point in a moment. It sits within the national landscape because it is an area of outstanding natural beauty. My concern about building within a natural landscape is that this, and I don't like using this phrase, this development could be a sort of a Trojan horse. If you allow building here on a national landscape, you are opening a Pandora's box to building on national landscapes across the district.

00:44:00Now, the reason why this is open countryside is that this is high land. For those of you who don't know Exmouth, you need to understand that the town rises from the seafront and rises up towards the Knoll leading down into Paddley. This is an area of high land. It is visually prominent. It was a bit more sticky like a sore thumb. And it is exposed. It is exposed to the four corners of the wind.

00:44:31It is a misty, windy, wet area in the winter. And I, for one, frankly, wouldn't want to live there. Well, I don't expect many other Exmodians would. So my question really sends us about what exactly does the developer tend to do here? What type of properties are they going to be, high-end properties? Because I don't think excellent people are going to go here. They'll go to people from outside the district.

00:44:58Now, the developer's just talked about talking about community and so on, and they've also mentioned that they would be housing, there would be affordable housing, and there would be an employment site. and that for me suggests that there's a bit of hedging of bets going on there it's not a sustainable area it's completely isolated it's out on a limb from the rest of the town it is set aside and boarded by the Salterton Road north of the Little Estate it's a very seductive number which you're being asked to think about But it's a poor choice. I absolutely support the comments of my fellow councillor, Councillor Hall, about Exmouth. It does have an infrastructure crisis, forgetting the sewage, of course. But we have brownfield sites in the town that need to be developed. They would be much more suitable and much more popular and would probably, I believe, gain greater numbers of houses and so on.

00:46:02I'm also concerned about the impact of any development here on the southern end of the site, particularly on the church and the area around the church. That's a very old and historic settlement. So, I think I've covered my points. Oh, yes, the other point is about community infrastructure, which we have partly mentioned. We haven't heard much about how, what exactly can be given to... That's three minutes, councillor.

00:46:32OK. My concerns are about infrastructure. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councillor Anne Hall.

00:46:49Thank you, Chair and committee. I cannot... I certainly object to this site being allocated. It is contrary to MPPF paragraph... No, Chapter 15, paragraph 180 and 182, in the fact that it's in the national landscape. And therefore, under these guidances, it has great weight and should not be given, it should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty, which have the highest status of protection.

00:47:29It also is in, it's in contrary to chapter 15 paragraph 183 development within the national landscape permission should be refused for major development this is classed as major development and if it was anywhere else not in the national landscape I would support it but as it is I can't Also, only in the last few months there's been a public consultation regarding coastal protection areas with the idea of expanding this area to cover the whole of Exmo_17.

00:48:11The responses from the residents was outstandingly in support of expanding this area. This is a highly visual area, highly sensitive. it certainly needs protecting. We regularly have a planning committee have applications which are recommended for refusal due to the visual impact on the national landscape which is close by but not actually, the application is not within the actual curtilage of the national landscape but it's the impact which we have to say no we don't want that planning application.

00:48:54This is certainly not to be taken lightly. The area is actually a green space for locals to actually use as an amenity space. And for their mental health and well-being, we cannot take this away. And the cycle track, which leads right down through to Budleigh, is really important to have the open aspect for mental health and well-being means. So, therefore, with the idea of also having a listed church in its vicinity, we should actually not approve this application for this site. Thank you.

00:49:37Thank you, Councillor Hall. I believe then we come to committee. Councillor Davey. Well, once again, we're looking at one of the least worst options, aren't we? It does have sustainable links. to the town. It is right on the edge. Yes, it is in national landscape, but it's an area of farmland. We're not talking about the black downhills here. It is right on the edge of Exmouth. It joins up to the rest of it. It's not an isolated development. And yeah, I mean, all things being equal I probably wouldn't build anywhere in Exmouth but if we've got to there are worse places to cite it.

00:50:36Is that a proposal Councillor Davey? Yeah I guess so. Constitutionally then I have to seek a seconder first for the proposal to allocate. Are either of you seconding? Yeah okay Councillor Ingham you're seconding? Wish to speak? listening to the first speaker I'd like to take this point on the significance of Salterton Road but those potential sites that could come forward haven't come forward as yet so this is what we're offered for 410 houses yes it's in the national landscape what's of importance to me is coastal protection area and green wedge because forgive me, we define those. Someone in Whitehall defined that national landscape a long time ago however important it is.

00:51:38So I do believe that expansion of Exmouth has to be where possible on the south and southeast part of the environment. and at the moment there isn't a series of options just north of Salterton Rome it is coherent I mean Littleham used to be a village of its own and although it's now wrapped up as part of Exmouth it's rather a nice part of Exmouth and it's coherent so I believe we would be making the right decision if this one goes forward because of its proximity to other sites okay thank you Councillor I have the feeling we may get a request from the Budleigh councillors for their own green wedge between Budleigh and Exmouth at this rate quite frankly but there we go we have a a proposer and a seconder I have Councillor Jung then Councillor Bailey yeah now it's national landscape and we have to give really good justification why this should go forward instead of some other sites and it's my belief that developing on higher Holland Road is worse than developing in the National Landscape

00:53:27Because the gateway to Exmouth is down that Holland Road with those trees side to side. We lose that, we lose the character of Exmouth. This portion of the National Landscape, I guess it's right on the edge. There are sureties that the cycle way of the stay I would expect that and there's going to be other benefits from the site for the greater area so if we can come up with the justification of building in the national landscape we've got other sites coming forward in the next couple of weeks and possibly this afternoon of building in the national landscape it's not a it's not an absolute no-go but we have to give extra justification for developing in there so I do support this thank you Councillor Bailey thank you chair there seems to be some difficulty as to whether it's in the natural landscape or not in actual fact it's adjacent to it is not in it at all.

00:54:43As far as I can tell, I stand corrected. So, even having said that, it's not going to be seen by many people as regards a blot on the landscape. So, I can't see where the actual problem is. It's right on the main road. It's right on a bus route. Directly across the road, there's various businesses and shops that would be available to the proposed residents so I would be in favour of it thank you Chair Mr Freeman did you want to come in at this point yes thank you Chair I wanted to highlight a point of principle here because I think this is the first site you've considered that is within the national landscape so I need to make the point that the national landscape is the highest landscape designation in the country basically there's national parks but on equal sort of footing and we we are recommending this for allocation I should say but we do that with our with great reluctance I would say because of the housing numbers that we're having to meet but I think it's important that members consider this in the context of some

00:56:07Of the other sites bearing in mind you have rejected other sites earlier today that are not in the national landscape but not in landscape designations at all in some cases um and there were comments earlier about you know this being a better site than sites that were in the green wedge or in the coastal preservation area in terms of the tiers of landscape designations national landscapes is way up here your green wedges and your coastal preservation areas are way down here in terms of that hierarchy um so while I would agree that the officer's recommendation here is because we can't meet our housing needs unfortunately without incurring into the national landscapes and out of the national landscape sites before us I think this is probably the least one of the least harmful in terms of the integrity and purpose of the national landscapes but I think we will run into problems I suspect through the examination process if you are allocating this site ahead of sites within the green wedge and within coastal preservation areas and seeking to protect those and give those greater weight in terms of their importance

00:57:12Than the national landscape so while I understand where you know the mood is going in terms of committing terms of this site I think it does call into question some of the the issues raised on previous sites that you've currently rejected thank you chair thank you mr Freeman does anybody else wish to speak on this site? No? Okay. In which case we have a proposal that it goes forwards. I've forgotten who proposed and seconded it.

00:57:48Councillor Davey, four seconded. Okay, Councillor Davey proposed, Councillor Ingham seconded. Thank you, Mr. Hunter. In which case then we go to a vote on this one. Those in support of this going forward for allocation? Six in favour. Those against? Four. for Colin. Colin's not putting his hand higher. Okay, so that allocation is carried then. We move next to Exmouth 06 Douglas Gardens in Exmouth and I have, if I can find the correct piece of paper first up, [member of the public]. As you're aware Exmo_06 Douglas Gardens is a proven site within the previous Local Plan framework with a resolution to grant planning subject to a section 106 and that resolution to grant was given in the spring of 2003. Section 106 provides affordable housing and the NHS contribution. The site was brought forward after a request from the council as it was a sustainable development and we promoted that and brought that forward at the request of the council this site is ready today for delivery subject to the signing of the section 106 and confirmation of a planning consent and it would and could meet the housing

00:59:39Need thank you thank you [member of the public] going to come to mr Freeman briefly uh yes thank you I just just wanted to clarify um suggestions that the site was brought forward at our request it's not quite the words I would use um obviously we're in a position where we didn't have adequate housing land supply that that was made clear and so um developers were bringing forward sites to to help to bolster a housing and supply position and the site was considered in that that context and and ultimately supported by the planning committee and as it's been said has a resolution to grants but I wouldn't say it was requested that an application be made um so just a slight difference in terms of terminology there but um it does have a resolution to grant subject to 106 thank you okay uh Councillor And thank you chair I'll be brief on this one whether this will ever come to fruition is a questionable but as we hear it's ready to go but um it has the planning

01:00:56Permission and is therefore in our Local Plan by default. This site, with the cost of the removal of spoil, will not deliver the type of housing that is required by local people and families at an affordable cost. Thank you.

01:01:15[Passage not reproduced here. It contains allegations or strong criticism of named people or the council, made at the meeting. We don't repeat allegations; you can hear the passage in the council's own recording by playing it from this point.]

01:01:54I have no evidence, but it's great that, indeed. The problem is the bungalow's been purchased, and the bungalow is perfectly usable, and it's going to be demolished. And it's going to be demolished with an entrance into Douglas Avenue. Now, if this would take place, the entrance would be very steep into Douglas Avenue. and when it came to highways first they had objections because it was dangerous and there was no visibility displays without buying part of the land owned by the houses on either side this didn't happen so then it came back again after refusal some time later and highways changed their mind they had no objections we don't know why they changed their mind but they did so that's where we are at the moment I believe the site is up for sale and has been for some time with apparently no takers.

01:02:48So it's going to ruin, I think, the valley that it's going to be built in because there's no other ruins actually in the valley. There's a back of Plum Park, which is adjacent to the valley, which is aspirational to be a parkland going down to the sea front. So the residents, which I represent many of them, are not happy at all and I'm sure you'll recall lots of emails and those coming at the time so I'm here to without being prejudiced I'm here to represent their views which I'm doing and I'm not in favour of it at all Thank you Chair Thank you Councillor Bailey Worth pointing out that this is not inside the Exmouth Neighbourhood Plan's Valley Park policy at that area the boundary of that on the north side that area, runs along the south side of this site. Councillor Jung.

01:03:49Seeing this site has got planning permission now, why are we now discussing if it should be in the Local Plan? Because it doesn't yet have planning permission. It has a resolution to grant from committee, but that's subject to the agreement of a section 106. So it doesn't yet have planning permission. Yes, we've got another one in this afternoon, I believe, on there. Seeing that it'll be very difficult to not support this after it going through a planning application I think we should be supporting this site so I would my proposal is to recommend approval okay I was that seconded by Councillor How yep okay so we have a proposal for this to go forward as an allocation from Councillor Jung seconded by Councillor Howe. Does anybody else wish to speak?

