Strategic Planning Committee, 11 September 2024

00:01:07Good morning, everyone. It's 10 o'clock, so we will get started. First off, with 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 are told it is safe to return. And please make sure all phones are either muted or switched off.

00:01:32To start the meeting then good morning everyone and welcome to this Strategic Planning Committee meeting on wednesday the 11th 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 keith lane senior planning policy officer damian hunter a planning solicitor wendy harris democratic services officer and for some reason banished from the top table today James Cole's planning policy officer.

00:02:06Can I remind everyone 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. And for the benefit of the public worth mentioning this is the second time with our new microphone system so if any members have a little bit of difficulty please do bear with us.

00:02:27It's a it's a little bit different we'll now start the meeting then by doing a roll call of committee members please wendy thank you chair so I'll start for yourself Councillor Olive present and do you have any declarations for this meeting I don't know thank you vice chair Councillor Howe present and do you have any declarations no declarations Thank you. Councillor Jess Bailey, do you have any declarations, Jess? No. Thank you. Councillor Blakey? Present and I have no declarations. Thank you. Councillor Colin Brown? Present and no. Thank you. Councillor Davey? Oh no, I'm on. Thank you. Yes, present and no declarations.

00:03:32Thank you. Councillor Hayward. Present. An FX NRI in respect to gender item 7A, Setum Allocations. I have family members who live nearby to sites Setum 02 and Setum 13A, but they'll be unlikely to be affected any more than any other member of the public.

00:03:57Thank you. Councillor Ingham. Present. No declarations. Thank you. Councillor Ledger. Present and an effects ORI. I live opposite seat O2. So for that, I won't comment on that particular site and I'll leave the room. So that's an effects ORI, did you say? Thank you. Sorry, could I just interject there? Is that an effects and prejudicial or just an effects? Yes, sort of prejudicial. Yeah, thank you. Councillor Levine.

00:04:38No declaration thank you Councillor Parr present no declarations thank you so I'll just move on to the non-committee members that I can see here so Councillor Goodman do you have any declarations oh so you don't have any no thank you Councillor Burhop no declarations thank you Councillor Arnott, so the afternoon session. Councillor Rixson, no declarations. Councillor Barlow.

00:05:37Councillor Collins, do you have any declarations? Thank you. Back to you Chair. okay thank you wendy and possibly worth mentioning just for the benefit of the tape and the public that I think all members of committee have received quite extensive lobbying emails in respect of some of the sites being considered today and I will say no more then that brings us then to agenda item one apologies for absence wendy yes we've got Councillor Brian bailey Councillor Bethany Collins, Councillor Paula Fernley and Councillor Jug Young.

00:06:16Brilliant, thank you. Agenda item two, declarations of interest, we have done. Agenda item three, public speaking. I have nobody registered to speak in this slot. No. Okay. Agenda item four, matters of urgency, there are none. Agenda item five, any items to be dealt with after the public have been excluded, again, there are none. Which brings us then to the moment you've all been waiting for, Agenda Item 6, Proposed Housing Site Allocations at Sidmouth, Sidbury and Newton-Popleford.

00:06:52Mr Freeman. Councillor Ingham. Thank you, Chair. I think it would be helpful if when we go through these, before we start each report, we're told what the aspired figure is for us to achieve. Because rather than guessing at a figure that we're trying to achieve, we actually have some kind of methodology in achieving the numbers that we're looking for. I'll let Mr Freeman come back on that point specifically, but I don't believe we have numbers specifically broken down as a target for each area.

00:07:44There's the overall target, which members will be aware we're about 1,800 homes short on, but I'll let Mr Freeman respond to that. Yes, thank you, Chair. So members will recall at the last meeting I presented a report on Local Plan housing requirements, which is the overall housing requirement figure which is 20,812 dwellings across the planned period and we reported that we were seeking to achieve a 10% headroom on that which would obviously be a total of 1,828 dwellings we currently have a headroom of only 253 dwellings or 1.2% so we are currently based on officer allocations quite significantly short of where we're trying to get to uh we've been keeping track so we've been keeping a running total based on the um resolutions of the previous meeting and I think we're slightly up on uh where we were based on the recommendations to the last meeting uh up by 149 homes compared to where we expected to be at the end of the last meeting um but obviously um there are as the chair says there are no

00:08:54Targets for specific settlements it's about trying to bring forward as many sites through this process as we can starting from a position where the officers recommendations would already leave you short of where we need to get to the other point I'd make at this point I suppose is is that I think there was some reluctance at the previous meeting to consider sites in sensitive locations like green wedges and coastal preservation areas in particular but they do make up a not insignificant proportion of the allocations I think between those two allocations we have over 1800 homes in officers recommendations proposed for allocation in those areas and then obviously there's the national landscape issue as well so we do need to be mindful of while those designations might be seen as reasons to reject sites we are not going to meet our housing target unless we accept that we are going to have to allocate in some of those sensitive locations thank you thank you mr. Freeman is there anything else to say to introduce the report oh it's it's

00:10:07Keith okay well quick very very briefly then before we come to Keith I just had a few words I wanted to say about infrastructure because I know many of you from the public will be here today to talk about infrastructure we know we have problems throughout the district we know we have problems with sewage with dentists with GPs with schools and the list could go on those unfortunately aren't problems that we can solve today nor are they in law reasons that we can give not to allocate as far as planning law is concerned there are other mechanisms by which capacities and infrastructure should be dealt with they're not a reason for us not to allocate sites there are a reason to phase development to delay development until infrastructure comes forward and we have tools that we can use to do that but they're not a reason that we can give to simply not allocate anything that being said there are obviously concerns that we share everyone here in committee is a resident of East Devon too we have the same problems that you all will no doubt be making reference to

00:11:16With that said then [member of the public]. Thank you, good morning so I'll just touch on the first couple of slides which you had last time as well actually so I won't spend too long on them about the site selection methodology so there's a four stage process that we went through in terms of identifying the sites from a very long list initially sifting through that long list to come up with reasonable sites which were free of any sort of major constraints.

00:11:50And stage three was assessing all of those sites in more detail. And finally, stage four, making a recommendation as to whether to select the sites for allocation or not. A bit more on the stage four, so that final decision on allocating the site. So there's a question in the middle, it's basically yes or no, do we allocate the site or not? And from that, we've got sort of two, I suppose, top-down issues to consider.

00:12:23Overall housing and employment requirement that we've sort of touched on already and the spatial strategy in the emerging Local Plan which tries to direct development to the most sustainable locations in the district and then um the more detailed site assessment work for each of the individual sites um lots of uh detail that we'll we'll go through today I'm sure um maybe factor those in and then it's basically a yes or no do we want to allocate the site or not so we start with Sidmouth um so in the emerging Local Plan Sidmouth is a main centre so the second tier in the settlement hierarchy just below Exmouth so it's got a good level of services and facilities and jobs um so the theory being that we want to allocate a fairly significant amount of development there so you're most people aware of the constraints around Sidmouth you've got the sea to the south national landscape around the other three sort of areas of the town so it's very constrained settlement. The first site is Sidmouth 17, a small site to the south west of the town.

00:13:37Eight dwellings is prohibitive. We've put problems that was factored in, but the actual recommendation is not to allocate this site. Okay, thank you, Mr Lane. We come first then to Councillor Lockyer from Sidmouth Town Council. If you hit the button on the right, your three minutes will start. Right, okay. My statement is actually about all of the sites in Sidmouth, so I hope you'll excuse that. So, yes, good morning. My name is [name removed]. I'm chair of Sidmouth Town Council, and I am speaking to you today in that capacity.

00:14:21Firstly, I'd like to thank the officers and councillors for their hard work in putting together this Local Plan. We fully understand the difficulty in doing this. I'd like to comment on the sites in the Sid Valley recommended for additional housing employment, and I'll start with Scylla 29. We strongly object to this being adopted as a site for employment for three main reasons. The site immediately to the south of this has already been designed as employment land, but it's not been built out, so there's clearly no need in Sid Ford for more employment land.

00:14:56Secondly, we remain concerned about the building on the green wedge between Sidford and Sidbury. And finally, the A375 Two Bridges Road is unsuitable for heavy traffic. Sidmouth 6A, we strongly object to this being used for housing, as it would involve building on the green wedge between Sidbury and Sidford. Maintaining the separation of these settlements is a clear policy in the Sid Valley neighbourhood plan. This would also involve building on national landscape land and set a precedent for further development on the adjoining land.

00:15:31The area is also prone to flooding, making the land unsuitable. Sidmouth 31, we remain concerned about this proposal as it involves building on the national landscape land, but we do acknowledge the difficulty of finding enough sites in the area given that we are surrounded by national landscape. we therefore conclude the net benefit to the community would be positive and so we support the allocation of this site we would however wish that the allocation of housing to this site or indeed any other site in Sidmouth should be in line with the Sid Valley Neighbourhood Plan Housing Policies 12 and 13 which require a proportion of the houses to be affordable and or social housing and that priority be given to people with local connections and not become second homes Sidmouth 32a we support the adoption of this site but once again as long as neighborhood plan policies 12 and 13 are enforced and subject to the inclusion of a park and change site on this land which has long been mooted and which would offer sustainable transport options for the

00:16:35Community and help reduce traffic congestion Sidmouth 34a this is in sybury and we object to the use of this site, as it again is within the national landscape land, and also impinges on the gap between Sidford and Sidbury. The site will have a dangerous access given the narrowness of the A375 at this point. In addition, Sidbury Primary School is full, which I appreciate you just mentioned is not a reason for rejecting outright, and the site affects the setting of the First Hill Farm, a listed building. Thank you for your attention.

00:17:11Thank you Councillor Lockyer well timed sorry could you just turn the microphone off please thank you and just to check will you be wanting to speak on the other sites you've registered or does that cover it okay brilliant thank you very much we have next up then it says on my sheet Councillor Barlow but Councillor Barlow if you'd like to step up to the mic Thank you Chair and again I'd like to just say what Simath said is basically what I want to say but I'm not allowed to say because I'm only allowed to speak on this one.

00:17:50We're all NIMBYs, with the exception of our leader, who always assures me he's not. But we do understand SIPPTH needs some houses. We need the right sort of houses. And all I would, and I know you're going to say you probably can't do this, all I would say to you is, if you're giving us houses, please, please, please, can we have more affordable houses, More houses for the people that we need in Siblath.

00:18:17We don't need employment land because at the end of the day, 51% of our population is over retirement age. 65% is economically inactive. We need people that can look after the people we've got already and serve our community. So please can you just make sure we get the right houses as 12 and 13 say. We don't need any more employment land. it doesn't matter where you think you're putting it you put 10 hectares in the last plan your predecessors, none of it's been used, now it's coming up for residential because we don't need employment land. So I've got nothing really to add other than what Silas already said and I will leave it at that, I don't want to take your time I do thank you for what you do, I know it must be a very difficult job. Thank you Thank you Councillor Barlone Okay we come to committee then I have no other speakers registered who would like to start us off today Councillor Ian further to what Councillor Barlow was saying I think he has got a point

00:19:25And I'm not saying this particular site but we have to be mindful of if you approve a site to achieve numbers but we can't or the developer comes back and says, oh, we can't provide 25% or 50% affordable housing. We can only provide 5% or 10%. Then we have completely failed because we have identified a site that has no long-term benefit to the communities we're trying to support.

00:20:01I'll just point that out. Thank you, Chair. It's worth saying at that point that market housing of itself is a benefit to communities. I appreciate it. Respectfully counselling, we need more housing. The evidence for that is well established. Absolutely correct that we do need more affordable housing and in that respect we look to government to give us more power to actually resist efforts by developers to tone down their affordable housing provision on viability grounds because our powers in that respect are limited by law through the viability mechanism but Having said that, are there any comments on site Sidmouth 17?

00:20:45Councillor Parr? Yes, Chairman. This site is not recommended for allocation, and I propose we move on. OK, we have a proposal to move on from Councillor Parr, seconded by Councillor Ingham. Councillor Hayward?