01:04:49No? Okay. In which case we'll go to a vote then. As I say, proposal to allocate by Councillor Jung, seconded by Councillor Howe. All those in favour? Those against? And abstentions? One. Okay. That is caroled. Caroled? Carried. It's been a long day. Exxonoth 08 is up next then Littleham Fields in Exmouth and again [member of the public]. This site lies to the south and east of

01:05:52The Plum Park development and adjoins Littleham. We have had detailed scoping of this site which shows that it can accommodate with access from the new development the allocation of 40 dwellings in its design it's designed to fit with the adjoining development with 50 percent of the site providing green infrastructure and the bng exceeding the 10 percent taking into account the lie of the land the landscaping and the proximity to the current settlement and we would please ask members to support this site thank you Councillor Anne hall I could do a recording of this couldn't I again thank you chair um going to be brief this site just is a bolt on to the newly developed pankers site which is where it's going by looks things going to be accessed by my fear is that the development doesn't add any positives for the residents of littleham and it's just adding 40 properties with no additional infrastructure benefits for Exmouth that is it thank you short and sweet okay coming into committee then Councillor Howe I recommend we accept officer's recommendation and move forward

01:07:31That was quick okay uh we have a proposal to allocate from Councillor Howe seconded by Councillor Bailey does anybody else wish to speak Councillor Ingham Just to note what Councillor Hall said there she's right it's unfortunate that when you look at the lay of Green Farm that we can't consider that as one entity and it looks like this is going to be piecemeal and the people who will lose out will be probably the people of Littleham who won't get the supporting infrastructure that could be achieved if it was done as one site.

01:08:17Thank you, Chair. OK, thank you, Councillor Ingham. We have a proposal and a seconder. I had a brain blank for a moment there. Does anybody else wish to speak? No? OK. In which case, we'll go to a vote then. Proposed for allocation by Councillor Howe, seconded Councillor Bailey. All those in favour? Nine. Those against? And those abstaining? Okay, that is carried. Exmouth 16 then. You'll never guess who's up next. It's [member of the public].

01:09:02This is a relatively small site it's a small infill site of our lane we have scoped it looked at the layout the actual scoping takes up less than sort of half of the site so quite spacious in how it's designed and can provide for five units we do believe again the same arguments a sustainable location within Littleham and does adjoin the urban area as an infill site. Thank you. Councillor Hall. Thank you Chair. Part of this site is in flood zone three which is why I presume there's quite a large green area but we will need mitigating measures to make sure that it doesn't make the situation worse down in that area because if I remember right Maer Lane actually floods quite regularly this site will encourage the use of cars etc as it's too far away from any proper shots doctors etc and therefore would personally class this site as unsustainable due to the reliance on the motor vehicle but as we hear it's supposedly sustainable all our sites are actually too far away from a lot of the

01:10:37Amenities and shops but it's just another bolt on. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Hall. Members? Councillor Howe? Once again unfortunately yes, recommend for approval and go forward. Is that second in Councillor Bailey? Okay, thank you. Anybody wish to speak? No? Okay, well we're rattling through these then. We have a proposal to allocate from Councillor How seconded by Councillor Bailey those in favor those against and those abstaining okay that is carried then um and as that brings us to the end of the uh Exmouth ward sites uh we're going to take a 10 minute break until five past three okay welcome back folks um we are conscious

01:23:37Of time and that we are still significantly behind schedule compared to where we thought we're going to be, we are going to push on and try to get through everything that is on the agenda still, but we'll make a call in another hour, hour and a half or so, depending on where we are. At that point I would make a plea to the remaining members of committee who are here please keep your comments brief if you've got nothing to add to the officer report then please don't feel the need to speak quorum is five so that's myself the vice chair and three members on the floor there so we're okay for the moment but please don't leave and with that said then we come to the to agenda item 9b we've progressed in the agenda item and we come to site limestone 01 and I have first up [member of the public] members have already been made aware of the flood risk in the wooden brook this is another site which potentially drains into that brook the brook is highly vulnerable to pollution and any development

01:24:54Here must ensure that the waters ideally are directed away from the brook of nipston however the drainage to the south is problematical because it goes to a pumping station which currently handles the properties around sadden house and sadden farm development should not really proceed until Southwest Water's sewage system in Lipset has been improved. The allocation of this site and others potentially in Lipset could lead to the village having something like another 200 houses. We feel that this is far more than really the village can cope with and it's an extraordinary amount for the village facilities. The school has to use the village hall and only has a temporary classroom. There are no playing fields for the football and cricket clubs and only one shop. It would appear that it's considered to be appropriate for a third tier settlement, only because it has a station. However, this only has parking for 13 cars.

01:25:47Apart from this particular site, all the other proposed housing allocations are all some distance away from the village centre, and likely depend on the car for transport. Budleigh, which has a greater range of facilities, apart from a station, appears to have an allocation of only 25 houses. I would ask members to reconsider the distribution of housing in the light of this. I'd like to add that I actually was a planner with the National Park Authority and we still had to find houses in the National Park. Thank you.

01:26:16Thank you, [member of the public]. I can't say I particularly disagree with you about the dichotomy between Limston and Budleigh but there we go. Councillor Francis. This site is currently land behind the garden of 22 Underhill Crescent and it would require demolition of the house to gain access to it for the number of houses you suggest. The Limston Flood Resilience Group have some concerns regarding this site which we feel despite our support in principle you need to be aware of and consider at any future planning application stage and carefully review if the site is selected for development in the new plan. It must also be stated that the owner of the property has a current planning application for two houses on the part of this site that does not have a separate access. The PC supported this application as they were for smaller family homes. The senior property owner shared in our planning meeting that he and his wife planned to remain at the property for the rest of their days and they were not interested in developing

01:27:27The remaining part of the site. However, once his children had inherited, then he could not speak for their intentions. Despite these concerns, the parish council believed that this site is a logical one to be included in the new Local Plan for development it does not take away agricultural land and connectivity to utilities could be achieved relatively easily the site is within easy reach of the village centre and services on foot and it would of necessity be of a small close layout favoured by us and our neighbourhood plan thank you thank you Councillor Francis. [member of the public], the landowner. Just the button on the right, you'll see the red light come on. There you go. Chairman, committee members, site shown before you consists of a central garden area behind the 22 Underhill Crescent and either side of that, two small paddocks adjoining the of the garden. The site is enclosed on three sides, east, north and west, by residential land and properties, and as such is within a residential site curtilage and not isolated in the countryside. To the safe boundary, there is a substantive earth bank and hedge

01:29:00Approximately three meters high, which forms a natural boundary and beyond which starts the coastal preservation area. The site should be considered as infill, I believe, relating well to the surrounding housing. The site is accessed at present by two driveways, one to the northwest and one from Underhill Crescent along the side of the current house. Under each of the driveways is a foul water-sewer connection. The site is approximately level, not subject to flooding, and comprises of a stony, poor agricultural grassland.

01:29:50All rainwater drain-off from dwelling roofs, driveways and parking areas will be retained within the site via infiltration and rain garden plantering. There should be no flood risk of the site. The site selection report identifies this as a preferred allocation site for eight dwellings. The developing Local Plan locates the site outside the proposed Green Wedge area and within the new Limston built-up area boundary, identifying the earth bank and hedge at the south of the site as a natural boundary.

01:30:40This preferred allocation clearly indicates that the principle of development of the site is deemed acceptable, fully sustainable, retrains the rural village identity and enhances the boundary between Limston and Exmouth. Constructed dwellings will be located adjacent to existing pavements and within five minutes walk of the village centre, the railway station, the doctor's surgery, the primary school and the ex-estuary trail although each dwelling would have a car parking area for at least two cars the site position That's three minutes [member of the public] that it? I'm afraid so Alright then Thank you, if you could just switch the microphone off please Thank you Next up, Councillors Jung and Ingham would you like to speak now or in committee?

01:31:33Okay Is that going to be the case for all of these? Yes okay I trust you will let me know if it isn't in which case then we come to committee Councillor Thank you chair part of the reason why this site would be considered sensitive to long-standing residents within Limston is yes one it's part of the green wedge it's right on the edge of the green wedge but within it and that was to prevent this happening as it would create coalescence between Limston and Exmouth in close proximity to the built up area boundary one of the other things is that the coastal protection area does go that bang up to it and the reason why this site is sensitive I'd suggest to you that perhaps that should have been included in the coastal protection area in that could you see those houses from the estuary if eight of them were built yes you could so you're building on the skyline on the ridge that's why it's flat on the top there and you won't get too much drainage problems there well not on the top of

01:33:09The hill you will at the bottom and other aspects that I think are relevant to this is yes if you walk down that hill and you went to the station you would have to you could either walk through the superb car park at the bottom or you walk past the doctor's surgery then you walk past the which has a post office and you walk past a pub so it is in close proximity to a very sustainable village but the problem for me, the main problem for me is that you have to leave this site and leave Limston, you have to, whichever way you go, you have to go through the centre of Limston and through the narrow lanes and this will not help our problems for pedestrians and cyclists in that area.

01:34:09I have to say, when it comes to, is it one of the best of the worst? Yes, it is. But don't ask me to propose this goes forward because it hurts a lot because of what I've just mentioned to you and it will create minor problems and issues within the village if eight houses are built instead of two.

01:34:39Thank you, Chair. Sympathy with what you say, Councillor Ingham, and I'm sure I'll make the same points when we come to Wimple in a few weeks, but it's surrounded on three sides by residential development. You can walk to major services. I'm quite happy to propose that this goes forward as an allocation from the Chair. Does anybody else wish to speak? no okay in which case we'll go to a vote propose that this goes forwards from the chair those in favour five those against one and abstentions one okay that's carried then we come to G H E D 72 which although it is adjacent to Limston is technically within the parish of Woodbury and up first we have an objective registered and [member of the public] moffat who unfortunately chairs had to go back to work but has left me with yes indeed somebody has to do some work today so if you'll permit me I'll read them out on her behalf thank you thank you chair so this is from jane moffat who is an objector to this site the site is totally unsustainable form of development

01:36:03And contrary to national policy given the impact on the road network which is already at capacity and the impact on high quality agricultural land and poor access to local services and facilities. As part of the Hallett family who farmed Gillyford for centuries I can wholeheartedly confirm these two fields have always been high yielding cornfields. The photograph used in the consultation did not represent the field as it is, but of the building site in the few weeks during the construction of farms.

01:36:37Unlike most villages in Devon, there is only one road access as the village is cut off by the ex-estria on one side and the A376 on the other. Any development on this greenfield site will exasperate the current flooding issues downhill on Nutwell Lane and Gulliford Dip on the A376, making both impassable and cut off the village even more often than at present. Council officers keep targeting limestone using the sustainability argument.

01:37:10This is disingenuous. A recent survey conducted within the parish confirmed that most people commuted by car both for work and to take children to school. The train did not go to destinations needed and was too expensive. The same argument was used for bus travel. This development will rely on car transport apart from a few children walking to the primary school. The site is within the coastal protection area and this development goes against strategy 44.

01:37:39On the council's website it stated that restrictions against development in CPAs are stronger than those in AUMBs. Why have a public consultation where I can predict the overarching answers were to protect CPAs at all costs if you were going to ignore it? The fields on this site, the Gulliford Ancient Water Meadows and Nutwell Estate Drain into the ex-estuary, are internationally important feeding grounds for birds indicated by its designation as a Ramsar, R-A-M-S-A-R, I'm hoping everyone knows what that is, I'm afraid I don't, site.

01:38:18So we should be protecting this CPA carefully. At a time when there is a clear national policy push for biodiversity net gain, this would be the opposite. The community does not have the infrastructure for this site in terms of doctor surgeries, dentists, primary and secondary school places or a functioning sewage system. The site is close to three Grade 2 listed historical sites and possibly the oldest building in Devon, the old hunting lodge, now called the Stickhouse, at the historic Gulliford Farm.

01:38:53The application site is outside the built-up boundary. This goes against Strategy 7 of the EDLP and the Limstone Neighbourhood Plan. However, the built-up boundary for Limstone has been quietly altered by EDDC with no local consultation. This is a wholly failing site, totally unsuitable for the village, but also with damaging ramifications to both the sensitive coastal area and the historical buildings nearby. I urge you to discount it.

01:39:25And that's on behalf of Jane Moffat. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Debbie. It's worth mentioning at this point, I think this is the second time in quick succession. The settlement boundaries haven't actually been set for the new Local Plan, so I'm not quite sure where that confusion is coming from, but I thought that was worth mentioning. Next up, then, we have a representative from Woodbury Parish Council.