00:21:00Thank you, Chair. Can I ask the Planning Officer just for a point of clarification? Last week, when we were considering Sidmouth sites, there was a debate about the use of the coastal preservation area designation can I ask why this site which appears as close to the coast as it possibly can be without being at the edge of a cliff is not in a coastal preservation area thank you um thank you uh chair um I'm not sufficiently familiar with this site but the methodology behind the coastal preservation is not so much about proximity to the coast is visibility so it may be that this site is close to the coast but not actually visually prominent from the coast and from views into the coast so I would imagine from my understanding of the methodology that would be the reason in this case which would be set out in the methodology and there was a report if you're interested that was brought to the committee in March or April I think on the designation the coastal preservationist the

00:22:03Methodology behind that but that would be the logic here okay we have a proposal does anybody else wish to speak on this site no okay in which case then we have a proposal from council of power seconded by counseling them to move on all those in favor okay thank you very much members that was unanimous it's worth mentioning perhaps for the benefit of the public the vote you've just seen is in effect a vote to reject as we have to meet the numbers or the plan is going to be dead on arrival at regulation 19 stage on the basis of legal advice we're not using a wording to vote to explicitly reject today that we'll come back to that at the end of the process once we have the numbers to formally reject them all as we might have to revisit okay in that case then we come on to site Sidmouth 12 and the only registered speaker I have is Councillor Nokia so we come straight to committee then members site is not recommended for allocation does anybody wish to speak no in which case I'll propose from

00:23:20The chair that we move on from this site then all those in favor that's unanimous okay if only we could get through them all this quickly uh site simuth 13 then uh I have uh again Councillor Lockyer, but then [member of the public], the landowner. Hello, everyone. Good morning. I previously explained to you why I'm disappointed that a much altered version of our submission has been placed before you by the officers. 83% of our proposal has been deleted without notifying me and without my consent. If nothing else, that's pretty rude. I've asked the officers why they have replaced our scheme with their own much inferior alternative, and I have been told that it was because our scheme was too complicated for members and the general public to understand. Helpfully, however, today's agenda correctly describes what we wanted to include but had been forbidden to do so, which was a new bridge over the river, new paths and cycleways, a lake for migrating birds and allotments, plus public access to 25 acres, including 15 acres in the bys, a big tree planting flood mitigation program, and improved connectivity. So you now

00:24:49Know what we wanted to do. Hopefully you can understand it. I find nothing in that list that either you or the wider public would not comprehend or indeed object to. We want to provide infrastructure, not forget about it, and we are offering affordables. Our submission was first accepted by the HELAA team three years ago, then replaced unilaterally by the officer alternative. After we complained, our submission was reinstated and apologies received from the officer team for mistakenly deleting our scheme. Then, remarkably, a few weeks later, the officers put their proposal back in again, deleting ours for the second time. Needless to say, Again, they didn't tell us. So, Sidmouth 13 has had four iterations so far. The only consistent part is our original submission, which we have not changed at any time. They have even illustrated their scheme with three photos, two of which, in fact, show the land that they have deleted.

00:25:58You cannot help but see the funny side of it. It is quite a comedy of errors. Given all this, I cannot imagine how you can with any seriousness discuss this and vote. My suggestion is that site 13 is put back a week so no significant delay and voted on at the next meeting. I further suggest that both my scheme and the officer scheme should be on the agenda so that the general public and this committee can finally see what we proposed and the options available. My only request is that our scheme is scored. Ours was the only submission to the HELAA that was never assessed by the officers for the simple reason that they replaced it with their own scheme, which incidentally scored badly before the assessment process began. I can really only leave it with you to do the right thing and ensure the correct evidence will finally be put before you. Thank you very much. At that point then I'm going to come to Mr. Freeman who I believe has some matters to bring to our attention on this site. Yes thank you chair perhaps we could switch to

00:27:10HDMI too. So just to explain the rather complex history to this particular site and how it's

00:27:34Being considered through the process. So this is a plan that was submitted with the site and shows the overall proposal that [member of the public] been referring to so you'll see in a second hopefully so you'll see there are sort of three components to the site there's a site labelled SIDM 13 which is the site with assessors officers which shows land proposed for houses and a hotel to the south of that is a proposed 10 acres of land for residents of the development it's just indicated as two fields um for their access and amenity and then uh opposite uh there's proposed 15 acres of land for amenity recreation and wildlife which forms part of the bodies um and access into that area the now members will be aware that this process in terms of site allocations is fundamentally about housing sites and employment land um the potential amenity or recreational use of those areas certainly in terms of the 10 acres for residents I'm not sure that would even need planning permission but certainly these these wide areas are not things that would be necessary to

00:28:45Make the development on Sidmouth 13 acceptable and therefore not things that we could include within the process because they're not reasonably necessary for that purpose so the site that has been considered fundamentally is this one so then 13 for 43 homes and a hotel and that's the site that's before you today we do appreciate that mr really is is offering those wider benefits and areas of land as part of his proposal but through the planning process we would not be able to secure them so we have not included them in our assessment I hope that helps to clarify the position thank you chair okay thank you mr Freeman I have no further speakers registered on sigma 13 then so we come to committee uh the recommendation is not to allocate counseling microphone counseling thank you thank you chair because of the complexity of this site I think it's nice that we have the opportunity to maybe revisit it at a later date so at this time I propose we move on thank you Councillor Ingham does anybody wish to second the proposal to move on

00:30:06Councillor Parr second do you wish to speak okay thank you does anybody else wish to speak on this side no okay in which case then we have a proposal from Councillor Ingham seconded by Councillor Parr to move on all those in favor Councillor Bailey can I just ask a question when we say move on does that mean we're going to revisit it or potentially yes um okay we'll do the vote again then um we we have the proposal to move on from cancelling and those in favor that's unanimous okay that brings us then to site Sidmouth 14 again not proposed for allocation um I have uh no further public speakers on this site does anybody on committee wish to speak note in which case I'll move from the chair that we move on all those in favor okay that's unanimous which brings us then to Sidmouth 29 and I have first up [member of the public] representing the Sid Vale Association thank you mr. chair I hope this is working which I can hear

00:31:44That's great thank you to confirm I'm the one of the trustees Sid Vale Association with the amenities society for Sid Valley with almost I should say 2,000 members we congratulate the planning officers and the councillors for all their hard work and research producing these reports which much appreciated in terms of the site 29 new employment land next to just to the west of the sewage works we object to this I think by way of background others have commented on the fact that just in the south there There is the Sid Ford Business Park, which received consent for warehousing in addition to being designated for employment land.

00:32:36And it's never been utilised, effectively blighting land. The property is now available. It's being marketed as residential land. Secondly, there's no evidence base, which normally forms a key part of the Local Plan process. for the last Local Plan I was involved in and attended the invitation of the inspector. You produced two reports, the Roger Tim's report and also the Atkins report, analysing the need for employment land.

00:33:09And there was no real need in an area of low unemployment for this use. So we're struggling to understand why, with no research papers you're proposing. this side so to confirm we object to this particular proposal due to the there being no demand for employment land we're going to lose a valuable national landscape form of the aonb and the risk of the loss of the green wedge between sidbury and sid ford that's it thank you very much mr chairman thank you uh mr rag on that point then I'm just going to come to mr Freeman sorry mr ag could you turn the microphone off please um I'll just very briefly come to mr Freeman on on the point of the employment evidence um and perhaps we could have clarification on whether the site is within a designated green wedge either within the Local Plan or the neighborhood plan um yes thank you just on the need for employment land so um I think the speaker was referring to documents from the previous Local Plan there is an up-to-date

00:34:22Economic development needs assessment that identifies need for employment land across the district in this Local Plan period uh quite a substantial uh need uh in this case of between about 80 and 120 hectares I think depending on the scenarios you look at it doesn't look specifically at specific um towns in in the district um but obviously as has been mentioned earlier in the the meeting Sidmouth is a substantial town in tier two of the settlement hierarchy so it's anticipated that it will take a not insignificant proportion of housing and employment land needs. In this case at this site and the adjoining site are sites that are allocated as have been identified in the previous Local Plan so it's not actually additional employment land it's retaining an allocation that hasn't come forward during the planned period. I think this northern area was triggered and could come forward upon an element of completion of the larger sites to the south so I think there is an ongoing need for employment land in Sidmouth I think some of the points have been raised about

00:35:30The aging population rather indicate that as well in terms of a need for jobs within the community for younger people in the hope that they could stay within the community so I'm satisfied that is a need for employment land in the district whether or not the levels of employment land are commensurate with that is a more subjective judgment given that the need assessment is district-wide um in terms of the green wedge um I think the screen is indicating no so I'm assuming it's not within the green wedge it's well at the moment there is no Local Plan green wedge there it's in the neighborhood plan non-coalescence area but looking at the map in the system of neighborhood plan that area is marked as an employment allocation and isn't part of that non-coalescence area so okay so for absolute clarity in adopted policy it's not within a green wedge or coalescence area in the Local Plan or a neighborhood plan correct as per the slide thank you mr. Coles okay we call then to come then to mr. Paul

00:36:38Sheldon Matthews. Thank you, [member of the public]. Before I start, just a brief comment on Housing First. On the face of it, green sites recommended look fair and reasonable. Our concerns, however, would be that the statement, landscape impact on unapproved red sites, is not strong enough. Government needs to be made aware we are surrounded by AONB land and this needs to be protected or possible legal action may take place.

00:37:22Before the green sites are approved however no further house building should be built until we have invested into much improved sewage infrastructure across East Devon. The leadership of the council should have the gumption to ask the government for East Devon to be made a special case, as the current sewage infrastructure is not fit for purpose. Now turning to Sidmouth 29, this has been vigorously rejected before by locals and even East Devon District Council over the last 15 years. The landowners, Fords, tried to turn into a residential application from an industrial application and now want to try again as an industrial site.

00:38:13In its location, it's probably the most stupid industrial planning application in the country. Sidmouth does not have an unemployment problem. It would create total misery for the people of Sidford, Sidbury and parts of Sidmouth. It's on a floodplain and should be located near existing infrastructure, namely Exeter Airport or Sky Park. We are convinced that the industrial site in Sidford was never about creating jobs. With a transfer of businesses from Alexandria Industrial Park in Sidmouth, we feel the government inspector has been duped in this matter.

00:38:56Simon Jopp MP, the previous MP, was totally against this site. I therefore urge all residents of Sidbury, Sidford, Sidmouth, If you care about the area's future, to write to the new MP, Richard Ford, expressing your desire to have this site never to be used for very industrial purposes. Go on to Google and put in Sid Ford Business Park, a grubby history.

00:39:25Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, [member of the public]. Members, you will be aware that Councillor John Loudon, the ward member for this site, couldn't be here today. He's on holiday, nice for some, but he's sent round some comments for your consideration as well on this site. I have no further speakers then for Sidmouth 29, so we come to committee. Who would like to start us off? Silence on the floor.

00:40:03Was that Summer? Oh, I've got two. Okay, we'll go with Councillor Hayward then.

00:40:10Thank you. Obviously, the report seems to be at odds with local residents and ward members and other councillors. Can the planning officers give us any indication that they're aware of as to why the site to the south has not yet been built out? I appreciate that. That's quite an open question. But I think it will help the committee to understand, before we commit another piece of land, why the piece below seemingly is still, if there is such a demand for jobs, why some of them leapt at the chance to develop it.

00:40:49Thank you, Chair. I mean, it is slightly speculation, as you say, but I think has been suggested the owners of the site have been trying to push the site for residential purposes, which would yield much higher value. and I suspect that has influenced the value they're seeking for the site in their marketing of the site and so I think that uncertainty and that potential opportunity has perhaps held back its delivery and I would hope that through a clear decision through this process we can decide either way whether or not that's considered appropriate and it would move forward for its appropriate purposes this site is is only this kind of northern second phase has been highlighted the main part of the site into the south already has planning permission that planning permission has already been commenced the material start has been made and so that is not part of this process only this expansion area I think there is a question to be considered here in terms of the total quantum of employment land that's appropriate in this location

00:41:58Accepting that the southern area we assume will come forward for employment purposes as per the consent and therefore and also whether or not it would come forward in this planned period or whether or not the extent consent on the southern area is sufficient in this planned period that is a subjective judgment as I said earlier the evidence for employment land is district-wide it is substantial we're reluctant to lose sites existing sites particularly out of that process because we do struggle to deliver employment land outside of the sort of west end of the district and I don't think citizens seen any significant employment land delivered for some significant time so there are some some challenges there for members to bear in mind with that in mind chair I personally am not convinced that this is an ideal site for employment industrial land.

00:42:59I have travelled down this road quite a lot. I can understand the reservations of residents and ward members and indeed of Sydney and Town Council in objection to this. So I am happy to propose that we move on and disregard it at this time. Thank you. Okay, we have a proposal then from Councillor Hayward, seconded by Councillor Jess Bailey, that we move on from this site. I still have councillors Ingham and Parr who'd indicated their wish to speak. Councillor Ingham.

00:43:30And my question is then where where are the jobs going to be created for future generations in Sydney where can they work which offices no they must not commute to other settlements they should be working in their home community that's what we should at least try to offer them and we have to allocate some land for offices for business for the local economy and if we're moving on with this one then perhaps we've got to come back with somewhere else in Sidmouth when we revisit this to make sure that you don't have to drive to certain industrial estate or any other centre or the airport for a job if you live in Sidmouth there's more to life than 40 years of working in social care if you live in sydworth I think that's what I'd aspire to if I was 18 so we have to be mindful of what we do to our communities for the future thank you Councillor Ingham Councillor Parr yes chair I think you said something about comments from Councillor Loudoun but I haven't seen anything from him and he's ward member so I would

00:44:56Like to know the gist of what you said thank you wendy do you have a copy of those that you might be able to just read out perhaps so Councillor Loudoun um has written I've always always disagreed

00:45:27That this site should be allocated as employment land this site is directly opposite to sites SID-06A and SID-06B is abutting and Sidmouth-29 and 041B. The site is directly next to where the business park has already been designated as employment land. When the business park site was designated, this neighbouring site was also considered and there was then a desire that once a high percentage of the business park had been allocated to businesses that this site should be allowed to progress to development.

00:46:12Indeed, in that regard, this site has previously been allocated. At that point, it was expected that the owners of the business park would purchase the site to build an extension of neighbouring allocated business site. I believe the owners of 41B have relinquished any intention to extend into this site. The development of this site would lead to the loss of agricultural land in the AOMB. It would lead to the creeping coalescence of Sibri and Sidboard, which is protected within the Sid Valley neighbouring land.

00:46:51The use of this site for either employment or residential purposes would add to the already congested roads through SIPRI and School Street, part of SIDFORD, and this would impact negatively on these areas. This site cannot be considered in isolation to the permitted development at Site 41B and the requested allocation of Sites Sidmouth 06A and Sidmouth 06B, which are directly opposite. Allocating this site would have a negative impact upon the local community, the road network, and the local Vista.

00:47:32The A375 at this point is subject to regular significant flooding and subsequent regular closures. Therefore, building on this site would not be appropriate. He's shown a photograph. as ward member I do not support allocating Sidmouth 29 that's it thank you Wendy um Councillor Hayward you have already spoken so I'm just going to check if anybody else wish to speak first Councillor Brown yeah I mean this site was um refused by delegated I believe for permission for industrial use but then went to appeal and received it from the inspector so you know the inspector thinks it's in the right place and it should be there but I think mike can remember that as well can't you mike it's worth possibly clarifying if that's this site or the site to the south both okay thank you was that a hand from Councillor Councillor blakey I knew I saw one on the left somewhere Councillor Blakey this is a case I think where the the views of the ward member really should be should carry a lot of weight

00:48:53Because he knows the area very well I think that objections by others have suggested that this really isn't an appropriate site to allocate the the question of uh coalescence between sydbury sydwood and uh the the northern part of sydmouth is also a valid point so um for me I think that uh the the proposal as put um is is not appropriate thank you Councillor Blakey I'll come back round to Councillor Hayward then Thank you, Chair. I suppose the beauty of debate within this committee is because even though a proposal has been made, members can hear from other members and we can change our view almost, you know, in meeting.

00:49:47And taking Councillor Ian's point that, you know, we have a duty to the younger people and those with aspirations to work, I still stand by my proposal. If the site to the south is built out and it doesn't deliver sufficient employment land, it's not as if Sigma 29 land is going to just vaporise and disappear. It will still be there. It will still be in the ownership and there will be other opportunities in the future.

00:50:15So if the site below is built out and fails to deliver all the employment opportunities that the residents and younger people and elsewhere demand, then this can come back. All we're proposing today is that we move on. The site will still be available. And in future manifestations of local plans, long after we're gone, perhaps there'll be another opportunity. But until you build out the one below and you explore those opportunities, you'll never know.

00:50:44It's simply reallocating, allocating more and more, but not actually delivering on those sites. And East Devon, ourself, we have challenges with land we own to build out. So there are challenges to build them out. there's financial challenges planning challenges or logistical challenges so I stand by my proposal chair that we move this one up and I believe it's been seconded thank you um through you chair um just to clarify on the planning position here um I've just checked on our system and it is the southern area that benefits from the extent consent there was an outline consent previously for the whole area but that was rejected so there is no extent consent for this northern area that's before you today um I mean just just to clarify and to think in terms of the current Local Plan um there is an allocation for the southern area and then it this northern area effectively has an allocation but it's dependent on um delivery of an element of the southern area I can't remember what proportion off the top of my head um but if members are concerned about whether or not this

00:51:51Area is needed in this planned period you could take a similar approach to a future allocation and have it triggered by completion of an element of the Southern.

00:52:01Thank you, Mr Freeman. OK, Councillor Hayward is quite right. We have a proposal that has been seconded. Does anybody else wish to speak on this site? No? OK. In which case, we come to a vote on what I suspect will be our first split decision of the day. The proposal is to move on from this site from Councillor Hayward, seconded by Councillor Jess Bailey, all those in favour can we have hands nice and high please members one end of the table thinks it's 8 the other thinks it's 6 1, 2, 3, 4 I see 7 shall we go with 7 7 in favour of the proposal to move on those against I see 2 and those abstaining 2 ok the numbers add up very good in which case the proposal to move on is carried and we move to the next site Sidmouth 30 again not proposed for allocation does anybody no I have nobody registered to speak on this site does anybody on committee wish to speak nope in which case I'll propose from the chair

00:53:32That we move on from this site all those in favour okay that's unanimous we come then to cite Sidmouth O2 and we're now in Sidmouth Sidford ward for members awareness so cite Sidmouth O2 then I have no members of the public registered to speak it's not proposed for allocation does anybody on committee wish to speak no in which case I'll propose from the chair that we move on in line with officers recommendation all those in favour please that's unanimous we come then to cite Sidmouth 04 again not proposed for allocation and I have nobody registered to speak does anybody on committee wish to speak no okay in which case in line with officers recommendation I'll propose in the chair that we move on from Sidmouth 04 all those in favour that's unanimous which brings us then to Sidmouth 06A and B, partially proposed for allocation, the south-eastern portion you see there at site Sidmouth 06A and I have [member of the public] registered to speak first.

00:54:58I hope I've pronounced that right. I have a [member of the public] and a Liz Lees OAC right okay yeah no Liz Lee's is on my list as well um sorry for the the confusion there you have three minutes yes thank you Councillor Barlow um thank you chair and members of the committee for letting me speak today I'm a Sid Ford resident a member of two local community groups I'm here to put forward my concerns relating building allocation sites numbers 6a and 6B, previously referred to Site 6. More housing will mean more people, more pressure on local infrastructure that is struggling with the current population. My autistic son attends a local mainstream school with approximately 120 other SEND children. The schools are struggling to meet some needs. Regarding roads, Sidford Cross is already a challenge for locals. There are four busy roads and one pedestrian crossing. There are no filter traffic lights, so often cars accelerate to turn or risk getting stuck in the middle on a red. Site 6A is in close proximity to Sidbury Castle, Firebeacon Hill, a local nature reserve and Core Copse.

00:56:37These nature reserves and surrounding fields essentially are essential habitats for wildlife. I have been fortunate to witness deer, kingfisher, tree creepers, bats in flight, visiting osprey and only yesterday evening hundreds of swallows preparing to migrate. There is a brook at the bottom of Site 6A that wildlife rely on for their water source. We should be finding ways to enhance and protect East Devon's wildlife, to keep it flourishing for today and for future generations.

00:57:17And finally, a quote posted on Instagram this summer by the Princess of Wales. We need to encourage people of all ages to reconnect with nature and learn more about how we can protect our natural world. The power of nature to support our development and well-being, both by bringing us joy and helping keep us physically, mentally and spiritually healthy.

00:57:42Thank you for listening. Thank you, [member of the public]. I have then two ward members registered to speak. If you'd like to step up to the public speaking podium, and we'll start with Councillor Rixson.

00:57:59Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Committee. Councillor Lowden's comments regarding development of the land adjacent to Sidmouth 29, that is, Sidmouth 09, also relate to Sidmouth 06A and 06B. Development would lead directly to the further loss of agricultural land in the national landscape and would result in more creeping coalescence of Sidbury and Sidford, contrary to the Sid Valley neighbourhood plan. Similarly, he commented on the regular significant flooding and road closures which result.

00:58:48This, despite the efforts of Devon County Council highways to resolve the flooding issues at Two Bridges Road last year by cutting back the much-expanded hedgerow that had grown over the drains next to Sidmouth 06A and rodding the drains to ensure they were running clear. Their efforts were in vain, as this has not solved the problem, possibly because surface water cascades down Ottery Lane and the field at Sidmouth 06AB, together with stones, etc., directly leading to flooding in this area.

00:59:24And whereas flood water used to drain away across the land at Sidmouth 29 this has now been prevented as the owners have built up the gateway to ensure that flood water cannot drain onto their land. Presumably when this site is developed whether for employment, housing or possibly a mix of both the entrance will be raised on a permanent basis to prevent the ingress of flood water. I strongly object to development of Sidmouth 6A and subsequently 6B due to coalescence, flooding and the additional congestion of the highway between Sidbury and Sidford which will result from this allocation together with other proposed developments in Two Bridges Road and Sidbury. If coalescence is not resisted, Sidbury will be absorbed into the wider sydmeth catchment this has already happened to syd ford which also used to have its own separate identity and biodiversity will be severely impacted as wildlife will be restricted to an even narrower corridor and flyway thank you committee and now for what I believe might be his maiden speech to Strategic Planning Committee uh Councillor Goodman welcome yes it is the first

01:00:54Time I've spoken, and I'm going to be very brief because you've already heard two excellent speeches on what I couldn't possibly disagree with. I have to agree with the two speakers who have gone before, and also I want to agree with what Chris Lockyer said regarding the reasons to object to this. It would encroach upon the green wedge between Sid Ford and Sidbury it would undermine the key objective of the important Sid Valley neighborhood plan which aims to maintain the separation which is really important between the settlements in addition the site is part of the natural landscape and you've heard some really passionate concerns about what would happen to nature and we have already declared an ecological emergency and this is the sort of thing that would not be protected in our wildlife.

01:01:53And the land further development would set a precedent, which is a concern of mine, for future building in this very sensitive area. Moreover, as Councillor Rixson said, it is known and prone for flooding. However, I understand how difficult it is for committees to make decisions on planning, and this is why I have to agree with Councillor Barlow what he said that we need homes but we need homes and we need employment in the right place with the right infrastructure thank you chairman thank you Councillor Goodman short and sweet just the way we like it could sorry could you turn the microphone on please or somebody thank you street um okay I have no further members of the public uh wishing to speak we come then into committee members Councillor How yeah I'll be I'll be the killjoy I suppose um we've heard excellent speakers as always as we do but virtually everything they've said relates to anywhere in Devon we have already allocated in xmas in national landscape because we have no choice and if we don't allocate here and I get the coalescence bit but there is

01:03:17Quite a distance between the two communities you know yes it's shrinking but it's not shrinking by much, this is 30 homes we're talking on a road, no highways objections, healthcare is healthcare, it's the same everywhere in Devon all the other infrastructure is just the same as everywhere else in Devon Sidmouth like every other community and Sidmouth is a good sized community has unfortunately to take some pain as well as the rest of us So as such, I will regretfully go with officers' recommendation for this and say yes.

01:03:55Is that a proposal, Councillor Howe? I'm happy to make that a proposal, unfortunately, yes. Okay, thank you, Councillor Howe. Does anybody wish to second that proposal? Councillor Davey, do you wish to speak? Yes. Well, Councillor Howe's pretty much said it. We've only got three sites in the whole of the Sidmouth area. on – that are shown as green on the map. This is a relatively small one. It's 30 dwellings.

01:04:29It's tucked on the end of the settlement, and I understand the fears of coalescence, but there are several fields between Sidford and Sidbury, and whether we can say enough is enough and this is the end of it I don't know um but given that it's one of the few sites that officers have considered is acceptable um and it has less landscape impact which is the major problem with most of them then I feel like Councillor How somewhat reluctantly um but I'm happy to a second okay thank you Councillor Davey we have a proposal to allocate uh just to clarify allocate 6a rather than the whole site oh yes yep okay uh just for damien's benefit there and I have Councillor Jess bailey to speak next thank you um so looking at all these the green recommended sites together it looks to me like it's under 200 houses and I'd just like to I know we don't have specific targets for any of our villages or any of our settlements but I'd just like to ask

01:05:52Officers please how many dwellings are there currently in Sydney roughly so that we get a sense this is a tier two settlement so we get a sense and I'm not suggesting that we have to be you know every tier set tier two gets a certain number of houses but I'm equally very conscious that some of our other towns are getting potentially substantially more so I just want to get a just gauge um where where we are with Sidmouth thank you uh mr Freeman has just whispered in my ear give me a minute uh so we'll uh we'll give him a minute to answer that question but thank you Councillor Bailey um I've just found an article in the Sidmouth herald from 2017 which says Sidmouth has 7,885 households, but that is seven years out of date now.

01:06:47So Mr. Freeman will find a figure there. Councillor Hayward. Thank you, and thank you to the speakers who've come before. If only the area where I lived was surrounded on three sides by national landscapes and with the protection that affords. My opposition to this, aside from the objections from ward members and councillors, a noting point that the Vice Chair has made, if not here, where, just the density of this for 6A just strikes me as too much.

01:07:25We've had a significant number of dwellings in Axminster where the density has essentially necessitated gardens that are no bigger than a postage stamp, really. And just on the balance of that, I can't see how you would provide 60 dwellings, unless you go up and you start building apartments and such like, and I don't think that's the proposal in such a sensitive area within the National Landscape area.

01:07:54So on the basis of that, I can't support Councillor Hayward's proposal, I'm afraid.

01:08:02Thank you, Councillor Hayward. I have no other members who have indicated they wish to speak yet. Does anybody else wish to speak? Otherwise, we have a proposal on the table. Councillor Ingham.