01:39:50Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman. My name's [name removed]. I'm a Woodbury Parish Councillor For the Woodbury Ward. this site is as has been pointed out in Woodbury Parish and we've considered it in conjunction with all of the proposed sites within the parish contrary to the officer's report Woodbury Parish Council supports this application this allocation for 131 houses we consider that the same criteria which have been used by officers when considering the adjacent site, GHE D73, apply to this site and therefore the same recommendation to allocation should apply to both sites.

01:40:49We believe that both sites are potentially suitable for development, subject to an adequate engineering solution being found to address flooding, drainage and waste water issues. The scale of proposed development on this site would help the parish and the district to achieve their allocation and would more than redress the balance as we are not supporting one other developable site in Woodbury Parish, Wood 10.

01:41:24Thank you. Sorry, your microphone, Councillor Perry, please. Thank you. Is it worth just clarifying then if the circumstances are similar, why this site isn't proposed for allocation, but 73 across the road is? Just briefly on that point.

01:41:46My understanding is that 72 is a more elevated and more visually open site it relates less clearly to the village so I'm sure those are factors behind the recommendation so you just add to that I think there's also a much closer relationship with listed buildings in relation to this side to the one rather than the one to the south things not well caught to the east of the site which would be more impacted particularly in terms of its parkland setting and it's a great two star listed building okay thank you that clears it up for me uh [member of the public] parks the landowner good afternoon chair and councillors I am steve parks and my family and I own the land at gh ed 72 over the past two years we've been contacted by numerous house builders to purchase our land and to develop it, especially when you didn't have a five-year land supply.

01:42:54Because we want these homes to reflect what we think will make a beautiful place to live, we are part of company with major housebuilders who didn't share our vision. We are still in talks with several housebuilders who are willing to work with us on achieving this. We as a family would like homes that have open spaces for people's well-being, footpaths to walk your dog and connect one end of meeting lane to the other, so people can walk safely without fear of being runnin' over.

01:43:22Affordable homes to stay affordable in perpetuity and somehow actually make them affordable for young people to live in the village. To be designed sympathetically to the landscape, its surroundings and the village, parking for visitors, bungalows to enable people who live in the village to downsize and stay in the village. When it comes to the infrastructure, Our land connects to four main bus stops within walking distance. The 57 bus runs all around our land and travels to Exeter via Exmouth and Topsham.

01:43:54The site is within walking distance of three pubs, a village shop, a post office, a cafe, a train station, a primary school and a preschool of which I'm a trustee. With the help of Rob Longhurst and the previous parish council, we managed to raise funds to build a brand new purpose preschool. Having worked with Limstone Flood Resilience Group and being a member of Exden Flood Resilience Group, I helped to identify the drains along Meeting Lane and Nutwell Road.

01:44:21These drains are now kept clear and no flooding has occurred since. We were proposed to have the main access from Nutwell Road, which will be much safer, avoiding the crossroads at Harefield Cross. We would also like to move the 30mph speed limit along Nutwell Road to the site entrance, therefore slowing down the traffic entering the village therefore there would be lots of open space sorry the land is 22 acres and therefore there would be lots of open space and low density of homes we would like to make a feature of any attenuation ponds by putting seating around them so people can sit and relax and enjoy the wildlife that would visit there our land could have been sold over and over but we would like homes that reflect and are sympathetic to its surroundings Our land would also be able to achieve the biodiversity net gain on the site.

01:45:12Our land has been through numerous processes, one being HELAA, and passed all the required stages. Our land was re-evaluated in the report was sent to the Strategic Planning Committee on the 14th of December. It was rated for, and the comments made were, it was a preferred approach to allocate, well-related to settlement and limited sensitivities, with good pedestrian access. list. We hope you would consider our land much more favourably than other sites such as Courtland's Cross, which is down a single track road as is in the Green Wedge separating Eczema from Nymphstone. I thank you for your time listening to me and hope you will reconsider allocating our site G H E D 72. Thank you, [member of the public]. Unless either of the ward members want to speak as ward members? No? Okay, then we move to committee. Nobody on committee wants to speak Councillor Ring him thank you chair first of all of notes you know um jane moffett had her letter read out so hallett as she pointed out farmers have gone for a very long

01:46:25Time but previously um one thing um that I think's important is certainly the northern perimeter of that that we haven't mentioned it has been ancient pasture and you should be able to, if you ever come to Limston via Exton and then turn right and go along Nutwell Road it has a huge visual impact on you as you come down Nutwell Road because it was ancient pasture before the wall was built I would suggest as well so I agree with what James said I agree with what the officers recommend I think it's inappropriate to move forward with this one and I am curious why we keep looking at the red ones before the green ones it would help if we did the green ones first and then we could take a clear decision on the red ones But why I say that is there are other options very adjacent to that that without prejudice, of course, I may support later on. Thank you. So that's why can I propose we move on?

01:47:46Thank you, Councillor Ingham. You saw me coming there. I'm happy to second that proposal. I think particularly if other sites are coming forward in Limston, the scale of development in the settlement would be inconsistent with the strategy, in my view, as the report says. Does anybody else wish to add anything to what's already been said? No, in which case then we have a proposal from Councillor Ingham that we move on, which I have seconded. All those in favour?

01:48:15That's unanimous. Which brings us to G.H.E.D. 73, and I have Councillor, no, I have [member of the public] again. Hi Major, thank you. Okay, so this is for 73, let me just check I've got the right one, which I have. So, yes, this is on behalf of Jane Moffat, who is again an objector on this site. this site accesses single track country lanes with very little visibility and a strong risk of flooding the access does not account for the increase of traffic along the lanes and the danger to pedestrians both from the site and those walking in and out of the village with their dogs there is no street lighting on these lanes to create safety for both cars pedestrians and cyclists. Pedestrians have to move into the hedge for a car to pass. The junction with the A376 is both dangerous, numerous accidents have occurred in the past 12 months, and due to the overload of traffic on the A376, takes up to five minutes to access. Given this, new residents will drive through the village to the traffic lights at the Saddlers, where long queues on Longmeadow Lane

01:49:30Will ensue at busy times, stopping incoming traffic and also raising the level of air and noise pollution to neighbouring properties. No new planning applications of this size should be allowed until the impact of the Dean and Way link has been experienced. The A376 cannot manage the capacity it presently has. Adding more houses along this route shows an irresponsible attitude to residents and commuter safety. Unlike most villages in Devon, there is only one road access as the village is cut off by the X estuary on the one side and the A376 on the other. These two lanes are important access points to the village and any development on green sites will exasperate the current flooding issues and cut off the village even more than at present. I think this is a repeat of what we may have already heard, Chair, you indulge me. Officers keep targeting the limestone using the sustainability argument, this is disingenuous, this again covers what I think was made in the previous point chair, if members are happy to remember that from before. I will skip through to

01:50:44The site specifically is next to Gilliford Dissenters Burial Ground, an internationally important historic site it's another reference to being outside the built-up boundary which has been mentioned and again like 72 the previous one this site is totally unsuitable for the village but also with damaging ramifications to both the sensitive coastal area and historical buildings nearby I urge you to discount it and that's from Jane Moffat Thank you Chair Thank you Debbie Councillor Francis Lympstone Parish Council have reluctantly acknowledged that this site is a logical one for development under the new plan we strongly object to the current form of the plan already submitted to develop it but understand why the site has been chosen and is a preferred location by you Lympstone Parish Council accepts that development may happen on this site at some stage but we have very strong views and red lines about what type of development that should and would be acceptable to us and our village. If we are working here today on the least worst options, then this site is one of them, but developers

01:52:04And planners need to work with us. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Francis. [member of the public], you're back. I am, thank you, Chairman. I'm speaking on this site on behalf of Three West Group, who are an East Devon SME housing developer based in Woodbury and the landowner of this proposed site. I would firstly like to confirm that the site is available for development and is continuing to be promoted by 3West Group. We therefore support the recommendation to this committee to include the site as an allocation. The Emerging Local Plan classifies Limson as a Tier 3 settlement, confirming it as a local centre suitable for moderate growth with good existing services and train and bus services into Exeter.

01:52:54The site has been assessed by the council as the best performing site at Limpton. It was the only site at Limpton that scored five in the ranking system, making it one of the best performing sites in the district and categorising it as a good site with minor constraints or sensitivities and limited infrastructure costs. The Local Plan detailed site assessment confirmed that the site is well related to the settlement and with limited sensitivities, comprises infill between two roads, an extension of existing development with good pedestrian access, whilst in the existing coastal preservation area it has very limited views to the sea.

01:53:28We would in fact add to this assessment to confirm that there are no views to the sea or estuary from the site and therefore the site cannot be seen from either. A significant amount of work has been undertaken to ensure that the site is technically deliverable and there are no technical constraints to delivery. Three West are committed to delivering policy-compliant levels of affordable housing and a variety of open market homes on the site.

01:53:52The site is able to contribute to the early years of housing delivery within the new Local Plan period, making a valuable contribution to the Council's land supply requirements. We therefore request your support for the Office's recommendation to confirm the site's allocation.

01:54:06Thank you. Thank you, [member of the public]. committee then Councillor Nottingham Councillor Jung yeah first point is that the map is slightly wrong there's five houses included in the red line they should the red line should be the other side of that those houses just in case some someone gets panicky that we're developing on someone's house this site was before planning committee very recently and was refused and it wasn't refused on its location but it was refused on its design layout and access and therefore this is the least worst of the sites in Limston and I would suggest that we do go forward with this one thank you okay thank you I will second that proposal with the slight caveat that committee did actually turn it down on principle as well as the design and practical reasons that being said we have a proposal that's been seconded does anybody else wish to speak Councillor Ingham yes I remember in the 1980s this site being sold at auction bought for an astronomic sum less than two hundred thousand pounds and people

01:55:42Said well they'll be building on that tomorrow sort of thing and I am quite shocked that it's taken this long for us to have a look at it um but I'd say emotionally it's been waiting to happen for a long time I do think it's an appropriate site like jeff said it's just a shame that uh the application that was came forward last week or the week before was it was basically not good enough in design and I certainly support this coming forward and it helps Lincston develop and it's certainly the best of the worst but by quite some margin I will be supporting it.

01:56:32Okay, do any other committee members wish to speak? Councillor Davey? Yeah. Your microphone there. I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah, again, it's the least worst. It's a sensible use of that bit of land, I think, but the issue of access onto Strawberry Hill occupied quite a lot of people's minds last time.

01:57:03And I think when it came to planning committee, I think in their eagerness to reflect the views of local residents who had objected to the design, unfortunately the principle got thrown in there as well. But I think if we accept this today, then that kind of re-establishes the green support and we can bring it back and have another look at it, perhaps with a revised design that would overcome the issue of access onto Strawberry Hill and some of the other concerns about the layout.

01:57:39So, happy to support. Okay, thank you, Councillor Davey. unless anybody else wishes to speak then we have a proposal from Councillor Jung seconded by myself we'll move to a vote then, all those in support that's not quite unanimous no ok, so Colin's abstaining, so that's 6 in favour, 1 abstention which brings us to GHED 74 and And again, we have Councillor Francis. This site was proposed for the initial draft plan consultation where it had a 66% opposition from those who attended and submitted responses.

01:58:31It is in the coastal protection area. It's got no existing access and a watercourse runs through the centre of it and there are serious concerns about flooding. For these reasons and those stated by your officers, the Parish Council strongly believes this site is not suitable for development and supports the recommendation not to develop.

01:58:53Thank you, Councillor Francis. Does anybody disagree with the officer recommendation or should we move straight on? Okay, in which case we move on to GHED 75. And again, we have Councillor Francis. this site has a current planning application for two houses with East Devon district council which the parish council did not support this site did have potential for the preferred small scale development of limestone neighborhood plan however there have been consistent concerns over access and loss of habitat so we agree with the officers assessments that this is not a viable option for development with the new plan.