01:08:16Thank you, Chair. And it comes back to the question that if it's not going to be here, then where? And Sidna does have to participate. what we're trying to do and if ward members feel desperately that the sites that the officers have identified which are the ones that they would develop we've got to resolve this somehow and I think this is one of the better the worst proposals thank you Councillor I believe mr. Freeman has part of an answer for us um thank you chair well yes um I can't answer the question in terms of numbers of dwellings what I've looked at is our role and function of settlement study which looks at the size of the settlements in the district by population size relative to one another which I think was the core of the question was the relative size of the settlement to others and it enlisted enough as the third largest settlement in the district sorry the second and largest behind Exmouth with a population of 13,280 as of 2019 making it a slightly larger

01:09:33Population than Hamilton and ONS figures from the 2021 census estimate that between Sidmouth Town and Sidmouth Sidford there's 6,000 households but that excludes Sidmouth Rural obviously which has some on the east side of Sidmouth as well okay any other members wish to speak on this site nice try Councillor Barlow okay in which case I understand the proposer wants to sum up before we come to a vote it's not so much about some up but I do need to query Councillor Hayward as he's talked about housing numbers we haven't thought our officers think could accommodate it's not the full planning application and housing numbers and density and everything else would have to be determined at a full planning application so as such your objection really doesn't hold weight in this it's whether it's suitable for development or not and here's what we think it might take but not what it will so I just wanted to clarify that point is it worth asking perhaps Mr Freeman whether you could clarify how the 30 number has been reached yes certainly we have a standard

01:10:50Methodology uh through the HELAA process the housing employment and availability assessment work uh which is an agreed methodology with the neighboring authorities in exit teambridge and mid Devon which is used to calculate based on average densities taking out the undeveloped plants of the site and working out an appropriate number so it's it's a standard methodology it may come out as slightly higher than that it may be slightly lower than that it's just a guide at this states as Councillor Howe says okay thank you mr Freeman do any other members wish to speak before we come to a vote Councillor Jess bailey thank you so just to be clear we've got to deliver 20 000 houses roughly there's 200 proposed for submit as the second largest settlement is that correct for the benefit of the stream yes okay we have a proposal then from Councillor Howe seconded by Councillor Davey to allocate site 06 a for the regulation 19 to after the Local Plan all those members in favor of allocating 06 a I see seven hands nice

01:12:15And high please members go on Kevin you can do it seven okay those members against I count three Councillor Brown never puts his hand up very high and uh any abstentions Councillor Parma okay uh the proposal to allocate 6a is carried then members we come to then uh site simith 19 which is not proposed for allocation do any members wish to speak on this site no okay in which case I'll move from the chair that we move on in line with officers recommendation uh members all those in favor please thank you that's unanimous we come then to site Sidmouth 20 again not proposed for allocation do any members wish to speak on this one no okay in which case I will move from the chair that we uh move on from this site those members in favour? That's unanimous again.

01:13:30Site 22, again, not recommended for allocation at Alexandria Industrial Estate. Again, no public speakers. Members, does anybody wish to speak? Nope, in which case I'll move from the chair in line with officers' recommendation that we move on. Members, those in favour, please. Thank you. That's carried unanimously. Do I need to slow down for you, Mr Hunter? do we need to do you want us to vote separately on 6b as well okay sorry back to back to 6b then members and I'll move from the chair that we move on from 6b in line with officers recommendation those in favor thank you that's unanimous Sorry, Mr. Hunter. Are you caught up?

01:14:24Not happening now. Okay. Who was that proposed by on September? I proposed that from the chair. Okay, thank you. Site Sidmouth 68, 28, Church Street Car Park. No members of the public registered to speak. Do any members on committee wish to speak? Councillor Hayward.

01:14:47Thanks, Chair. just simply to propose that we move on this is a well-used car park it provides amenity for shoppers certainly I think it would be detrimental to the uh the businesses nearby uh if this were converted you know it's not a derelict site it's not a brownfield site it's a usable car park it's economically active um so I propose we move on from it thank you Councillor Hayward do we have a seconder I saw Councillor Levine first sorry Councillor Davey um in which case then uh do any other members wish to speak no okay we have a proposal from Councillor Hayward seconded by Councillor Levine to move on from site 28 all those in favor that's carried unanimously Sidmouth 31 then breaking the chain of a long list of sites where the only person talking is me this site is proposed for allocation uh we don't however have any members of the public registered to speak so we come straight to members does anybody wish to speak on this site Councillor Ingham I propose it goes forward as recommended by our forces

01:16:03Thank you, Councillor Ingham. Seconded by Councillor Ledger. Does anybody wish to speak? No? Okay. In which case, we'll go to a vote. We have a proposal to allocate site Sidmouth 31 from Councillor Ingham, seconded Councillor Ledger. all those in favor that's unanimous and then uh site Sidmouth 32 which is split between 32a and 32b I believe 32a being the southern part of the site and 32b the northern I can't quite see on that but yes that's correct um and I have uh again the ward members so Councillor Rigson Thank you, Chair and Committee.

01:17:08I support Sidmouth Town Council's analysis of this allocation and the benefits that could ensue. Planning gain may outweigh national landscape considerations as a result at this location. However, I would only support this allocation at Sidmouth 32A on the proviso that developers are required to deliver the right type of housing for the Sid Valley in accordance with Housing Policies 12 and 13 of the Sid Valley Neighbourhood Plan.

01:17:39As Sidmouth has one of the oldest demographics in the country, this site must deliver housing for local people, not more second homes, to ensure that Sidmouth remains a vibrant community long term. Note, Sidmouth has 6% or more second homes already, and further reduction of owner-occupied homes must be restricted, as far as possible. The Town Council are also in favour of a park and change at this location to support local employment. Could the addition of e-bikes also be a possibility here? Could this reduce pressure on Council car parks in high season and potentially encourage more people to use active travel more widely? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Rixson. Councillor Goodman and we'll be short I would just like to agree completely with what council rickson said I think she's summed up much better than I can and I'd like to support I think it's a right thing to do and I also agree with her about the e-bikes and the parking change I think that's absolutely right I think it's the right place to build houses thank you thank you Councillor Goodman um I wonder

01:19:02Mr Freeman if you could offer committee any clarity on the issue of um second homes and local ties etc yes thank you chair I mean it is a challenging area because I appreciate the desire to deliver homes that are meeting the leads of local people um but but local needs ties are a challenging thing I think in in planning terms and difficult to justify um I think the best we can do is uh and we envisage this I think in the plan anyway is is requiring um all housing sites to deliver a mix of housing that marries up with the needs identified in our local housing needs assessment so we're meeting delivering the types of homes that are needed and a mix of housing that's addressing local need and then in terms of affordable housing and obviously have requirements in terms of the proportion of affordable housing that will have to be led by what's viable and deliverable and then affordable housing usually is tied in terms of because that's specifically to meet the local needs and would have planning obligations in terms of initially meeting

01:20:07The needs of people within the local area and then it cascades out if the homes are not occupied by those within those needs. So that's the best we can do as I see it in terms of addressing those issues in terms of local need. Hopefully that gives some reassurance but I don't think we can go as far as seeking to tie all new housing in their particular area to residents of that area unfortunately.

01:20:31I'm glad you added unfortunately there Mr Freeman. Okay I have no further public speakers registered to speak so we come then to committee. Councillor Ingham.

01:20:42Thank you Chair. I propose 32A for allocation. Thank you Chair. Thank you Councillor Ingham. Do we have a second? I saw Councillor Pass hand a fraction before Councillor Ledgers so we have a proposal then from Councillor Ingalls seconded by Councillor Parr does anybody else wish to speak on 32a Councillor Davey I'm just looking at this one on the map it makes absolute sense not to allocate 32b which it looks as though is an area possibly scrub I don't know it and trees could make a very good amenity area for the residents of that development and for that reason is there any merit in allocating the whole site on with the assumption no we can't assume with the proviso that that area is kept as an amenity site or could that happen anyway uh without uh allocating the whole area thank you Councillor David I suspect the answer is that that could happen anyway but mr Freeman uh thank you well yes I think it could happen anyway we have to be careful as I said in those mr ely's proposal that we're not uh seeking

01:22:13To secure levels of open space that are beyond what's necessary to meet the residential needs of the residential development uh without doing a rather complex calculation I couldn't work that out but um it looks like it's quite a bit larger than would actually be needed um but obviously the applicant could propose that they meet the open space requirements at least through part of that area and could as a consequence deliver a wider area if they wish there just wouldn't be a planning obligation so that may well be the end result but I don't think we need to allocate that area to achieve that. It could also help deliver biodiversity net gain for the net as they grow that forward yeah.

01:22:54Councillor Hayward. Thank you. I think this site is one where it demonstrates that Sydney is able to play its part to the conundrum that faces the entire district and certainly with the Walbrook Road access So it's a very good road, there's good connectivity, so I think this is a perfect sign for inclusion. And I endorse everything that Councillor Bailey said about the wider amenity value of that space.

01:23:25Certainly I wouldn't be in favour of tarmacking it over to provide a parking change at the negative connotations of all that amenity via diverse value.

01:23:37Thank you Councillor Hayward. any other members wish to speak on this site no okay in which case we have a proposal from Councillor Ingham seconded by Councillor Paul I believe to allocate 32 a those in favor that's unanimous thank you and I will move then from the chair that we move on from 32 B those members in favor unanimous okay thank you very much members we come then to site Sidmouth 35 not proposed for allocation do any members wish to speak no in which case I'll propose from the chair that we move on from this site all those in favour okay that's unanimous that brings us to the end of the Sidmouth SID4 sites then members would you like a short break now or should we push through I see some nods so we will take a six-minute break until 11.30 Councillor In I think I may have banged my gavel slightly prematurely as we're still missing half

01:32:40Of committee and if they're not here for the start of the discussion they can't vote so perhaps we'll give it another two minutes and frown at councillors Hayward Ingham and Bailey when they come back in. Okay, we will get started again then. Straight in with Sidbury in Sidmouth

01:35:49Rural Ward and we come to site 34A and 34B. We have a number of public speakers registered for this site so I'll come first to [member of the public], is it? Have I pronounce that right. Brilliant. Thank you very much. I have the benefit, you might say,

01:36:28Of being totally surrounded by what's planned at the First Hill Farmhouse, and my wife Caroline and I have lived there for 27 years. To the north of us, which is one of the main sites, The ground is very steep and is a maze of terracotta land drains to try and keep it usable. When the electricity board came to undertake the reinstatement of the high voltage cable which runs through part of the site, they demolished several of these drains and the end result of that was that we had a sort of sludgy river running down our drive and down to the main road below so the indication there is that the water is a huge problem the flood is something that must be addressed and we have suffered from part of this and so much that it's flows into our property and we've had to take some protective measures to survive that just recently over the last year or two or three there's been some quite serious flooding along burnt oak to the properties on the eastern side several really serious damage done now the next

01:38:01Thing is the road outside of the access. We suffer numerous problems outside our place in some ways that the eastern gable of the farmhouse, the listed farmhouse, encroaches quite a bit into the road or makes a pinch point at this position. The situation there is that we collect lots of broken wing mirrors and glass from those that have been impacting on the property. So the whole road system is absolutely jammed in our place and sometimes we have a jam that lasts, could be 10 minutes while people argue about who has to be shipped backwards or forwards.

01:38:51We can't understand if there's any flams for the sewage capacity which again we understand is fully utilised at present from Sidbury to the pumping station or the treatment works. We've got a lack of school capacity in Sidbury for young pupils and all secondary pupils have to go to Sidmouth. There's no routing for them to get there except by car basically. The steep hill outside, which I've been referring to on the north side, is very, very steep and will be very expensive to develop in so much that the earthworks, the general drainage works and other will be very, very significant and may well have a weighting on the decision as to affordable housing or not.

01:39:54The other thing is that we've got very limited public transport options, lack of doctor or pharmacy close by. Provision for the completed footpath is another issue. It's been held as a cherry, basically, to soften the impact of the building works. I think the whole footpath should be separated and just done in advance of everything else because it's absolutely critical. It's been talked about all the 27 years that we've lived in Sibri.

01:40:31Finally, there's no really clear supporting claim for the affordable housing. I think we must tie down the fact that this is a very, very, very serious issue in so much that on the drawing which we've been prepared, it seems to me that it all looks as if they're quite large properties. So I think the actual sustainability and the detached houses for first-time buyers should be a premium.

01:41:08So I think that's just about it. There's an awful lot of things that really are so grey that needs approaching all the way through.

01:41:17Thank you, [member of the public]. Thank you. I have then uh mr philip bragg from the sydvale association again thank you mr chair um representing

01:41:42Uh sydvale association we've uh canvassed both members of our planning group uh I'm chair of and also local residents who members of the sydvale association and uh there is um considerable opposition to this proposal the residential development of 34a and for that reason sydvale association objects to this proposal and the reasons are first of all loss of land agricultural land to within the national landscape former aomb for residential purposes and in conjunction with that This proposal is next to a listed heritage site, Furs Hill Farm, a Grade II listed building.

01:42:34The second objection is that 34A, if it progresses, will naturally lead on to the larger development, 34B, to a later date, which again is undesirable. our third reason to object is the negative impact on the local environment and biodiversity there's our members report barn owls and all sorts of other wild bird species in the area that would be affected by a new development and I know the district council is trying to promote biodiversity the fourth objection is the access to the site is not easy from the A375 so to our mind it'll have to come from Furs Hill and it'll cause increased traffic for access from the narrow Chapel Street so we don't see this as an easy site to develop final objection is the increased traffic hazard, it's already a problem in Sidbury that does have technically a speed limit 20 miles an hour that's rarely observed and with increased population and traffic is going to cause more of a hazard and while local members reports it's already dangerous for taking children to the primary school on the other side of the street to the north in Sidbury and there's a

01:44:11Lack of pedestrian crossing so it's dangerous for children that's it thank you very much for your time thank you mr rag Councillor Lock here I have you on this one as well did you want to add anything okay thank you in which case then we come to mr dan yates the agent on behalf of Sidbury LVA LLP. Good morning councillors my name is [name removed] planning agent on behalf of Sidbury LVA LLP the land promoter for the land between Firth Hill and Hillside Sidbury. The site has been assessed by officers in the latest site selection report in two parts and we know officers recommend in that report that only the northern part of the site should be allocated for 38 homes and some employment land. Whilst we fully support the proposed allocation of the northern part of the site we continue to maintain that all of the land 34a and 34b should be allocated in the Local Plan review we've been promoting the whole site over recent years including representations to the last consultation in june at the at that time the site was a second choice

01:45:21Site in the plan our representations to previous consultations have confirmed that the whole site is suitable for development and have emphasized the benefits of allocating all rather than parts of the site we've also undertaken wider public consultation this year on draft proposals to the site and received a number of helpful responses from the local community the benefits of allocating the whole site include the ability to deliver a second phase to the Devon County Council multi-use path in order to provide a safe and secure route into the heart of sydbury overlooked by new housing we know the report prepared by your officers highlights the needs for self safe walking routes and that is something that the site can deliver we've also explained through our recent public consultation the benefits of bringing forward the whole site to provide flexibility to accommodate around 50 homes rather than 38 providing a slightly higher number of homes by making best use of the whole sites would make a significant contribution to address the local affordable housing need with over over 200 households currently on the local housing waiting

01:46:25Nest the emerging proposals are supported by a range of technical assessments which demonstrate the whole site is suitable for development this includes some of the matters highlighted in the report prepared by your officers including access drainage and landscape impacts an access design for the access into the site from chapel street has already been agreed in principle with highways authority this is in turn this will in turn help to serve the whole sites rather than just the northern parcel from first hill which would instead become a pedestrian access bringing forward the whole site will also provide additional flexibility to provide more open space and biodiversity net gains overall we fully support the allocation of the sites but consider it should be it would be beneficial to allocate all of the land between first hill and hillside in the plan thank you thank you mr yates um members uh just to note that Councillor Loudoun sent around some comments uh on this as ward member on thursday the 5th at 11 34. would members like me to read those I see some knots okay Councillor Again microphone counseling after

01:47:40You've done that I'd like to hear from uh mr Freeman in his response to what the uh potential developers have said about the a and b um bringing them both forward and also for his appraisal of what the speakers said with regards to drainage so what are the risks that we're considering which ones should we accept or dismiss thank you okay thank you Councillor Mr Freeman you're on notice I'll I'll come to you in a moment um if I just get up Councillor Loudoun's comments on Number 34.

01:48:22Okay, so taking 34B first, Councillor Loudoun agrees that the sections within 34B should not be allocated. He has concerns about this larger section of the site as it would be inaccessible from the A375 or the narrow single track Ebden Lane next to Hillside. It would be overbearing and overlooking the properties of burned oak on the A375. It would probably, his words, add to the water runoff that already runs down Ebden Lane, flooding the A375 at Burnt Oak and has recently flooded some properties there.

01:48:58If the site sits within the AOMB, now National Landscape, on steep sloping agricultural land and which is adjacent to the Grade 2 listed Furs Hill Farm, and it could have a detrimental impact upon it. That's 34B. 34a council allowed and has concerns about allocating as a site it could have almost 40 properties built on it this is bound to lead to additional residents vehicles entering and exiting the site it would have a dangerous access point if it was allowed to be on the a375 at chapel street the only alternative access point would be through the residential road through firs hill next to a playing field and an EDDC children's play area.

01:49:40The photograph at page 113 of the reports pack shows how narrow the immediate access via Furs Hill to the site would be. On the left-hand side are the frontages of properties and on the right-hand side the parking spaces in front of the properties would have to be removed to allow the access to be widened. The Furs Hill access would be required to facilitate equipment reaching the site during its development and given the bullet points I've just mentioned and Councillor Loudoun believes that would not be safe or appropriate.

01:50:09Allocating the site could create a potential vehicle bottleneck at the War Memorial Junction of Greenhead, into which Furs Hill leads, and at the A375, where Chapel Street leads into 4th Street. According to local informal consultation documents issued on 18 June 2024 by Savills regarding this site, The landowner slash developer's potential vehicular access to the site would be from the A375, with potential pedestrian access being via Furshill.

01:50:40This is at odds with the suggestion of page 113 of the reports pack that access might be possible via Furshill. If for no other reason than traffic traversing through a narrow residential Furshill road, it would be inappropriate to allocate any parts of this site for employment. The site sits within the AOMB on steep sloping agricultural land and which is adjacent to the Grade 2 listed Fursville farm could have a detrimental impact upon it.

01:51:07Devon County Council states that while Sidmouth Primary School has some capacity to support some development, Sidmouth Primary School has no capacity to support development and no ability to expand the existing school. And lastly, at present, there is no planning permission granted to any part of a potential cycle path slash pedestrian link between Sidbury and Sidford. According to the County Council, any planning permission that might be granted would need to be extended from the usual three-year commencement period to ten years due to the need to obtain external funding.

01:51:39Therefore, the opportunity gain on page 112 of the reports pack deriving from this site is speculative. And as a result, as ward member, Councillor Loudoun does not support the allocation of either 34A or B. And with all that said, I'm going to stop talking and come to Mr Freeman.

01:52:01Thank you, Chair. So I think Councillor Ingham was sort of questioning the assessment here in terms of sites A and B. my understanding is the main distinction is a is is sort of on the lower part of the site and so less prominent in the landscape uh the b parts of the site sort of rising land within the national landscape and so become notably more um sensitive in terms of the landscape character of the area and the impact on the wider landscape and views in and out of the site there is obviously also an issue of the the more development you you put around the listed building the more sensitive and the more impact you have on the setting of the listed building as well um I think there were some issues raised around the access range I think the agent identified a number of opportunities by allocating the larger area in terms of the access arrangements and um walking cycling routes through there which we acknowledge but don't feel that those benefits as it were would overcome the

01:53:02Landscape harm arising from the wider site being allocated um the report I think envisages access coming in from firs hill and the comments from Devon county highways uh acknowledge that or bit there would need to be some potential improvement to that given that it's quite narrow at the moment I think the other point as well is about drainage arrangements um I work on the basic principle that um new developments will have to uh deliver a drainage surface water drainage scheme that delivers at least an equal situation to the greenfield that's there it can't worsen that situation and it can't lead to surface water running onto adjoining land so the drainage situation is more of an engineering solution that's needed to address that rather than a reason not to allocate the site I would suggest thank you chair okay thank you mr Freeman we have no further public speakers so I come to committee members who wants to start us on Councillor Levine your microphone Councillor Levine your your microphone thank you chair um I drive quite

01:54:14Regularly between 100 and the sigma and driving through sidbury is a nightmare the road is narrow car parked on both sides of the road so I think access problems is a real is a real issue here and a great issue because if you are not awake driving through Sidbury, you are going to cause an accident. Secondly, what I don't understand in the paper is it tells me that any development should be kept to this end of the site, Sidbury 34B.

01:54:51Should it be Sidbury 34A? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Levine. Our first typo of the day in this 300-page report pack. Some were bound to get through. Members, you'll notice you're going to get another 900 pages by the end of the week. Have some sympathy for our officers. And of course, Councillor Levine, I hope you weren't suggesting that we think drivers are going to be driving asleep behind the wheel from those comments, because of course we'd hope they are all awake.

01:55:27There we go okay Councillor Ingham did I see your hand yes chair um from what what I've heard I'd like to propose that we allocate 34a and move on regarding 34b okay thank you Councillor Ingham does anybody wish to second that proposal I saw Councillor Blakey's hand first are you wishing to second Councillor Blakey do you wish to speak uh no I think it's the report makes it um brief but clear and it makes perfect sense to me so that's the reason okay thank you Councillor Ledger I'm really struggling with this one because the dcc have said the uh improvements need to be made to first hill but what improvements can they make can they acquire front gardens off of residence is that is that what they're planning on doing it's you you can't get um a direct link in from chapel street that would be safe would be a safe access point it's it's on a bend it's already a huge issue there in sydbury so are we just going to allocate this and then go

01:56:49Are it's a more of a problem because that's what it seems like we're saying for this Councillor Ingham sure if they can't overcome it they won't get permission I suspect then we'd come up to the argument in planning committee that highways impacts have to be severe which so often is the stick with which we are beat as members metaphorically of course Councillor Hayward did I see your hand um thank you I mean I'm minded to agree uh with Councillor Ledger having just looked at sort of a well-known internet site street view and followed it all the way through um the the residential estate above I can't see how that's a credible entrance to the site but it comes back to this issue of our role as strategic planning do we allocate a site simply to make up numbers, almost knowing in the future that planning won't be able to deliver it because it's not safe to do so.

01:57:57That's a challenge for us. I'm minded not to. It's proximity, I mean, on balance, proximity to a Grade 2 listed building, difficult access on a road that's already incredibly challenging to drive down, that congestion at... green head at the war memorial site access from the residential estate above it for me it just ticks so many negative boxes that I I'm finding it difficult to support this one um as 34a 34b simply is a site that I can't it is so constrained by geography and it eats into the aumb national landscape far too much and would be very visible and very intrusive, so I'm going to find myself erring on the side of voting against this. Thank you, Chair.

01:58:51I believe Mr Freeman can offer us some insight on the access issue, and then I'll come to Councillor Davey. Well, all I was... Let's try that again. Not sure what happened there. um yeah so I was just going to make the point that as I understand it I think the driveway through from first hill is actually owned by the council as are some of the adjoining houses um maybe some additional land needed and we may or may not agree to that as a council but um I just make that point that you know there are opportunities potentially there to widen that there may still be a pinch point that is a single car width but having said that if you look at a lot of modern developments often as a highway authority they recommend that you have design in those sorts of pinch points as traffic calming measures in any event so I don't think that in itself would be a barrier to delivering the site but there are some challenges in terms of how you deliver the access

02:00:08Certainly. Councillor Davey Thank you I mean the first comment I get from residents whenever a development of any size is proposed is it's going to add to the traffic and I appreciate I've driven through Sydney as well and I was very awake Council Levine but yeah I appreciate there are difficulties but that's the same all over the county there are too many cars on the road

02:00:44And usually I'm one of them and I appreciate I came here by car today but I do think that we can't just reject every site on the question of car use and I do note that there is actually some proposal for some kind of sustainable travel proposals as part of this site as well and so I don't think that's a sufficient reason for rejecting it although I think the access that is going to be an issue if you look at the photo of first hill it's very narrow indeed and so I think there'd be some work to do on access but when we allocate a site like this we're not actually saying that's it done deal all we're saying is you can come forward with the planning application um and uh and then at that point we can assess it and decide whether the the other matters add up thank you Councillor David before I come to Councillor Howe Councillor Faithfull do you have any declarations of interest okay thank you Councillor Howe thank you chair

02:02:03Um yeah I know this site quite well funnily enough um having driven there many a times day and night. The issue with traffic is exactly as Councillor Davey has said. Unless we're going to say no to development in Sidford, Sidmouth and Huntington, either side of the road and say you can't come off the A30 or any other road and go to Sidmouth, traffic's going to increase. So a development in the middle of the road isn't going to make any difference in that respect because that traffic is going to keep increasing. I have real doubts about access I really do but as Councillor Davey again has said that is more for a planning application highways haven't objected they have said options are available and that worries me a great deal the only other um thing I want to pick up is what um residents and speakers spoke earlier about is great it's grade three agricultural land and as we go through these meetings a lot of the development sites are actually grade one and two so this being grade three is actually

02:03:10Quite low grade could be grade 3a still considered best the most versatile but it's not as good as grade one and two which most of the west end actually encompasses so we've got to be mindful again it is a tier four settlement I'm struggling although I don't want to say yes to it because of my concerns of highways I'm at the same time struggling to see proper reasons not to being as highways aren't forcibly objecting thank you Councillor Howe Councillor Jess bailey thank you um sorry could you just um uh clarify the 35 meters from a habitat of principal importance in the ecology section somebody I'm going to look to one of our three Mr Coles I can't find that off hand but I can certainly clarify that but if you can give me a few moments I'll come back to you Do any other members wish to speak on this site?