01:59:42Thank you Councillor Francis. I've just been told off by our legal officer for taking us on from 74 without a vote so I'll move from the chair that we move on from 74 and I'll ask all those in favour. That is carried unanimously. I'm now going to move from the chair that we also move on from GHED 75 for the reasons that have been set out in the report.

02:00:08Those in favor that's unanimous there we go excellent quick and efficient very good that brings us to the end of the Limpston sites then can I say to those folks who have come from Limpston thank you for your patience and for your comments should we do we want a short break before we do woods green okay yeah Yeah, yeah, no, fair enough. I thought I would ask, in case I got a rebellious committee, in which case then we start with site Woodbury 04.

02:00:48I have no registered speakers of any kind. Does anybody wish to comment? no okay I'll move from the chair then that we move on all those in favor okay very good which brings us to wood 06 uh and I'm assuming we have um well my paper tells me we have a representative from Woodbury parish council uh would that be yourself Councillor Perry again or okay perhaps I don't need it right, thank you very much for seeing us, yeah, in terms of Woodbury O6 which also includes Woodbury 8 I think from looking at the print before, just to say basically following our public consultations that Woodbury Parish Council supports the allocation of this site which officers have a refuge to as Wood 6 as well as 8, this site was also one of the residents' preferred sites and it offers significant community benefits one of the things that we do within our parish is trying to build for benefits not just for houses so whether wherever there is an opportunity we like to take advantage of that the

02:02:13Potential developer under their proposed heads of terms of 106 agreement has incorporated these agreed both on and off-site benefits for the village so I I would like to say on that one are you going to come to nine next if you are I'll stay up sorry one moment I think we're just clarifying a legal point not can I just clarify actually chair uh so what we've been doing previously is we've either generally been voting to include the proposal as recommended by uh [member of the public] uh or we've been voting to move on so that we can consider them if you so I was just saying when nobody's actually registers to speak and the recommendation is still one to include it why have we just decided to move on for the last three without including them the recommendation was not to include it's not too sorry apologies right thank you you have me slightly worried there for a second okay sorry sorry for that point um what members or should we come into committee There's an outline planning application for this site at the moment, it's supported by the Parish Council, it's got a lot of advantages, I've not accepted it at the moment because it's outside the built-up area boundary.

02:03:55And but this is one of the better proposals for Woodbury so I recommend that we go forward with this one okay Councillor I'm seconding that anybody wish to speak no okay in which case those in favor of the proposal by Councillor Jung for this to go forward as an allocation seconded by Councillor Ingham all those in favour that's unanimous which brings us then to Woodbury 07 which is not recommended by officers for allocation does anybody wish to speak on this okay Councillor Ingham proposes that we move on was that second in Councillor Jung okay in which case all those in favour okay Wood 07 is not allocated, which brings us then to Woodbury 09, and I have registered to speak a [member of the public].

02:05:16Good afternoon. My name is [name removed], and I've lived in Woodbury for all my 82 years, so I've seen a few changes in the process. I live adjacent to the lower section of this site, clearly wrongly allocated, along with the 20 other households who surround the field. We've already written our objections to what has been proposed for this area in response to the premature application 23-1600. There have been 75 objections to why this site should not be built on.

02:05:56That should give you the answer you're looking for. The site access is abysmal and always will be. There are other sites available which would help reduce the traffic chaos in the centre of the village. This site is unique, unlike any others, and cannot be approved for building anyway. It is the most planning protected field in the whole village. When it was bought in the 1960s by the late Doctors Austin, they bought it purely to stop it being built on.

02:06:33This was a well-known fact at the time. They were passionate environmentalists. Historic England has very serious concerns about it on heritage grounds, not least for the fact that there's a Grade II house at the top. Other utilities are not over-happy either It is outside the built-up area of the village It is within the Woodbury Conservation Area It is classified as land of local amenity importance like the village green The arch is the historic centre of the village which would be ruined if this development ever took place The historic stone wall that surrounds two sides of the field has no more access planning restriction on it following an appeal some years ago.

02:07:28So no more holes can be made in the wall for access. The site contains the last remnants of Woodbury history that remain in the village, which must be retained. All of the rules must be fully applied and not watered down, as this is not diplomatic or correct. The whole field is a vital environmental corridor and wildlife haven for birds, foxes and the occasional deer and I have plenty of video evidence of this The lower end has also been used by the air ambulance at times and is ideally placed for accidents at the crossroads We would like to continue [member of the public] legacy but it's always an uphill struggle to get authorities to give us the required backing Otherwise, all 20 of us are going to spend the rest of our lives looking into the windows of a developer's very ill-placed houses, one for each of us, it seems, and the wildlife will be gone.

02:08:31Would you like this? Therefore, 231600 must be dismissed in its entirety so that the public can see that it has some teeth when required, and today is the day to do it. To impose this on Woodbury is not an option. Therefore, reallocation must be done. But I would like to just ask a question. What is the position with this planning application that is halfway through its process on a site which has not been allocated in this other process?

02:09:13We unfortunately deal with two processes at the same time. Can that planning application in the process be approved without the general application? Without the allocation that we're considering today? Yes, it can. Okay, thank you.

02:09:36Thank you. Woodbury Parish Council. Do it again. Good afternoon. It's Alan Wills again from Woodbury Parish. Woodby Parish Council is very pleased to note that the officers have amended their report to accommodate our comments made at the recent working party meeting, and that they are now recommending this site for allocation. Following our public consultations, Woodby Parish Council supports the allocation of this site, which was also one of the preferred choices by the residents.

02:10:14As with Wood 8, there is an opportunity to significantly improve and contribute to the village centre itself, as detailed in the proposed developers' heads of terms. We are also pleased that the developers have proposed a very sympathetic design in relationship to the heritage impact, and it being in a conservation area with various TPOs and other site restrictions. That would include what we have to say on that particular site. Thank you.

02:10:44Thank you, Councillor Wills. I would point out that we're here to talk about the principle of development more than we are the details of the application itself, so I appreciate your comments there, but there is a dividing line that we've got to observe. Coming into committee then, I have Councillor Ingham.

02:11:04Thank you, Chair. I'd like to propose that this is added to the allocation. This is based on discussions at the workshop and the recommendation from officers. Thank you. Do I have a seconder? Councillor Jung, are you seconding? Yes. Okay. Does anybody else wish to speak on this site? no okay in that case we have a proposal to allocate from Councillor Ingham seconded by Councillor Jung all those in favor okay that's unanimous indeed uh which brings us then to uh Woodbury 10 where I suspect the decision may not be quite so unanimous uh but there we go uh for public speaking then first up I have uh [member of the public] mcgawley have I got that right you're lost it now I'm really sorry your time starts when the microphone comes on so you might want to switch it off for the moment should we come back to you in okay good morning chairman and committee thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak my name is [name removed] and while I am the chairman of the Woodbury Parish Council I am speaking and as resident of Woodbury I believe

02:12:44In the development of our village. Over the years, we have seen developments and have greatly enhanced our community, as well as some that have not. The proposed development, Woodbury 10, is located on a B road with an entrance on a bend. This road is heavily used by tractors, HGVs, caravans etc. In the event of an RTC on the A376 this road is used to divert traffic which worsens the usual traffic problems. The vehicular access to Woodbury 10 is planned but the pedestrian access is accepted to go from the top of the site through Gilbert Close.

02:13:34This leads to a section of the road with no payments crossing a single bridge. This situation poses a significant safety risk for pedestrians. When considering this application, please take into account this. Development is not in the right location for our village due to the road and the bridge. We do provide safe passage for pedestrians. there is a serious risk of injury, or worse, if this development proceeds.

02:14:10We also have video evidence of pedestrians and tractors on that bridge. Officers have the right to ask questions of consultees on any application. Why aren't they addressing the safety of this road and discussing better infrastructure with the applicant for the benefit of both existing and new residents. Perhaps the site will be better suited as an exemption site for 15 houses. And so off my talk and listening to what you've said today, it is outside the built-up boundary, but I didn't think there was any one anymore.

02:14:57But it is outside there and it's now agreed to listed building or one I think. Thank you for your time.

02:15:07Thank you. [member of the public]. Thank you Chair. My name is [name removed] and I'm speaking as a Woodbury resident who walks, runs, cycles and on occasion drives along Gilbrook. I asked to speak to you today because I'm convinced that development of this site will result in death or serious injury to a child or elderly person. There are two key road safety issues that I perceive. [member of the public] has already mentioned one of them.

02:15:44The developer has proposed pedestrian access via Gilbert Close with a new race footway to be constructed across the Gilbert Bridge. In principle, this is an absolutely sound concept, but I believe it's flawed because the drawings on which the highways team have based their decisions do not reflect reality. This came about because I walk and I run on the road. I physically feel the size of the tractors.

02:16:12So when I looked at those flow charts, I looked at the size of the tractor they use and I said, that can't be right. So I spoke to the local farmer. The local farmer tells me that in Woodbury, the John Deere 6R250, for those of you into tractors, is the standard tractor. Why is that important? It's 2.9 metres wide, not 2.4 as all the flow diagrams show.

02:16:37The tractor itself is over 5 metres long, not 4.2 metres long as the diagrams show. Combined with a modern trailer, that gives you an overall length in excess of 17 metres. It would not fit across the bridge if that work is completed. If the work is not completed, then there is no safe pedestrian access to that site at all. The size of the tractors, the size of the HGVs, all the rest of it, once you restrict the bridge, just to give you the measurements, the current works would reduce it to 3.35 metres.

02:17:16That's not very much at all. To put it in context for you, the combine harvester that was in the field opposite me a week ago is 3.65 metres wide there's no way it's going to go it's not going to work the problems with the footway don't stop there though because it's about visibility because the different heights of the road surface because of the walls, because of the bridge parapet the high hedges and the entrance to Gilbert Close you cannot see if you're coming from the north you cannot even see that Gilbert Close exists until you've reached the parapet of the bridge what that means for pedestrians is they're going to walk off of that bridge and into a shared surface area completely blind to road users. So we're taking them, giving them a full sense of security, then putting them into a shared surface, which coincidentally about three months ago was hit by a car at exactly the point that that footpath will enter Gilbert Close. It's just not safe. We cannot allow this to happen as

02:18:20It is. If our learned colleague is going to stand up and say, well, actually, we bought the parcel of land next to it and we've got a different access route, that's fine. But it's not safe as it stands. The same applies at the southern end, I'm afraid, in terms of the junction. That is not safe. The crossing is 25 metres from a blind bend. It just doesn't make any sense.

02:18:45Thank you. Thank you, [member of the public]. Woodbury Parish Council. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you again. Contrary to officers' recommendations for this site, Woodbury Parish Council and local residents do not support the allocation of this site for 60 dwellings. We consider that there are better, more developable sites within our parish, and I've alluded to that earlier and you've agreed to re-look at that one. With our local knowledge, we do not consider that it is possible to provide a safe pedestrian and cycle access as has been mentioned just now.

02:19:39This relates to an element of the road which is off the site and whilst we recognise that these issues are part of a planning application not relative to the allocation of the site we have not yet seen and have presented any scheme which in our opinion provides a safe pedestrian access across the narrow bridge leading from this site into Woodbury where all the main village facilities are this although we're not down to have a speaker on wood 46 which is to come yet the same principle applies to that site as well so with respect we request that this committee does not allocate this site thank you thank you [member of the public] then thank you Chair. I'm speaking on behalf of Three West Group again, who are the promoter of this site.

02:20:55I would firstly like to confirm that the site is available for development and is continuing to be promoted by Three West Group. We therefore support the recommendation to this committee to include the site as an allocation. The Emerging Local Plan classifies Woodbury as a Tier 3 settlement, confirming it as a local centre. The settlement assessment states that Woodbury has a good range of community facilities with several shops, GP, primary school, along with an alley bus service. These make Woodbury one of the 10% least deprived areas in terms of access to services and mean that it plays an important local role for the settlement and surrounding area. The site has been assessed by the council as amongst the best performing sites in Woodbury.