02:04:26No? Okay? In which case? No pressure [member of the public] going to have to open my GIS I'm afraid so I'm not sure how long it's going to take Okay Do you want us to wait Councillor Bailey? Okay I think unusually today we have the time to wait for a moment unlike last week no comment I mean maybe I'll just say in the interim I really don't like it but it's just, I don't like this app I just don't like this site but I'm struggling because I don't really like any of the green on green fields and open countryside so I uh I suspect that's the sentiment most on this committee probably share how are we getting on mr coals still waiting still waiting should we take the vote on site 34b first as that's proposed uh to move on sorry Councillor A reasonable question would be uh would the answer affect uh Councillor Bailey's voting pattern if the answer is no then we can vote now can't we okay it it might do is it going to change your vote on 34b

02:06:02No in which case we have a proposal to move on from 34b from Councillor Ingham seconded by Councillor Blakey so those in favor of moving on from 34 B only that's unanimous mr. Coles it's the do-or-die moment

02:06:50Councillor Ledger just a up some time chair when we as we're moving forward with this process could we get some clarification from Devon highways on their proposed plans and what they just their plans generally what they plan to do with that with regards access to this site specifically because I'm still struggling to see how they can open up the capacity on it even with mr. Freeman's comments I think it's probably worth saying at this point that just because we're saying yes to things today doesn't mean definitely absolutely a hundred percent of course it makes it vastly more likely than not that they will end up as an allocation but there we go mr Freeman did you want to comment uh thank you well all I was going to say is that a county will as the highway authority will just be looking at the principle so really they're just saying in principle an access through first hill can be achieved um it will be for the developer to design that access and the details of that and agree that with the highway priority and ourselves for

02:07:58The planning application process um so we're kind of in their hands but um we have to trust that the highway authority have done the homework and due diligence and our consent that in principle that it can be made acceptable Councillor Hayward thank you chair on the basis that in principle um if you have a ball goes you can get access to pretty much anywhere um is this something with your chairmanship that strategic planning should consider in future, perhaps well if not quite so tied up with site allocations, as to our relationship with Devon Highways, Devon County Council and their responses that may be also shared across all town and parish councils but certainly from our planning perspective because it's important to how we consider planning applications or how the planning committee considers them and often a single line of we have no objection isn't particularly helpful, that perhaps there's something more meaningful we can ask them and it might need a lobbying email up the tree to a national office, a national government, that they impose that there must be something

02:09:09More comprehensive sent back. Because we put a lot of stead by what they say and simply oh in principle it's possible isn't particularly helpful for us whatsoever because everything imprinting is in principle is possible if you have the plant machinery to do it thank you thank you council hayward I think we can certainly take that points in action and perhaps bring out a paper um Councillor Ingham uh out of interest on that chair I recently had an email from my two county councillors explaining to me that in actual fact as the planning authority ultimately it was our decision and that they may make observations but if we disagreed with those and we had evidence then we shouldn't pass the buck on to Devon County which I found interesting after 20 years of being told exactly the opposite so I think that's something as an authority we ought to discuss and agree with Devon County Council so as councillors we know exactly what sort of decisions we should be making and how to make them thank you Councillor I think we can take that point away

02:10:24And have a discussion um and uh and see what we can get to there mr coals mr Freeman do we have an answer about this mystery habitat of principal importance if if kelsey would if not could this one just be deferred and carry on with the rest of the agenda and we could just come back to this that suggestion before we go into the afternoon session I think if it helps chair I think we can definitely say it's not a european protected habitat or anything like that it's not a local nature reserve it's there's potentially there's a small deciduous woodland on the opposite side of the road so we think it might just be noting that and potentially a noting of a species having been observed in that location through the Devon county um ecological center who keep records of things like that um but it's our system has fed into all sorts of databases and records that we don't have direct access into so I'm not sure we're going to be able to quickly answer exactly

02:11:33What it is but it's definitely not a nature reserve or formally designated area it's more an observation of a potential habitat nearby you're happy that we proceed to evoke Councillor Okay in which case then we have a proposal from Councillor Ingham seconded by Councillor Blakey to allocate 34a members those in favor please okay six can we have hands nice and high please members I think that's possibly my most said phrase I see six okay those against I see three and those abstaining I see two does that add up okay brilliant thank you very much in which case the allocation at 34a goes forward we come then to the Newton Poppleford site report and I feel I should apologize to Councillor Burhop for writing on the spreadsheet that I sent round that this was in Sidmouth Parish it is of course not in Sidmouth Parish so apologies for that that's my error entirely in copy pasting there anything to say about Newton Poppleford Mr Lane before we move through the sites I suppose just to say it's a service village in the emerging

02:12:59Local Plan so it's tier four and assessment hierarchy so it's got a reasonable level of services and facilities in the village to serve both the residents of the village itself and surrounding smaller hamlets so the strategy so it should accommodate sort of a limited amount of development we'll see the site assessment workers looked at this in more detail and discuss the findings as we go through them now okay thank you mr. Lane in which case then we come to site uh it's worth saying that all of the newton popperford sites are not recommended for allocation and I have no members of the public registered to speak on any of them um so we come then firstly to newt 01 do any members wish to speak Councillor Ingham there's no one wants to speak on any of these any of them can we not move on for all of them on block I propose that mr. Hunter can we do that no no we have no members of the public register to speak on any of the

02:14:03Sites cancering and is asking if we can take them on block

02:14:25Okay so do any members of committee want to speak on any of the newton popple sites contrary to officer recommendation Councillor How does Councillor How I think I think we need to be cautious but we're going to come back to these anyway I'm fairly sure But nevertheless, Newton Pop is a sizable village, which, yeah, it is a village, with reasonable facilities, and we are suggesting an allocation of zero in it.

02:15:07Some of these sites, I seem to think, came around last time, the last Local Plan. I'm not so worried about 01, that's miles out of the centre and everything else. but certainly five and four ought to be considered but it's whether we consider it now or whether we come back at a later date because we're still looking for housing numbers as I say thank you council out just one second Councillor Mr Freeman has his finger on the button which usually means he wants to say something thank you I was just gonna pick up on council house point that and I highlight that the reason fundamentally there are no proposed allocations in newton popperford is an issue in terms of uh link access from those sites through sustainable means through the services and facilities that are in the village um people might be aware that the junction between the Exmouth road and the a3052 Exeter road at that point there is a pinch point by the junction with the ven Ottery road where there is no footpath and the road is quite narrow there's

02:16:18A listed building at that point and it's always been considered to be a very dangerous point for pedestrians and cyclists and therefore there are real complexities in trying to link uh decent access from any of the sites have been put forward to the services and facilities that are clearly to the eastern end of the village um the one exception to that I think was at the working group meeting in in relation to new toe 5 and potentially new toe 4 there were suggestions that a link could be created through to a footpath that runs parallel to the high streets across to the new development at king alfred way whether or not access could be created through that area we are still looking into that we haven't got to the bottom of whether or not that's possible based on our understanding of the land ownership at that time at this time so it may be if those issues can be overcome it may be worth us revisiting particularly new toe 5 potentially new toe 4 but in the meantime we don't

02:17:20Feel that there is any way of creating a safe access to those services and facilities from the sites of input forward there are other reasons in the assessment as to why some of those sites have also been rejected as well but fundamentally that's that's the reason why we're the position we are in terms of Newton-Hoffleford.

02:17:39Thank you, Mr Freeman. Councillor Ingham. Thank you, Chair. As well as blindly trusting our officers' judgments, what I don't always do, Chair, as you all remember, I would remind colleagues that over the last 30 years, Newton-Hoffleford has had a lot of development, so much so it became the biggest village in East Devon. And some would say perhaps that's generated some of the problems they've experienced in the last 12 months especially.

02:18:14So giving them a breather for one Local Plan might be a correct thing to do. Councillor Jess Bailey.

02:18:24Thank you. So yes, I'm the Devon County Councillor For Newton-Popperford, and I completely agree with what Ed Freeman said about that junction. I'd also just flag, I'm not sure which footpath we're talking about, but if we're talking about footpath one, then that's got quite a few issues. And it's certainly, if it's footpath one, not going to provide a miraculous access to village facilities. So I would just strike a note of caution with the investigations that have been carried on there. Thanks.

02:19:00Thank you, Councillor Bailey. Councillor Howe says he can solve this now. Well, it's quite easy. I got all the responses I wanted to get out in the open, and I'm happy to go with Ben's suggestion and move them all. OK, so we have a proposal from Councillor Ingham, seconded by Councillor Howe, that we move on from all of these sites. Mr. Hunter has confirmed he's happy with that provided that we vote on each one individually ok do any further members wish to speak on any of these sites ok in which case then I'll take us through a vote on all of them Newt 01 the proposal is to move on those members in favour that's unanimous Newt 02 the proposal is to move on those in favour I should do a recording of this. That's unanimous.

02:19:53Newt 04, the proposal is to move on those in favour. That's unanimous. Newt 05, the proposal is to move on those in favour. That's unanimous. I've forgotten where we were. Newt 13? Newt 13, the proposal is to move on those in favour. That's unanimous. and Newt 14 the proposal is to move on those in favour that is unanimous okay that brings us to the end of the sites for the morning session as an hour and 40 minutes for lunch would be quite a long time and we do have an item on the agenda at the end that we've not said we'll leave until 2pm that's the MPPF site selection report and the suggestion is that we take that item now get it out the way and then have lunch if committee are happy okay in which case then we will come to um thank you mr lane I don't think we need the powerpoint for the moment um so we'll come to mr Freeman uh for agenda item I've not even got any idea which agenda item it is but

02:21:06It's the last one agenda item eight the mppf consultation response thank you um thank you Yes, so I think I've also reported in August, was it, on this initially, which sought to consider the direct and immediate impacts on local planning production. So I won't major on that, but as members are aware, this introduces various transitional arrangements that will potentially come forward in terms of how this is implemented.

02:21:35Uh and we're looking to utilize those uh transitional arrangements to bring forward a plan with a lower housing requirement than we would otherwise need to um this report however focuses on the more detailed um proposals within the NPPF of which there are many uh there are a total of 106 questions in this consultation and we'll propose responses to uh the vast majority of them setting aside those that relate to green belts because we don't have any green belts in the district or indeed anywhere near the district to concern ourselves with those issues just thinking I mean they cover such a multitude of issues I'm not going to try and explain or talk you through all of them the report is there are happy to take any questions or queries as we perhaps work through the chapters or however you want to take the item chair thank you mr Freeman I think before we come to questions from committee um perhaps we could minute wendy on behalf of committee our thanks to you for going through all 106 questions here um and proposing a response

02:22:45From the authority with that being said questions from members okay I see no questions we come therefore to debate. Do any members wish to speak on this report? Councillor Levine. Thank you, Chair. I just want to say it. I've actually read every single one of the answers. It was a hard work. I can give you a list of typos, but I won't. And I think the answers were really good, so I've got no problems at all with approving our response to the NPPF changes. Thank you. Is that a proposal, Councillor Levine okay constitutionally then I have to come for a seconder Councillor Ingham is that seconding I see a thumbs up uh so we have a proposal then for the recommendations as written okay from Councillor Levine seconded counseling Councillor How to speak um well I want to raise issues with the answer to question seven and it's a technicality and although I agree with mr Freeman's response the issue we are in now is getting from a four-year to a five-year housing land supply and mr Freeman's response to this although fully understandable

02:24:07Doesn't allow the government to give us any chance to get from four years to five years either we're going to be four years one day five years when this is published and I would like to see a sort of you know give us six months at least if not 12 months to get from one to the other I'm just missing a few extra words to sort of say that and I think it would be a good idea if we did put a response in that we need a year to get from one to the other at least and I think that'll be a struggle even then but doing it overnight I just can't see how it helps us if you get my meaning that's my comment mr Freeman I suppose from an officer's perspective I am concerned that the four-year housing land requirement that was introduced in December is actually hindering us in addressing our housing and supply issues in the sense that, as I've reported previously to the committee, we need to bolster our housing and supply position so that we have a five-year housing and supply position at the point of adoption of the Local Plan.

02:25:13And if we don't have that, the Local Plan will not be sound. I think the four-year housing and supply position that was introduced in December sort of muddies the waters and is unclear, whereas I think when we had a clear five-year position, everyone was clear on what that meant and where we stood and the tilted balance and how the presumption in favour of sustainable development was applied.