02:21:38A significant amount of work has been undertaken to ensure that the site is technically deliverable and I can confirm that there are no technical constraints to delivery. The site is subject to an outline planning application. As part of the planning application process, there are no statutory objections and all technical constraints have been addressed to the satisfaction of the consultees, including Devon County Highways, the Environment Agency, Southwest Water, the lead local flood authority and the Council's own landscape, tree and ecology offices.

02:22:09Devon County Highways have been consulted extensively on the proposals and have supported the planning application. Proposals for the site include the delivery of both on- and off-site pedestrian linkages that will provide enhanced accessibility for both existing and future residents of the village. 3West are committed to delivering policy-compliant levels of affordable housing and a variety of open market homes on the site, along with public open space and play space.

02:22:33The site is able to contribute to the early years of housing delivery within the new Local Plan period, making a valuable contribution to the Council's land supply requirements. We therefore request your support for the Office's recommendation to confirm the site's allocation.

02:22:47Thank you. Thank you, [member of the public]. Copy-paste being used a lot in your office at the moment. Moving into committee then, do I have anybody who wishes to speak on this one? I thought I might. Councillor Ingham.

02:23:06Thank you, Chair. it appears you know not only this this site but others there is a risk when landowners or developers put forward an outline application prior to its identification through this process in that they get people talking about their concerns when we hold this meeting members of the public and parish councillors come and mention all these alarms that ordinarily we wouldn't have considered and we had debate at a later meeting.

02:23:57And the problem is that we're now all concerned about those issues raised that arguably we shouldn't be resolving. But I think [member of the public] said it well, that he said, you know, if there was another access point and that safety issue was resolved, then the community wouldn't perhaps be so concerned. But they are concerned. And it is absolutely lethal situation, potentially for pedestrians. so I'm minded Chair to propose at this time we move on with this one it's unfortunate how things have rolled forward but I think they should be resolved because of the safety concerns Thank you Councillor Jung Yes I totally agree with the parish councils and residents of the village regarding the safety of the pedestrians accessing the village and the road safety. I know highways have said that they don't see any problem but as a local using that road a lot I see a lot of near misses I've been knocked off my bike there once so it is a serious issue and I think we should hold this one in abeyance

02:25:42And hopefully someone can come up with a better solution with providing a better solution for pedestrians and access onto the road I must say I disagree. But as the proposal has been made and seconded, you've been me to it in that respect. I think we've seen worse sites that we've approved today in highways terms for vehicle access and for pedestrian access.

02:26:15I know we will see much worse coming given the other characteristics of the site I feel quite strongly that's not enough of a reason to say no but that's my view in line with the officer recommendations. There we go. Does anybody else on committee wish to speak? Councillor Davey? Can I just ask if the proposal to basically ensure that there's a pedestrian access, would that overcome the Northeast that was suggested, would that overcome some of these issues or is it that there's still a safety issue? Yeah obviously the vehicle access would be an issue, I don't know that road well, I've gone down the other one that joins on to it but not that one it is a proper single carriageway with a white line down the middle which is better than a lot we have in East Devon um but I think mr Freeman has some uh information to offer us here uh thank you chair um yeah as I think has been said there is an application at the moment an outline planning application where these issues have proved quite controversial it's fair to say

02:27:32Um the developers have tried to adjust these issues and are proposing a pedestrian route um I believe within the sort of highway carriageway along the roadside so they are proposing a footpath there as well as a footpath link um through the site into gilbert close as well clearly the residents feel that what's being proposed is in itself not safe or acceptable but the highway authority have accepted the proposals and written in and said they have no objection on highway safety grounds in fact they believe it presents a highway safety betterment compared to the current position um so there is no objection from highways uh front in terms of highway safety grounds to this proposal as things stand um as it's been said you know we're looking at this as an allocation at this stage so we don't necessarily need to concern ourselves with the details of those that application which will obviously need to run its course through the application process but it does indicate that the concerns are being raised can be overcome in

02:28:33Principle which is all we need in terms of assurance at this stage for an allocation thank you thank you mr Freeman we we have already heard from you counseling part of part of the decision process for us is the numbers game in Woodbury and I know that's been thought through by would be parish and ourselves so if you have an option of three, four safe sites and you can exclude one where you believe safety issues have not been addressed then that's what you do so that has been considered and I suggest we can probably hit the numbers game that we need to for Woodbury without this site, shame it wasn't resolved earlier I would point out there's not a specific number for Woodbreed that we have to hit, and the ambition that we set ourselves earlier is to add another 1,800 or so houses on top of the recommendations that have been set out by officers.

02:29:45I feel quite strongly that the highways issues here would not be enough for us to turn down this potential allocation. You may disagree, but that's my view. does anybody have anything to add to what's already been said no okay in which case then we have a proposal from Councillor Ingham that we move on seconded by Councillor Jung all those in favour that's four those against just me and those abstaining that's two so the proposal we move on then to Woodbury 11 I have no registered speakers does anybody wish to say anything no okay I'll propose from the chair that we move on all those in favor yeah okay that's unanimous Woodbury 12 again I have no registered speakers so I will propose from the chair that we move on all those in favor Okay, that's unanimous. And Woodbury 14, again, no registered speakers, so I will propose from the chair that we move on. All those in favour?

02:31:13Very good. Which brings us then to Woodbury 16, and I have Woodbury Parish Council.

02:31:19Good afternoon, Cheryl McGawley from Woodbury Parish Council. Following our public consultations, Woodbury Parish Council supports the allocation of this site. However, we are extremely concerned about the volume of high-speed traffic along Broadway, especially with the narrow footpaths we did raise with the landowner. As the S106 agreement has not been agreed yet, Could East Devon District Council consider that this development must include provision for controlled pedestrian crossing to ensure safe access and connectivity to the village, along with stringent traffic calming measures?

02:32:10This road is frequently used as a cut-through from what would be common X-month as a diversion route. We urge the East Devon District Council to liaise with the Parish Council during the early stages of discussions to incorporate local knowledge into the scheme, ensuring the best possible outcome and appropriate S106 provision. I have then [member of the public] on behalf of Clinton Devon. Welcome back. we've not seen you for a while thank you very much chair as we've heard you're considering today a number of sites um in Woodbury but this one is ready to proceed and in fact we have quite uh good progress with a developer in place the resolution to grant planning consent subject to the section 106 was received in november 2023 with no technical constraints um were raised within that application this site with an affordable housing at its centre is a sustainable location keeping public open space the footpath connectivity and 20 biodiversity net gain we do ask that members support this allocation in Woodbury thank you that brings us then to committee is that hand Councillor Jung okay I support this recommendation okay

02:33:56Thank you do we have a seconder yes Jack and I look forward to a plethora of opportunities offered by the developer to the community to resolve their problems within the community. Okay, we have a proposal from I'm just confirming what the proposal is I'll come to you there. Proposal from Councillor Jung and seconded by Councillor Ingham that this goes forward for allocation. Councillor Davey, did you have anything to add?

02:34:27Just, yes I agree with the high speeds along Broadway. Technically it's in a 30 mile an hour limit but you wouldn't know it. I was actually overtaken through that village once for sticking to the speed limit. I think it was somebody who was trying to get to the airport and was in one heck of a hurry. And I will just say, not only is it used for traffic diverted from the A376, but a lot of people use it in preference. A lot of people on my end of Exmouth will cut through that way. And you can see that at nine o'clock in the morning when everybody's pouring towards Exeter.

02:35:10So it is a busy road, and I think some kind of pedestrian mitigation is going to be required there. But it looks as though it's developable and it sounds as though it's quite well advanced. So I'm happy to allocate. Okay, in which case then we'll move to a vote on that proposed by Councillor Jung, seconded Councillor Ingham. All those in favour? That's unanimous. Woodbury 20 I have Woodbury Parish Council. Good afternoon again it's Alan Wills from Parish Council. Woodbury Parish Council does not support this site for allocation but does firmly agree with the East Devon District's own council officers report that states as a key factor right at the very beginning the key negative impact is that Town Lane is narrow and lacks pavement for most of its length. In fact the pedestrian access to the primary school from this site is particularly dangerous as there isn't a footpath. Town Lane is narrow, has pinch points and some of these words are quoted from the officer's report. Visibility issues and poses a particular danger to the children. Town Lane is very well known to be

02:36:38Use is an ever-increasing, as pointed out just what's been mentioned about going down Broadway. If Broadway gets busy, where else do you think they go? Oh, down the rat run, especially at busy school times as well. At the recent working party meeting with the parish council agreed to support Wood 9, which is when it was changed from non-allocated to allocated, in lieu of Wood 20, and the officers have taken this on board and now included wood 9 for its allocation hence we respectively ask that the wood 20 allocation should be withdrawn thank you I think possibly a slight correction there insofar as I certainly don't recall it being agreed at the working party meeting that one site would be substituted for another the question that Councillor Howe was asking when folks showed up to oppose sites was where would you put it instead to give our officers a steer but I think characterising it as an agreement to swap them is a little bit too far on that point. [member of the public]. Woodbury 20 land at town lane has been

02:37:58Surveyed and scoped by ourselves and the design confirms that this site can support 28 dwellings. This would be a mixed site in terms of housing type and size that would meet the needs of housing within Woodbury Parish. It does adjoin another recently developed site, so it could be viewed as an infill site, and it is within a walking distance, and I know we've talked around that just then, of the centre of the village and all of the facilities that the village provides.

02:38:31We are an adjoining landowner to the land in the north on a site that we will consider shortly, and I'm sure that accessibility and access could be discussed as part of any proposed application. We ask members, please, to support this allocation.

02:38:48Thank you. Okay, into committee then. I'll move from the chair then that this goes forward as an allocation. Does anybody wish to speak? Councillor Jung? Young, knowing the area well, town lane, no footpath, it is a cut-through, it is an accident waiting to happen, another access onto that road is a problem. I'm surprised we can get 28 on there when the other estate, not much bigger, is, was it 8, was it 10?

02:39:36But I would I would propose to knock this on the head and move on I'm afraid you're too late and we already have a proposal to allocate but we'll see if that passes. Councillor Inge, did you want to speak? Microphone please. I agree with Councillor Jung. Town Lake is really, it's not only quite narrow without pavements, you know, that wrap run, you go round a bend and then there's a car lying at you or behind you so to increase housing allocation by 28 there I think it's inappropriate so I won't be supporting your proposal chair okay does anybody else wish to speak no in which case then we have a proposal from the chair that the site goes forward as an allocation all those in favor to those against four I'm afraid your vote doesn't count and those abstaining one do we have a counter proposal that we move on from Councillor Again seconded by Councillor Jung surprise surprise surprise indeed very good those in favor those against that carries there would be 23 then I have no registered

02:41:34Speakers other than the ward members so straight to committee then Councillor Ingham okay thank you I'll second that does anybody else wish to speak no okay in which case proposal from Councillor Ingham seconded by myself to move on those in favor okay that's unanimous which brings us then to Woodbury 24 and And we have the landowner or developer, [member of the public].

02:42:09Thank you, Chairman and Councillors. I'm here, as stated, representing the site owners. I just really wanted to pick up on some points that we don't feel have been addressed following previous correspondence. Firstly, regarding infrastructure, I'd just like to reiterate that there shouldn't be any reason to create another access play onto Castle Lane or associated hedge removal or new footpaths, etc., as was initially reported by highways. Secondly, regarding high-medium landscape sensitivity I would like to put it to you that yes, this is a rural landscape as with many other sites but if well planned and if development is kept to the lower end of the site then it could be very discreet, could be well screened from all directions as is the neighbouring site The main services are close at hand, as are road and footpath connections.