02:25:40And I think while I appreciate politically it might not be popular to go back into a position where the presumption in favour of sustainable development and tilt advance is applied, it would enable us, I think, more readily to address our housing and supply issues and move to a better position than the current slightly muddy waters of the four-year housing and supply position. So that's why I haven't included that comment in there, but obviously happy to hear the views of the committee and amend accordingly if that's their wish Councillor Hayward thank you chair my first point was to agree with Councillor Levine it was a long read and it obviously helps going back over it again so I'm happy to support the proposal the one thing I meant to do and unfortunately slipped my mind at the time is just a request for officers that under portfolios economy includes assets it moved in May this year and that the economic box is ticked because there's quite an amount of information within here that has an economic impact on the district so tiny semantic points or the way I should have

02:26:54Emailed beforehand but if you think those changes can be made that would be very helpful thank you chair thank you Councillor Hayward do any other members wish to speak on this item Councillor Jess bailey as an authority do we really want to have a five-year land supply wouldn't we be better off having a four-year land supply because it takes the pressure off us as an authority I I think that's kind of my point is that I think because we've that the introduction of the four-year housing and supply position in december and that we do currently have a four-year housing and supply position people feel that has taken the pressure off whereas I think the pressure should very much be on to bolster our housing and supply position to ensure that we can move forward with a sound Local Plan I appreciate you know politically you want to be in a position where we feel we're best prepared to defend decisions and the tilted balance doesn't apply but as I've reported through the committee previously in the legal

02:27:59Advice that we've had you know we all but need to apply the tilted balance in in order to to bolster housing and supply position so I think it just removes that uncertainty that muddied waters that the december version of the mppf created with the four-year housing and supply um so from an officer's perspective and someone has been banging the table about we need to bolster a housing and supply position I I from a professional perspective welcome the change to remove that but I do fully appreciate that politically application of the tilted balance and the presumption in favour is a sensitive issue and feels like a loss of control that members may not want to see but we do need to recognise equally that we do need to bolster our housing and supply position. Councillor Regan. Thank you Chair. Since the beginning of this year really as minister Freeman said you know we've had a an opportunity to catch our breath on a four-year land supply but I'd suggest that it's not only um unfortunate if we carry on like that it'd be done

02:29:08Because if we're not careful we'll come up to that war and suddenly you've got to catch up with your five-year land supply and then you know what ed will be saying don't forget the 10 percent And then the world and its dog will be putting in applications, huge applications, that we can't bat against. So I think if we can, to gradually address this issue, start walking, jogging, running, so that when we get to June of next year, we're in a strong position rather than a weak position, which is the danger okay thank you counseling and do any other members wish to speak on this item otherwise we have a proposal no okay in which case I believe the proposal from Councillor Levine is the recommendations as written in the report seconded by Councillor Ingham so we will go to a vote then on those recommendations all those in favor of the recommendations as written okay do we get that sorry can we just have hands again sorry it wasn't unanimous it wasn't unanimous Councillor How is not voting favorite okay those against nobody against and

02:30:43Those abstaining that's two there we go okay in which case then thank you members that I believe brings us to the end of the morning session about 45 minutes early which is an incredible feat so thank you very much members for your patience we will now break until 2 o'clock and lunch will be in the arty room very good thank you very much is lunch ready now there we go lunch is ready now members very good

00:01:56Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome back. Has the volume on these been turned up? Or is it just more echoey in here with more people? Welcome back, everyone. For those members who've joined us after lunch, does anybody have any declarations of interest to make before we get going? Councillor Hartnell? No, they don't work.

00:02:22Thank you, Chair. I have a declaration of interest with regard to Site 05, insofar as there is a planning application that's live at the moment, and I have been lobbied by the developer.

00:02:53Okay. In that case, then, we will jump straight back in with the Seton sites, and we first go to Mr. Lane to take us in. How are you going? Good afternoon. So now we're going to talk about Seton and a few other specimens in the surrounds. So starting with Seton. I'll just touch on the methodology again actually because there's some new faces in the room. So briefly we've got a methodology of how we selected the sites for allocation. It's a four stage process. We start with a long list of sites. So stage one identifying the long list. Stage two is sifting out the sites. So sifting out the sites which are complete non-state.

00:03:44Starters with really significant constraints. Stage three is assessing those remaining sites in more detail and finally stage four is actually making a decision as to whether to select the site for allocation and with that in mind there are sort of two top down issues to factor in. There's the overall district-wide housing and employment requirement, the spatial strategy which tries to direct development to the most sustainable locations And then the more detailed site assessment work done for every site, which picks out those issues for each site in greater detail.

00:04:21And by factoring in those three sort of issues, it's a decision as to whether to allocate the site. So, yeah, starting with Seton. So, Seton is a main centre in the Emerging Local Plan. So, it's Tier 2 in the settlement hierarchy. So, it's got a good level of services and facilities and jobs. So the strategy says that we should be seeing a relatively large amount of development here.

00:04:51When you go on to the detailed site assessment, that can change things. You'll see Seton is constrained like lots of our other settlements. So we've got the coast to the south, we've got the river racks to the east. We've got a rising landscape to the west, which leads to the north as the most favourable sites. but obviously they're not easy as well if you're extending into what's currently green reg and the currently adopted Local Plan. Okay thank you Mr Lane and before we get into the weeds of the site proper I wonder Mr Freeman as a reminder for committee and for the benefit of members of the public present whether you could just remind us of the picture with regard to our housing numbers for the emerging Local Plan. Yes thank you chair so members will recall that we're aiming for a housing requirement figure of 20,812 dwellings but we're currently short of that in terms of the recommended 10% head supply headroom so I think based on the figure so far I think we started at

00:06:02The start of these sessions with 1.2% of headroom I think we're slightly up as I said earlier so probably nearer two percent at the moment but still a long way off 10 headroom and as I mentioned earlier there's obviously significant constraints as has been said with these sites and our ability to meet that a number of sites are within green wedges national landscapes coastal preservation areas of those sites that officers are recommending indeed over a thousand homes are within green wedges which is probably one of the biggest constraints to Seaton uh within the plan in terms of officers recommendations um so if those sites are not found to be favorable then we will need to find other locations where they can go and those could be more significant in terms of their constraints and that they could be national landscape which is a much higher level of protection on a national scale of importance in terms of the landscapes so it's a difficult balancing act of those constraints versus the housing numbers that we need to meet to have a sound Local Plan and progress with the plan so hopefully that's a

00:07:13Useful overview thank you mr Freeman in which case then we come on to the first site for consideration this afternoon seat 01 clay common and we have a number of members of the public registered to speak. First up we have [member of the public]. You have three minutes. Thank you very much. I would like to actually support the recommendations in the Emerging Local Plan that this site should not be allocated for new housing or employment purposes. Any development on this site would have an adverse impact on the topography and skyline for this site.

00:07:57In the case of it, it can be clearly seen from elevated viewpoints in Beir Parish. This site is also in the Beir Quarry Caves Special Area Conservation Area, and obviously it is supportive of bat movement, especially as there is no overspill of light pollution into it because it is on the edge of the built-up area boundary. This site also serves as an important firebreak between the built-up area and adjacent woodland in Beer Road.

00:08:32And there is very limited access actually into this woodland in the event that there should be some form of wildfire. And I think that's something the site report didn't obviously pick up in its methodology. I would also say this is a site which also attracts a variety of wildlife and myself I've actually visited the site on numerous occasions and I've obviously seen adders and grass snakes, field mice, foxes, badgers, bats and even occasionally various species of birds such as owls. So in summary I support the recommendations laid out in the Local Plan for this site that it should not be allocated for housing or employment and I hope the Strategic Planning Committee will also support these recommendations thank you very much thank you mr morgan I now have the landowner or developer mr john from bell cornwall llp uh thanks chair committee um I act for clinton Devon estates landowners um I actually think this is a missed opportunity um as mentioned previously this is proposed to be a main town. This is a site which is close to the centre of the

00:10:02Main town, which is well connected to it by a main road and a bus link. Actually, it is less constrained than many of the sites which are proposed for allocation in Seton, in that it's not national landscape, it's not in the green wedge, and is actually topographically, Whilst it does have some sensitivities, it is reasonably well constrained. As the gentleman mentioned before, it's got woodland surrounding it on the west, north and eastern side.

00:10:32It sits behind the existing line of housing. So as a matter of principle, I would suggest this is an opportunity site. It is one which has the ability to deliver some housing. In relation to the constraints, it is quite a large site. and some of that land is more exposed than others than the most northerly side from views to the south. So it might seem appropriate to us that potentially only part of the site be allocated for development and that would still deliver a reasonable yield of housing which would benefit your land supply in a sustainable location.

00:11:06In relation to the technical issues, it is true that it's close to the Beer Quarry Caves SAC. That is an important constraint But it's not one that is irreconcilable. Some members may recall that Clinton Devon did a very successful development, its underwear at the moment, at Short Furlong in Beer. That's right next to that SAC location. And through clever design, bringing in other land assets that the estate has in that whole area, they can offset that.

00:11:37So that is not a fundamental constraint of development. It is one that needs to be worked at and can be worked at, as proven by Shurt Fullon. So this is very much an opportunity site. We would be happy that an allocation come forward so that there's limited the overall totality of development across the site. and the spare land on the land could be used for biodiversity net gain for additional tree planting or whatever to address the environmental landscape constraints given the location I think this is a good opportunity it's less constrained than other sites you're proposing it's closer to the town center it's well connected contextually I think you need to look at it further thank you the record My name is [name removed]. I'm the agent for Clinton Devon Estates.

00:12:34The public speaker lists will be on the website when it is back up which we are assured should be tomorrow as well so they will be a matter of public record. Next up we have the ward member Councillor Hartman. Thank you Chair. So very briefly I support the recommendations from from officers in terms of this site largely on the grounds of the uh sensitivity uh regarding the landscape the deliverability of of the site and also the close proximity to the coastal protection area thank you thank you Councillor Hartnell short and sweet just like we like it okay uh that brings us then to committee Councillor Ingham thank you chair I I want to understand the report first on page 174 opportunities a reduction of site size towards the southern and eastern boundary could be considered adjacent to existing built form to reduce landscape impact woodland planting across the remainder of the site would enhance landscape character and reflect surrounds whether you like it or not that ties in with what [member of the public] is saying to us

00:13:59And then you go to the next page 175 if whole site is not suitable for allocation could a smaller part be allocated? No, even limited development to the southern part would cause landscape harm can we make our minds up on what the advice is please? Mr Freeman, Mr Lane um well future I'm not sure it's a direct contradiction I can see what cancellingham saying but I think the reality on the ground is that it's quite a steeply sloping site from the lower parts upwards the lower parts are naturally going to be less harmful in the wider landscape but I think what we're saying is even that in itself would be harmful naturally less harmful than the higher areas but we think designation of any part of the sites would be too harmful in landscape terms um so that's that's the crux of the issue uh apologies if the wording's not not sufficiently clear coastal preservation area is all of that site in it or is part of it not in it not visible from the you know the sea and therefore more acceptable than the rest that

00:15:20Is clearly visible from the sea I think the answer is probably that officers will have to take a moment to check that before you're counseling do you see chair the reason I'm checking on that is because if they're a small area is arguably not in the coastal preservation area and it could go forward then I take the point of the uh the agent that that said that's you know amenable to them um but if it's all in the coastal preservation area then we still got to cross it off the list at this stage can't we move on yeah so just for clarity what I've got on the screen hopefully you can see that is is the sites in this area here I've got the contours on so you can see the site rises from 60 meters above sea level here up to 80 the top so that's quite a significant gradient for relatively small area and then the vertical blue hatching is the coastal preservation area I should point out while I'm talking that that's the

00:16:37Current coastal preservation area but I don't believe it's supposed to change in that position so it is all within the coastal preservation area thank you Councillor And Councillor Ledger just to say check I suppose that we move on you certainly can does anybody want to second that Councillor Ian I'll second that because we have to see how we deal with the recommended allocations and if some of them are crossed off the list perhaps this one has to come back on until later date thank you chair Councillor Ledger briefly it's just to say uh it may be beneficial to explain to the members of the public the afternoon session yes the difference between yes yes thank you for reminding me Councillor Ledger um on on that point just to explain uh the motion that Councillor Ingham has just made uh the legal advice we've had from mr hunter our planning solicitor is that rather than voting to uh reject sites explicitly this afternoon committee should instead be voting to as we're terming it move on and then round up the process at the end with a rejection of all

00:17:47The sites that we choose not to allocate the rationale for that is if we don't meet the government's numbers and we put together a plan that is substandard in in that regard then it won't be we won't be able to to move forward with it it will be effectively dead on arrival so by the time we come to the end of the site selection process we have to meet those numbers if we're voting to reject sites at this stage then legally we're tying committee's hands and and we couldn't come back around and revisit so that's why you've just heard a motion to move on rather than a motion to reject but that motion having been validly moved and seconded do any other committee members wish to speak no okay in which case then we have a motion from council ledger to move on seconded by council ringham all those members in favor that's unanimous okay thank you Members, that brings us then to site seat 02, land at Barnards Hill Lane, and we have [member of the public] from Baker

00:18:53Estates. Thank you Chair. Good afternoon. I'm Richard Eyre, I'm Land and Planning Director with Baker Estates. We have already delivered two sites in Seaton, at Barnards Hill and Rowan Hill, Rowan Drive, and we are keen to continue our welcome association with the town. Baker Estates has a land ownership interest in this land and we support and agree with this site assessment and offer to conclusions as it relates to this land. Seton has a need for more housing, more investments and further growth as well as contributing as a sustainable settlement to meeting the district targets. Members will be aware of the significant constraints around Seton referred to earlier to the east, west and south of the town such as the marshes, the sea, coastal preservation area, archaeological areas and rising land meaning that inevitably the suitable development options lie to the north of the town. The site has a landscape context with existing developments adjoining and around. We agree with assessment that existing urban influence and distance from key views reduces the sensitivity of the land to new development. The location of the site

00:20:00Means the development of the site does not represent a threat of coalescence between Seton and Collyford, which is the purpose of the Green Wedge policy. The report refers to access coming from Poplar Tree Drive, it's worth noting that there is a potential alternative or additional access point available offline way, which does have a suitable carriageway width and footpaths both sides. This can be investigated as an access point as part of the resultant application that would come after allocation. Either or both ways, there is a suitable access solution under the control of Baker Estates for this site. This is a sensible and logical allocation to go with the proposed seat 03 and seat 05 allocations, which together represent good strategic planning for the town of Seton. It would allow for effective delivery of local infrastructure and a range of complementary land uses. I'll say more on that when we get to the other allocations. In summary, then there are no fundamental constraints to development. This site contributes to effective strategic planning for Seton and the constraints identified can be effectively worked with. The committee can be confident

00:21:07That the site will be brought forward and hence also confident in allocating the site. It will be both delivered and delivered well. Thank you. Thank you [member of the public] noting as I've just been reminded by Mr. Hunt from my left for the Benefit Committee and the Public Council alleges left the room as he has an effects and prejudicial non-registrable interest he has a conflict of interest so he's left the room for the duration of the discussion on this site. That being said Councillor Hart. Thank you, Chair. So in relation to seat two, I've got a common theme that's going to be running through seat three and seat five as well. So if you could maybe bear with me on this. So I recognise that seating is constrained in terms of where development can happen. We've got the wetlands and natural landscapes to the east, the sea to the south, so it just leaves the north and the west for development and it puts the north of the town under extreme pressure in terms of delivering future development. I'm sure you'll hear lots

00:22:27Of concerns around the environmental impact of development, the ecology, the effects on the wetlands the back corridors and the impacts on the beer quarry cave back flights etc and they're all valid and serious concerns but my overriding concern for all three of these sites and it's something that needs to be addressed if we're to push forward with allocating sites here is around flood risk. Back in October 2021 I believe it was Seaton experienced flooding that was quite significant and as a result Devon County Council under section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act had to produce a report to highlight to other authorities the impact and the damage that was caused and for them to take action. 31 properties were flooded which included the School, the hospital, commercial and residential premises.