02:43:18There also seems to be a lot of weight placed on it being a promontory site, and possibly visible from the church or the estuary or Cottles Farm, which is not, in our opinion, correct. And if there's any doubt on this, I would ask members to come and revisit. Thirdly, jumping to yield, purely based on the housing density of the adjacent Webbers Meadow, which was built 10 years ago and 34 properties it would appear that the built area of 45 units indicated in the assessment for wood 24 could fit comfortably into 50 or 60 percent of the site area that could then leave a decent amount of green space which as far as opportunities are concerned would provide possibly another amenity space not only for the residents but for the benefit of village residents as a whole. There's also an opportunity to develop an off-road footpath or cycle path through the site to connect the village to the bridleway which starts at Cottles Farm about 150 miles, 150 meters sorry, further up Castle Lane which then leads

02:44:33Leads you up onto Woodbury Common. A link like this could be a great asset to the village, it's something the parish council has identified previously in submissions to the Local Plan and would be a great asset. Finally regarding reasons for not allocating I'm hoping you might see fit to revisit the assessment of high medium landscape sensitivity, giving my earlier points. In reference to the judgment there are more preferable sites in Woodbury. I'm obviously biased but I would argue that it is somewhat subjective and would point to the parish council's pre-consultation event held in April 22 where Woodbury residents voted on individual sites. That's three minutes, thank you.

02:45:20Okay and this came second. Thank you, that's all I had to say. Okay, thank you. Moving into committee then? Do we have anybody who wishes to speak? Councillor Ingham? Sorry, could someone turn the microphone off on the lectern? Thank you.

02:45:41Thank you, Chair. I'm glad [member of the public] said that because I thought it came top of that list during consultation. I was just going to point out that although I go along with the officers' proposal and that we move on. I think it's worth noting that's not what the community said when they were consulted so that may be a future option if we need that.

02:46:16Thank you, Chair. Was that a proposal that we move on, Councillor Ingham? Yes. Okay. Councillor Ewing, do you want to second it? No? Okay. I'll second it then. Proposed by Councillor Ingham, seconded by myself. That we move on. All those in favour? Any against? Oh no, sorry, unanimous. I caught mic sound at the end there. Which brings us to Woodbury 37 then. And I have [member of the public].

02:46:56The cricket field off Town Lane I know will be a controversial site for many. We have scoped this, we have looked at the feasibility and design and taken into account both its location and the other facilities on the site. We can align the development within this allocation around the cricket pitch and the retention of this is important in the objectives of Woodbury Parish Council's draft neighbourhood plan.

02:47:25And in no way would the estate wish to see those facilities diminished in terms of that sports ground and would want to work around the site. There's also a recognition that to the north falls within the flood zone and so development would be placed on the western and southern sides of that site and I just want to raise because it will be raised I'm sure the issue of pedestrian access this land is a recreation ground it has a community orchard people already walk there and cycle there to use those facilities run by the parish council and indeed I understand people walk their dogs there on a daily basis and I think therefore we need to be very clear about our arguments for and against sites if we are looking at pedestrian access in this location thank you okay thank you coming into committee then Councillor Ingham I suggest I propose we move on to do we have a seconder Councillor Jung okay does anybody wish to speak no I I will say that was an interesting point made by [member of the public] there um about the the

02:48:49Pedestrian access to the site already uh in view of wood 20 that we've just considered but there we go uh that decision's been taken uh we have a proposal um by Councillor Ingham seconded by Councillor Jung that we move on if we go to a vote those in favor that's six those against none and I'm going to abstain okay that brings us then to Woodbury 42 I have no registered speakers does anybody wish to speak nope in which case I'll move from the chair that we move on all those in favor okay Woodbury 46 I have no one registered to speak does anybody wish to speak no okay I'll move from the chair then that we move on all those in favor please raise your hand Very good, that's carried unanimously. Woodbury 31, I have no one registered to speak. Does anybody wish to speak on this employment allocation?

02:50:04Councillor Ingham? I propose we move on. Okay, does anybody wish to second that? Councillor Jung. Okay, in which case then we have a proposal from Councillor Ingham, seconded by Councillor Jung that we move on. All those in favour? Okay, that brings us to the end of the Woodbury sites. I'm going to suggest for completeness that we do move on to Agenda Item 9D and do site Wood 38 and then take a break if that's okay with committee.

02:50:39So on that note then, site Wood 38, I have Woodbury Parish Council.

02:50:48Good afternoon. My name is [name removed]. I'm a Councillor With Woodbury Parish Council. Woodbury Parish Council agrees that the indicated large-scale development is inappropriate. However, as indicated within the officer's report, we would support a small expansion on the west side, north of Honey Lane. The wooded area at this location we would like to see as a public nature reserve if possible We know the north-east part of the site includes the existing NHS facility which was the former vaccination centre We would find this to be acceptable to be included within the business park expansion Thank you Thank you Councillor Andrews We have the landowner and all developer, [member of the public].

02:51:55Good afternoon, members, and thank you for letting me speak today. I am here today to speak to you about the land adjoining Greendale Business Park and the expansion of the business park. I want to provide you a true reflection of what businesses are facing due to current unavailability of employment land in East Devon. Recently, I met with a company director from a business who wishes to expand their operation.

02:52:23The applicant, who operates on three different buildings near the airport, wants to consolidate into one building totaling 70,000 square foot in the right location to improve efficiencies. The applicant's business is headquartered in East Devon. It currently employs 70 people and has a turnover of £9 million per annum. The applicant has had numerous discussions with landowners and property agents and there is nothing suitable available. The applicant approached Greendale as it is a preferred site of theirs, but unfortunately Greendale is unable to assist on this, despite wanting to accommodate this requirement.

02:53:03Greendale is currently at capacity and cannot be extended any further due to the constraints of the development boundary. The business park is currently let with any vacant space under offer. This is great news, but does not help with the unmet demand. Greendale Business Park employs over 2,000 people, some of whom may be your friends or family members. Greendale generates business rates of over £2.25 million a year payable to East Devon Council.

02:53:33This is significant and helps deliver vital services which we all know are under financial pressure. Greendale can expand sustainably. Woodbury Parish Council, as you just heard, are keen to discuss the possible expansion and they see the benefits this will bring. The owners of the business park can expand Greendale quickly and without the need to purchase any land, and this will accelerate the business rate contributions by £2 million per year and increase jobs to over 3,000.

02:54:03The business park will have an overall rateable value of £8.5 million per annum, with rates payable to East Devon totaling £4.3 million. Members, if the applicant I met cannot expand and they will be forced to leave East Devon, and 70 people will be forced to either relocate or face losing their job. The consequences are that 70 families will not be spending the money locally. An annual contribution of £200,000 of business rates alone will be foregone by the single occupier.

02:54:36These things matter, as it is the local businesses and the local economy that will suffer. I ask one question. If this was your business or these employees happen to be people you know, Would you be comfortable in the knowledge that you could have done something to prevent this? If you want to keep skilled jobs within East Devon and maintain economic growth, please think carefully and positively consider the Greendale Business Park expansion.

02:55:02I urge you to support it. Thank you. I think I should point out at this point that neither emotional manipulation nor business rates are material planning considerations when we're making a policy decision. They'll appreciate the point that you're trying to make there. I'm going to exercise my prerogative to speak here. I agree completely with the Office of Report. If we're talking about citing jobs in the same place as we're citing housing, this proposal does not do that.

02:55:30It simply doesn't. You drive to Greendale, no matter where you're coming from. And in view of that, I'm going to propose from the Chair that we move on from this site. Does anybody else wish to speak? Councillor Jung. I second that you don't have to but thank you does anybody else wish to speak Councillor Ingham Chair part of the problem is while we're looking for so many houses within East Devon we have to provide coherent employment and it's no good identifying employment sites as we did at the beginning of the last plan and some of those sites still being available and not taken up and then where people wish to relocate to we don't support those jobs staying in East Devon so I'm afraid that I won't be supporting does anybody else wish to speak no okay in which case I will take us to a vote then the proposal from the chair is that we move on from this allocation all those in favor that's for Those against? That's three. The proposal's carried then. It's currently 20 to 5. I'm going to suggest that we take a 10-minute break until 10 to 5, and then we'll resume with item 9E, the sites at Exeton.

02:57:02Okay members we uh we are still just about court uh so we'll try and push through these as quickly

03:07:45As we can uh conscious that council parr has a parish council meeting to get off to um at six o'clock we'll do our best uh and with that then uh we are on Woodbury 01 under agenda item 9e and I have a representative from Woodbury parish council I think it is actually good evening now um on behalf For Woodbury Parish Council, Woodbury Parish Council supports this preferred allocation for 17 dwellings and agrees with East Devon District Council's report, provided that flood issues are resolved prior to any development taking place.

03:08:25Devon County Council and the Devon Resilience Innovation Project, DRIP, are currently conducting surveys implementing upstream leaky dams and proposing land management schemes for the area adjacent to the bridge on the A376. in collaboration with landowners. These modifications aim to mitigate future flooding and must be implemented before any development proceeds.

03:08:51Thank you. That is the one. No, we're not touching 41. We're not on 41 yet. We're on Woodbury 01. That's the one. oh I see because my video is obscuring the yes there we go there it is can you can you keep me off the screen please Debbie we're into committee then does anybody wish to speak on this one except it yeah okay counseling and proposes that it goes forward. Councillor Jung seconding.

03:09:58We'll move to a vote. Therefore, all those in favour of Woodbury 01 going forward. That's unanimous. Did you get proposed and seconded there? Yeah. To be allocated, yes. No, no, no. Okay, that brings us then to Wood 28, which is the site slightly to the south east of Wood 01 and we have again representative of Woodbury Parish Council. Good evening again. Woodbury Parish Council supports the development of this allocation on this site for 33 dwellings but only if the critical flooding issues including those on Mill Lane are resolved. Similar to Wood 1, Devon County Council and the Devon Residence Innovation Project, commonly known as DRIP, are developing schemes to address these issues.

03:10:51These must be completed before any development on the site is considered. Thank you.

03:10:58Thank you Councillor. And [member of the public]. Thank you. We have detailed designs that show that this site can accommodate the allocation. We acknowledge that the site is in the coastal preservation area but its location would not directly impact the coast. the estate is in quite long discussions with the drip project as has previously been mentioned and we are looking to provide both land and land management solutions working with our tenants upstream to look at land management and provide flood accommodation on adjoining land and we know that this is really important in terms of this allocation this site adjoins extant farm redevelopment which was previously given planning unfortunately due to delays in section 186 signings we've lost a number of sales but we are in negotiation with a developer at the moment and this site does fit with that development it is a sustainable location in terms of its proximity to both the traffic lights and also the railway station and we would please ask that members support this. Thank you. Thank you, [member of the public]. Committee. Councillor Ian.

03:12:29I'm quite happy to propose this one goes for as an allocation of, yes, there are concerns with regarding the flooding here, as you know, and the profound effects that has on the A376, but also the dynamics of Exton, in my opinion, have to be rectified. A considerable huge amount of developments taken place in Exton over the last 30 years, but predominantly those have been at significantly high value dwellings and I'm looking forward to seeing a huge opportunity for mixed tenure of social affordable housing so that we can make Extern a credible community where people don't have to commute to Extern provide all the services that the geriatric community enjoy in future. Thank you Councillor Ingham. That was a proposal. Are you seconding Councillor Jung? Yes I would second that and just to add that to see the connection between resolving the flooding issue on Mill Lane and development at the same time and it's good to hear that the landowner is working with their tenants to resolve this when it gets to a planning application obviously

03:14:13That would possibly be put into a Grampian order or something like that but at this stage I'm very happy with it thank you okay we have a proposal that the site goes forward for allocation then from counseling and seconded by Councillor Jung all those in favor okay that is carried we move then to wood 41 I have no registered speakers here Councillor Ingham and that's seconded by Councillor Jung I think if it's not there's anything to go by does anybody wish to speak no okay in which case all those in favor of us moving on from this site. That's unanimous. Okay, that brings us then to agenda item 9F, which we were supposed to start three hours ago. So thank you very much for your patience, Councillor Martin, and others here for the Budleigh and Raleigh sites. And with that then, site, well, Matt, do you want to give us an introduction to this. Budleigh, we all know where Budleigh is and it's a small town and there's a series of sites that have come forward and we start on 01 if it works for me. Where is it in the

03:15:44Settlement hierarchy sorry? It is in the second tier, third tier of the hierarchy. Tier three okay Thank you. Yes, indeed. Okay, Budleigh 01 then. We have first from Budleigh Town Council, Councillor Dorbar. Okay, that's fine. We can work on that basis.

03:16:18Let me so okay in which case then [member of the public] for Budleigh 01. So Budleigh 01 is a site that's proposed not to be allocated but members I think we should consider this to be an opportunity to provide a valuable and special site for Budleigh Salterton which we believe actually should be a settlement in tier two and have advocated this in your consultation. Due to the scale of this site, and it is large, I accept it is large, but I don't think it would all be developed. But this site could provide a scheme that delivers residential development alongside community and green infrastructure. This land has transport links and a close proximity to the town. Like our recent Greenway Lane development and indeed Plum Park in Exmouth, this site could be designed with the town council as a high quality landscape scheme that fits within the urban context and supports the town's businesses and facilities which at the moment I'm sure many of you agree, Budleigh really does need the support on its high street and with its businesses and therefore I would ask you please to consider

03:17:50Allocating this site thank you thank you [member of the public] move could you come to the microphone if you want to speak Councillor Doorbar thank you um when I initially said I didn't want to respond I didn't understand that someone else um my colleague here was going to actually put forward out the views. Would you like three minutes now? Okay, okay. So, first of all, it needs to be recognized that Budleigh-Saltampton is the only town within the East Devon National Landscape, formerly the area of outstanding natural beauty, as you know. Grade one agricultural land is at a premium throughout the country, and loss of such land would be contrary to His Majesty's government's commitment to increase agricultural production and preserve the natural environment.

03:18:57Lack of planned infrastructure, such as highways, schools, and I know that you've mentioned this at the very beginning, Chair, but these are very important factors to consider. Budleigh for example the medical centre and the school are very much at their maximum and St Peter's is very close to being fully subscribed so those are just a few points as to why I would want to put forward those views Thank you Councillor Dorbar could you just turn your microphone off please thank you Okay coming into committee then do we have any members that wish to speak Councillor Ingham the green wedge what is the purpose of this green wedge who wants that one it was it was defined as a wedge to stop coalescence with Knoll Village and Slaughterton Town so in that respect this would effectively eliminate the green wedge does anybody else wish to speak no okay in which case then I don't really see an alternative but to propose that we move on from this, officers have recommended refusal, I don't disagree with anything in their

03:20:28Assessment, so on that basis I'll propose from the chair that we move on from this site members, all those in favour raise your hand please that's carried unanimously that brings us then to Budleigh 02, Councillor Dorbar so I'm Richard Dorbar, I'm a council at Budleigh-Solston. And it's been a delight being here, despite the fact that I've been here for about five or more hours. It's been really interesting. And I'd just like to record how much we appreciate the enormous amount of work that's been put into this. It really is fantastic. And those documents, having been involved in creating documents at various points. I know how much is involved. I'm now about one and a half minutes through, aren't I? So here we go. So just a few points then about this. As you recognize, Budleigh is the only town entirely within the East Devon area of outstanding natural beauty that I mentioned earlier, and as such is afforded a considerable level of protection in their assessment of the site EDDC acknowledged that there are not considered to be sufficient reasons

03:21:54To justify this scale of development in such a sensitive location. BSTC members, my council members wholeheartedly support this view and grade one agricultural land the same applies is a premium throughout the country the loss of which I've mentioned earlier. It should also be recognized that the benefits of the landscape are very closely linked with tourism, and hence jobs in the development of the economy. So, there has been, oh, yes, I've mentioned about the water source protection.

03:22:45Since it's grade one the agricultural land which is also a drinking water source protection zone and could also be at a high risk of flooding this was mentioned in an earlier document we sent and finally there has been a resolution to the situation with the pathways to Evans Field I think you're all very much aware of this now the beaches but that still needs to be sorted out as this moves forward and it would also be most helpful if the speed limit could be looked at since we regard this as being problematic okay thank you Councillor Doorbar um yes the footpath does still need to be resolved absolutely um and the speed limit one is something that will be looked at at development management stage rather than here but thank you for your comments um [member of the public] thank you for waiting. Thank you, Chair. Hello, members. It's been a pleasure listening to the debate today. I represent Wayne Homes. Wayne Homes controls the site, Budleigh 02. We note that the officers are recommending that the site is allocated 25 dwellings, and we fully endorse

03:24:14The principle of the allocation, and we hope that you will endorse it as well. Your officers in their very comprehensive report have addressed very well the points raised by the Town Council. The national landscape point is covered off, and your officers think that development here would meet the very high bar national policy tests of exceptional circumstances. model is a tier 3 settlement but actually I endorse [member of the public] points that we also think it's a more of a tier 2 settlement it's got the highest level of any tier 3 settlement in terms of services facilities and it really operates above the tier 3 level and therefore we agree with your officers actually that it does justify a more strategic approach when considering site allocations now we did have just one comment I'd like to make regarding the number 25 national landscape policies allowing we have undertaken a very detailed assessment of the site's capacity and we've produced a detailed site layouts and undertaken a proper landscape and visual impact assessment I'm afraid we have a slight niggle in that we think that the site's capacity

03:25:37Closer to 35. Now, in an area of acute housing need, affordable housing need, that would give an extra 10 dwellings, would give an extra at least four affordable dwellings. And the assessment that we've undertaken basically says that there would be extremely limited visual perception of a scheme of 35 units. Now, in language that I understand, that means you'd hardly see it. And so what we'd like to do, members, is ask you to consider A, retaining the allocation. That's very important. We don't want to do anything to upset a particular apple cart. But we would like you to consider an allocation for 35 dwellings. And that would include, against your current policy requirements, at least 12 affordable dwellings to meet what you all acknowledge to be an acute affordable housing need in the district generally, but in particular in Budleigh.

03:26:42Thanks very much for your time. Thank you, Mr Coles. For the benefit of members, as I'm advised by Mr Freeman, the number that we put in the plan wouldn't affect what could be brought forward in a planning application. Ultimately, it's the principle that we're most concerned with today. I believe we have a statement from Councillor Charlotte Fitzgerald to be read out thank you chair if I may so the statement reads as follows this is from Councillor Fitzgerald chair thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Budleigh and Raleigh sites family commitments prevent me attending today but I would like to pass on my support for the site selected for allocation in the Budleigh and Raleigh ward each of the three sites nominated, apologies, for location, so that's Budleigh 02, eBud 01 and Otto 01, are supported by their respective town or parish councils. Some public consultation in the ward has shown that residents are broadly in favour of limited development to meet local need, especially where much needed affordable housing can be provided. All three sites have the potential

03:27:55To meet this need albeit all have their individual challenges which were discussed in detail at the working party session and are covered in the officer report I therefore recommend these sites to the committee for allocation that's from Councillor Charlotte fitzgerald thank you chair did I see a hand from you Councillor Martin no no okay I've been uh I've been misadvised you are Councillor Martin are you that that won't work did you want to speak well if if you if you'd registered but seeing as we've been a little bit lenient if you if you want three minutes you can have it you will need to go to the lectern at the top because those won't work thank you very much thank you very much much appreciated um the only thing I would say is I um second what Councillor Fitzgerald has just said we have um liaised closely with the town and parish councils over all the sites that were proposed and um spoken um uh taken through gone through the um consultation process as well with regards to the green wedge

03:29:21Site. So the sites that have been given a yes on the proposal, all the parish and town councils are in support. I just wanted to add that. Thank you.

03:29:36Thank you, Councillor Martin. Committee then, does anybody wish to speak? Councillor Jung? Just for clarity, it says national landscape, no. Yes, that's wrong, it should say yes. so just pointing that out yeah I'm disappointed that 25 houses or it might be 30 odd houses for Budleigh-Solston seems a very small quantity when you compare it with some of the villages that are getting a lot lot more so maybe when we look at the more numbers we need to return to just as we may need to revisit some of those allocations in the Green Wedge in between Limston and Exmouth which of course have less protection in law and planning policy the national landscapes do. But bear in mind Budleigh is a large town and 25 extra houses is not going to help the town expand that they are got concerns about their shops etc and that they're not getting much new housing so that there's no the swings around the bounce on everything but I think we should support this application okay is that proposal that's my proposal okay I'll second that proposal then does

03:31:05Anybody have anything to add that isn't disagreeing with me about the limps and green wedge What was saying up here, as was highlighted on behalf of one of the landowners, that this is in tier three, and in the opinion of the landowner, it should be in tier two. That's why they, or one of the reasons why they put, was it, bottle one, wasn't it, you know, the 300?

03:31:39Yes. So there's a significant difference. Limston's already allocated more than Budleigh. You know, I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but I think we're agreed on the allegation. Yes, but you did write me up, Chair, that's why I spoke. I think that's part of my job as the Chair, isn't it? Okay, shall we take us to a vote then? And we have a proposal from Councillor Jung seconded by myself.

03:32:17The Budleigh 02 goes forward as an allocation. All those in favour? OK. Budleigh 03, Councillor Dorbar. Nothing to say on this one.

03:32:42Thank you very much. OK. Bearing it, is that going to change after [member of the public] speaks in a minute? No. Very good. Well, seeing as the audience is quite small, I think we'll allow it. [member of the public]. Members in the context of what we've just heard about Budleigh 02 I would please ask you to reconsider the allocation of this particular site and in fact many ways the argument for this site and the adjoining site Budleigh 03 it applies. I also think that by allocating both sites not only would there be additional housing which some of you as members have pointed out Budleigh-Salterton may need I think we have a greater opportunity to provide more affordable housing a greater mix of housing types and size in fact our scoping of this land shows that we could put somewhere in the region of 44 houses on it by placing this allocation on as well. There's greater BNG and green infrastructure, public space and amenity.

03:34:06But actually, more importantly, is this not the gateway to some of the solutions for sustainable travel? In fact, this is the land that joins onto Barn Lane that then leads to the primary school, the football club and the recreation ground. I therefore believe that this site would provide safe access into the town I think it could be designed in a way that would be minimal impact for the national landscape and again whilst we hold that national landscape really dear to our heart the estate has 25 percent of it it does need to be a living working landscape with appropriately placed development to support communities so therefore members I would ask you please just reconsider the allocation on this site in lots of in light of what I and um others have said today thank you on that point then um could I perhaps just ask officers to give us a bit of a pricey about why the recommendation differs between bud 02 and bud 03 if I start and then Matt can add in but perhaps he can switch it to

03:35:29HDMI 2 for me I think the big difference between the two is the visibility in terms of being the landscape as you've heard both sites in the national landscape this is Street View looking from the B3178 across to the sites so what you've got is Bear Lane down here you can see Budl_03 which is this field here Budl_02 is sort of behind the line of trees in the background so in terms of the views into that site from the public domain I think the assessment was that Budl_03 was much more visible in the landscape than Budl_02 and hence much more harmful in terms of its impact on the national landscape, which, as I said earlier, it should have the highest level of landscape protection, which is why you don't have so many allocations at Budleigh-Sugton, because it's washed over national landscape compared to other settlements where that constraint doesn't apply.

03:36:33So I think that's the main distinction between the two. I don't know if Matt has anything to add. No, I think that's the main one. Councillor Dorbar, did you want to add anything? Okay.

03:36:50Thank you. In which case, coming into committee then, Councillor Ingham. Can you see that photograph again, please? Is that possible? So is that right that O2 is the other side of that hedge, the first hedge going across the screen, and O3 is this side of the hedge? Or is all of that O3? O3 is the other side of that hedge you see on the left of the big tree.

03:37:21Oh, right. Okay. Thank you. O2 is beyond the gate. Yeah, O2 is beyond the tree line.

03:37:26Thank you. So can I ask another question then, Chair? With that in mind, so what is more or less sacrosanct in the eyes of our officers? The coalescence, the other side of the ridge, yes? Or O3 here? yeah the green wedge is there to prevent the prevent no the other the first site we were discussing yes so are you telling us that this site is higher up the um you know the ladder of being sacrosanct that we should protect it than the green wedge which is effectively some considerable distance over the other side of the As I said earlier in the meeting the national landscape is the highest level of landscape protection local landscape designations well it's not really a landscape designation but green wedges, coastal preservation areas are way down in their significance in terms of planning policy compared to national landscape so we should be giving very substantial weight the national landscape and protecting it wherever possible yes I was just going to say the only reason that you've got um recommended sites for allocation that are in the national landscape

03:39:00In in this meeting and other meetings is because we are so struggling to find suitable sites but really we should be avoiding the national landscapes if we possibly can which is a point I tried to make earlier about other sites that were taken out earlier in the meeting because they were in green wedges coastal preservation areas and then you've subsequently put in sites that are in the national landscape admittedly sites that we've recommended as officers but they were in addition to those within the green wedges and coastal preservation areas so I think we have we have a slight imbalance at the moment that we'll need to come back to us it's just that for Budleigh in fairly close proximity you've recommended um a site that's within the uh national landscape um in preference to the other ones in the national ah sorry thank you okay does anybody else on committee wish to speak Councillor Davey.

03:40:09Just to point out that Devon County Education do state there's insufficient primary capacity. They've said this for both sites, actually, 02 and 03, although they do say there's insufficient primary capacity for the levels of development, although there's some limited primary capacity. So, I think they probably meant secondary and that appears in both reports. And also that both are on grade one farmland, which is also within a water catchment area.

03:40:48So first I wondered why there was this distinction between 02 and 03 but I do think it is because of the greater visibility of 03 and as we are talking about the national landscape I think that has to be a factor so I'm happy to move on from that one Is that proposal? Yeah I'm happy to propose nobody has already okay Councillor Davey proposes that we move on okay do we have a second of Councillor Davey proposal sorry yes to move proposal to move on I'll second that for the sake of expediency Councillor How and I suppose why we're rather reticent saying move on on this is because if we join the two sites and although there's two landowners and everything else you will get a better development by combining them and that's the issue is we are quite rightly protecting national landscape and particularly because this what this site is more visible but if you combine the two put a footpath through and everything else you would actually deliver a better site with better functionality if we allow it but

03:42:13At the same time I think we should come back to it to allow it if you get my meaning rather than make that decision here okay that sounds like agreeing with moving on then to me um I will I'll I'll take us to a vote on this one then the proposal by Councillor Davey seconded by myself is that we move on from Budleigh 03 those in favor that's four those against that's one those abstaining That's one.

03:42:43Okay, Budleigh 05, Little Knoll. Councillor Dorbar. So, the council, Budleigh council agrees with EDDC's view that the existing field formations form an attractive feature in the street scene and is at risk of flooding. And so all I can say on this is that, yes, we did initially oppose the development on this site and support what you propose. Sorry, I don't have any more to say on that.

03:43:36That's OK. We're not going to object to contributors saying less. That's fine. [member of the public]? Budleigh 05 is a site that lies within an urban context with good connectivity to Budleigh-Salterton's facilities and it's on a road that has historically accepted infill sites and conversions. It's a small site some of it is in the flood prevention but on the scope that we've done it could support five small units as a modest development impacting probably less than 50 percent of the site and providing bng on the remainder of that area and we would please ask members to consider this for allocation thank you does anybody on committee wish to speak bearing in mind this is a proposed allocation for only five homes so it barely meets the threshold okay I'll move from the chair then that we move on from Budleigh 05 those in favor please raise your hands those against one and those abstaining one okay Budleigh 06 Budleigh Salterton Community Hospital Councillor Dorbath.

03:45:08So, here we are. Well, sadly, I had some personal experience of this. I actually hurt my leg quite badly and had to go for physiotherapy. And I went to this incredible community hospital, which was only a stone's throw away from where I'm fortunate to live. So the site has been developed as a flagship community health hub, and indeed it is by any standards, serving not only Budleigh-Salteton, but also Woodbury and Eczema.

03:45:49It provides extraordinary facilities for rehabilitation and has a great sense of community, helping people with aspects of dementia and it means that people don't have a long way to travel to go to get the support they need. Senior government ministers have supported this development, commending it as an exciting and important new approach to health care, which I think it really is. However, in a curious way, it's harking back to many years ago when there used to be cottage hospitals, as they were called.

03:46:34But the hub has saved the NHS in excess of £340,000 annually, well supported by the community, as I said. And so, therefore, we really vigorously oppose any development on this site because of what I've just said.

03:46:56Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Dorbar. I have no one else registered to speak. I think, personally, this one is a no-brainer for many of the reasons. you've just set out so I'll move from the chair that we move on does anybody want to add anything no okay in that case those in favor of the proposal to move on that's unanimous okay that brings us then to East Budleigh 01 land of Frogmore Road and here again we have a conflict in the running orders? Okay, East Budleigh 01. I have [member of the public]. So some of you will remember that this site was previously subject to a planning application for 18 dwellings. It was withdrawn by my colleagues at the time in 2016 as the new Local Plan did not support it. This application was at the time supported by parish council and members as a preferred site, and there was no technical reason at the time not to grant consent. We later applied for planning for five dwellings and have subsequently sold it to a local developer. You'll know that it probably hasn't been

03:48:22Developed out yet. He's finding it incredibly difficult to find an affordable housing provider as they need scale to proceed east Budleigh and I need to declare an interest I am a resident in east Budleigh but it's a thriving community-led settlement with a school and I was previously a governor there at the moment the role of the school is less than 40 otterton is around 50 so there are local primary places available but it has a school a community pub owned pub and a community owned shop, church, meeting halls, recreation grounds, playgrounds. And it's not full of older retired people, it is full of young families. But it needs housing to support the assets, particularly the school. East Budleigh One is a viable site, it has good connections, it's opposite the bus stops. And we would please ask that you support this application and that we can deliver some affordable housing in the village of East Budleigh.

03:49:33Thank you. Thank you, [member of the public]. Coming into committee, does anybody wish to speak? Councillor Jung? Yeah, my only concern is it's basically on the opposite side to most of the village and crossing the road could be a problem. but other than that I would support this recommendation Is that a proposal? Seconded Councillor Ingham? Okay, anybody else wish to speak? Councillor Davey? Yeah, I know this area quite well I quite often walk through there yeah crossing the road can be tricky but it can be done I do it quite regularly there is a 30 mile an hour limit through the village which is ignored like most 30 mile an hour limits particularly through villages but there are there is a sort of advisory speed camera which does have some effect on speed sometimes but yeah I think it's a sensible allocation I'm pleased to hear that it would bring forward affordable housing um and um yeah expand the village slightly okay thank you Councillor Davey if there are no further contributors then uh we'll move to a vote on Councillor Jung's proposal

03:51:02Seconded by Councillor Ingham uh that uh site ebud01 is allocated uh members if you agree that's unanimous okay that brings us then to the last set of site allocation decisions otto 01 and I have [member of the public] only got a couple more sites to go and then I'll be quiet thank you um otterton is a thriving community um and it has a large number of young families the estate owns about 60 houses within the village and we know that there is significant demand for housing. It's a really sustainable village. It's got a school, a pub, a community-run shop, Otterton mill, hairdressers and it's on a good bus route with buses that go to Sidmouth and Exmouth that then connect on to Exeter and the train facilities in Exmouth. All these facilities need support and I understand from reading the neighbourhood plan that around 10% of the houses within Otterton are indeed second homes or holiday lets. The estate owns as I said a number of rental properties and we can evidence up to 10 applicants for each of those properties and they're like

03:52:34Hen's teeth at the moment. As a previous governor of the school I also know the pressures of the small school and the need to attract young families. If you can get more in the school you can do your wraparound care that then allow working parents to send their children to their local school. It's so important. Otto One is a centrally located site. Good access right in the heart of the village and I think that it could provide a real mix of housing that the village requires. It can provide public open space and facilities for the village the current play park is quite away from the centre families find it hard to take their children up there and let them play on their own and this could be a place for that and I think it wouldn't necessarily be a dense developed site that wouldn't be right in otterton so therefore provision of green infrastructure and bng could be provided on this site and we ask members please to continue your recommendation for allocation thank you thank you [member of the public] members does

03:53:40Anybody wish to speak yeah Councillor Howe happy to recommend okay seconding Councillor Ingham okay any further comments no okay uh in which case those in favor of the proposal by Councillor Howe seconded by Councillor Ingham to allocate the site okay thank you very much members uh otto o2 [member of the public] your last appearance I believe we've all been very tolerant thank you very much I appreciate the time this afternoon, and also thank you for the paper's really detailed work.

03:54:16[Passage not reproduced here. It contains allegations or strong criticism of named people or the council, made at the meeting. We don't repeat allegations; you can hear the passage in the council's own recording by playing it from this point.]

03:55:35And private garden and there is no evidence on site of contamination but obviously if this was brought forward to a planning allocation ground surveys would be carried out but I don't have any evidence of that contamination. Thank you.

03:55:51Thank you [member of the public]. Members, Councillor Jung. Can I ask why it was rejected because but the site above was approved and that goes across the flood area there that was approved beyond all staff. [member of the public]? Yeah there was certainly flooding concerns in assessment work that was undertaken and I think part of the conclusion we reached through the working part of your discussions was that it could be a site that falls within development boundaries which would not prevent then a development scheme coming forward it would clearly rest on the applicant to be able to demonstrate if that were the case that flooding concerns could be overcome and to do the relevant work to do so does that answer your question satisfactorily Councillor Okay Councillor In which case chair I'd like to propose that this goes forward as an allocated so I think if I made sure I think the other issue with this site if I recall was once you remove the flood certain part of the sites the yield of the remainder part of the site is probably less than that

03:57:15Threshold of five or more dwellings is that right I'm just looking on the planet looks quite small by the time we've taken out the foot so and I think we've got a yield of eight across the whole site so I seem to recall that coming up maybe this is me maybe five small six small houses would fit on maybe it would come under that threshold it be tied to it I don't think it would be it wouldn't be the eight I presume it would be somewhere between four or five and four or five maybe okay well either way we have a proposal do we have a a seconder for Councillor Ingham's proposal Councillor Jung okay does anybody else wish to speak no Councillor David well yeah just to say again looking at it on the map it does appear to be an infill site uh between two developments um I don't know what the flooding is like around there I mean I have gone around there and haven't seen any but no doubt it if it's mapped as being in

03:58:27The flood zone it presumably is I think I heard that they can still fit eight houses in even allowing for the flood zone so it could go forward as an allocation and I think we were concluding that it would be less than eight that the eight was based on in total site area but you might still get five on the remain either way we have a proposal and a second I'm going to take forward to to a vote so proposed by Councillor And secondly by Councillor Jung this is an allocation in the plan contrary to officer recommendation those in favour five those against it's going to be nobody because I'm abstaining which brings us to uh otto it's listed as otto 15 on this piece of paper I think it's otto 03 that's next um we have nobody registered to speak does anybody on committee wish to speak no okay in which case I'll move from the chair that we move on from this site all those in favor okay that's carried and uh last but by no means least

03:59:47Otto 04 riding close again nobody registered to speak does anybody wish to speak on this application no okay in which case I'll move from the chair that we move on from this site all those in favor okay that brings us to the end of the site allocations there are two other items I think they're just on there um yeah appendices to notes okay so there's nothing for us to consider there in which case uh at 1743 that brings us to the end of uh Strategic Planning Committee for today thank you members who are still here and thank you to the ghosts of members past who are no longer and see you all next week