00:23:30Most of, or a lot of the impact was in the north and the west of Seton, and it was basically overwhelming of the watercourses, whether that was highway storm drains, southwest water sewage drains, just general watercourses. So I would argue the drainage infrastructure in Seton is at capacity. It can no longer cope. It needs investment in southwest water. it needs investment from the county council it needs investment from the environment agency and we are waiting for a report to come forward from engineering consultants that Devon County Council has commissioned to produce a report and costings to see if we're eligible for funding for a flood scheme that will tackle some of the challenges we face so further housing development in these areas so that includes the site you're going to discuss now but two other sites will increase the overall flood risk to existing properties and I refer to the draft policy 35 in the Local Plan which says with climate change the risk of flooding including surface water are likely to be exacerbated development proposal should be safe from flooding over its lifetime without increasing flood risk

00:24:43Elsewhere, and it also refers to the National Planning Policy Framework. I'm almost there. It also refers to the MPPF, where it makes clear that development should be directed away from areas at highest risk of flooding now and in the future. So whilst I'm happy to consider the sites for allocation, the flood risk is real and it really needs to be tackled through policies in the Local Plan, and I would ask the committee to consider those. Thank you.

00:25:12Thank you, Councillor Hartnell. Before we go any further, then, if I just come briefly to Mr Freeman. One, how are we dealing with flood risk? And two, where is the seat in Collyford Green Wedge, please? um well yes on the first point um it's important to note that uh the requirements of our policies in the mppf will require that any sites um the surface water runoff doesn't exceed green field levels um and it doesn't contribute to flooding of adjacent properties those are details that would be checked through the planning application process so they're not so much at this stage but those are the principles that the planning system essentially works to um in terms of the green wedge I don't know if we can put HDMI 2 on again hopefully that's clear enough you can see the built form of Seton in here we're in this area here so you can see the green wedge is this green hatched area across the the northern part of the town so yeah if I zoom in you can see

00:26:21This site is in here hope that helps clarify thank you mr. Freeman we have no further public speakers on this site then so we come to committee members I saw the two of you at the same time so I'll go Councillor Hayward first thank you chair so bear with me a moment I first came to Seton in 1977 when my sister moved into Littlefield, so I remember walking through all of this land and mooching around as a child, so I sort of had some synergy with it.

00:27:02And to the point that Councillor Hartnell mentioned, I remember that weather event specifically, walking up there and seeing the amount of debris and damage that that water event had done. I've always personally felt that the Green Wedge here, If you view a Green Wedge as partially to protect the character and also to prevent coalescence, the Green Wedge to the north, effectively, between Seton and Collieford, I could always understand that to prevent that coalescence.

00:27:38The other part, living in a rural area as we do, effectively, it's where are you protecting it from? It's simply just keeping it from open countryside. and Seton is constrained as Councillor Hartnell says by the sea to the south and the river to the east but we come back to this point that's been raised at the last meeting, at this meeting if we don't plan now and if each town doesn't play its part the decisions will be taken out of our hands and government inspectors and developers will decide where we build So there has to be a healthy dose of pragmatism here.

00:28:24On the basis that this particular site already is developed, primarily around Prince Charles Way and Poplar Drive, yes, I appreciate if you go north from that road, there's already a restriction from going up there towards Harepath Hill because of the dangerous junction there as you come down that road. but on this basis for this particular site I think on balance I think the benefit in terms of assisting housing numbers and being a site that could sustain a limited amount of development and again this is a question all we're doing is allocating sites, it has to go through the planning process, that's a rigid process everyone has their say, highways has their say, the environment agency has their say planners had their say you have to do flood risk assessments so this is simply an allocation so on this chair I'm happy to well happy I'm willing to propose that this site is accepted for site allocation thank you thank you Councillor Hayward and if I may say well put does anybody wish to second that Councillor Ingham

00:29:38I'm prepared to second that chair it seems having listen to the first presentation that coastal preservation area wins on this occasion and see in comparison to green wedge you know on what's special because if if you want to preserve the green wedges are you prepared to say okay instead we'll build on site one we just considered because we have to do it somewhere um it's very difficult isn't it um officers are saying to us that the best choices are those ones as marcus was saying you know north and northwest of the town I have to say that you you've got to do one or the other and we heard all the reasons why site one should not go forward and we've sanctioned that so therefore at this stage I think we've got to at least promote allocation of this site thank you thank you Councillor Ingham Councillor Jess bailey thank you um I just wanted to um ask if Ed Freeman could um deal a little bit more with the flood issue in the northern part of um Seaton and specifically comment on um what does our strategic

00:31:15Flood risk assessment say um in the development of this northern uh potential northern development of the town um to be honest without checking I don't know off the top of my head um obviously the strategic flood risk assessment is phase one of that work has been completed but assessment of specific sites is ongoing. I'm not aware of any particular issues coming out of that work that are relevant to this site though. There are obviously lots of surface water issues across the district and as I said earlier I think this development site would need to deal with its surface water in an appropriate way so that it doesn't make any existing issues in the area any worse. So and I think that would be dealt with through the planning application process it's a detailed design issue but there is always an engineering solution that can achieve that outcome. Sorry just following on from that are any of these sites being specifically covered in that in that more detailed piece of work? I don't think so off the top of my

00:32:31Head but again I wouldn't want to be held to that without checking most of the sites where a more detailed assessment is taking place sites that more directly covered by water courses and river flooding rather than these surface water issues as I said because the detailed design would prevent any surface water issues like that be made worse so that's less of an issue than those sites where the access or close by there is surface water flooding arising from water courses and Thank you Mr Freeman, thank you Councillor Bailey. Any other members wish to speak? I'm just going to hold on a second Councillor Ingham, but nobody else is flagging.

00:33:20So on your question, am I right in assuming that the officers have decided on the number of 40? I believe that will be an output of our standard formula. yes so that number is generated by an agreed formula that's part of the housing and economic land availability assessment methodology that we use that calculates that figure so ultimately through a planning application process it could be slightly more than that or slightly less than that depending on the detailed design but that's sort of giving us an indication of the potential capacity of the site for these purposes thank you I respect that we may wish to have land allocated for you know community land use or whatever you know open space but just looking at the housing density immediately adjacent to that I reckon you could if you copied that you'd get 60 on there and I just don't want us to allocate land unnecessarily you know for 40 houses when in In fact, we achieved 60, and then at the end of the day, we're saying,

00:34:32Oh, isn't that nice? East Devon exceeded its housing land supply by 500 because it can't count properly and allocate numbers. Do you see? That's my concern. So I think what Mr Freeman said has reassured me because they're using one formula across the patch. Is that right? Okay, then I'll accept that. Thank you.

00:34:55Thank you, Councillor Ingham. Okay, I see no other hands. We have a proposal from Councillor Hayward, seconded by Councillor Ingham, to allocate site C2O2. Before I take us to a vote, are there any final comments? No? Okay. In which case, the proposal is, as I've just said, those members in favour of allocating C2O2?

00:35:20That's unanimous okay thank you members which brings us then to site oh yes should we get should we get Dan back in thank you Ben I'm advised he was lurking outside that door

00:36:09Seton 03 then we have a number of members of the public registered to speak First, I have object to [member of the public].

00:36:25Thank you, [member of the public] and councillors. I have to admit that I've become rather unprepared for this site. However, historically, this site has been the subject of planning application in the past. Magna Housing applied for housing on this site back in 12 or 15 years ago now. It was refused then on the grounds of ecology and it remains an ecologically important site because together with CETO 5 and partially CETO 2, this is a migrant and foraging path for, in particular, bats.

00:37:11I'm also concerned that Councillor Hartnell has also touched on this subject flooding from this site it's a steep hillside site I'm concerned that we will see runoff into Harepath Road Harepath Road has received runoff within the last year in the flooding incident and therefore there is a great public concern flooding in all of this area as far as a visual impact is concerned this was one of the fundamental objections to the magna proposals some 12-15 years ago it's peripheral on the northern edge of and housing on this site at that time was considered to be likely to interrupt with sight lines for traffic coming down Hairpath Hill across the Axe Valley into the AONB.

00:38:21That's as much as I'm prepared to say, but apart from the fact that I object to this site being retained as a candidate site. Thank you, [member of the public].

00:38:35Thank you mr smith we have then mr richard air from baker estates thank you chair um good afternoon again um allocation of this land will be an essential part of the effective strategic planning of Seaton it contributes towards a critical mass of development that can then provide infrastructure for the benefit of the town members will have noted the proposed long awaited sports pitch as part of our current application now running and this is part of the mixed-use development proposed cumulatively particularly on seat 03 and seat 05. This is good planning and what this committee and the Local Plan should be doing to guide development in the near future. The benefits of development can be realised when strategically and proactively planned and is of a significant enough scale to deliver those infrastructure benefits.

00:39:25We agree with the assessment that landscape sensitivity is limited and the views distance from the A and B. Existing developments in the A3052 provide a context within which this land would sit. In terms of Green Wedge, as noted, the land does not lead to coalescence of Seton with Colliford. The A3052 will be an effective and permanent boundary to Seton, and which will allow Seton and Colliford to attain their separate identities, which we know is important to both communities.

00:39:54This is not in a flood zone, so in a high-risk area for flooding, not in the national landscape or the coastal preservation area. The constraints identified can be accommodated and mitigated. The access is onto an appropriate road network and there's plenty of scope to control and improve the drainage compared to the current uncontrolled situation. So you're taking it from the current uncontrolled situation to a controlled situation through development. And it's worth noting that with our current application, we have satisfied the flood authority, the lead flood authority, with regards to drainage matters. The result of allocating this site would be a logical, well-integrated and well-designed extension to Seton. Members can be confident that Baker Estates, with our track record of delivering high-quality sites, not least in Seton, will bring this site forward and result in desirable development at the gateway to the town. We know that there's been some vocal opposition to this land but at our planning application exhibition we heard from many people who are actually in favour. Supporters tend to be less vocal and objectors. Could I ask you to wrap it up please, Mr.

00:41:01Okay. But they are out there and may well represent a silent majority. We therefore hope that you would go on to confirm the allocation for this land as recommended by officers. Thank you.

00:41:10Thank you. Councillor Hartnell? You may want to just reset the mic there so the timer doesn't take over.

00:41:25Thank you, Chair. So just through a year the same concerns regarding flooding and I appreciate that they're dealt with at the application stage but this is a more of a larger issue that I'm raising in concern to the actual infrastructure being able to cope through the whole town so that's still valid with sites 03 and 05. I think looking at the sort of strategic position for seating I think there is merit in some development for sites 03 and 05 but taken together and I think they're the sites as a whole they push the boundaries of the green wedge and it almost would be more acceptable if there was a partial allocation from both sites 03 and 05 I am concerned that we're losing an allocation for recreation and we do have a live application at the moment that does include recreation within that which is a sports pitch so I think the committee need to be mindful of that um I'm also fearful that if we don't get a sound Local Plan and we get housing numbers thrust upon us we'll

00:42:33End up with a very very dense allocation of housing on this land and if we look at what we've potentially got in front of us at the moment is something that's perhaps slightly more within what we want to see that's less dense with lots of green space as much mitigation as possible for the environment um and those sorts of impacts so I think we're stuck between a rock and a hard place in an ideal world seat 03 seat 05 seat 2 they would all be left as they are and that's exactly what I would want to see but the reality is we need affordable homes we need homes for people so I am acceptable to amenable to the idea that seat three and five will have to see some development but I would like to see it to a minimum not pushing out right out to the 3052 and I would like to see recreation included within the allocation and obviously the employment needs to be retained because I understand that there is interested parties on the existing

00:43:31[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.]

00:44:52We want to see housing but there it does I understand the the wider context and the fact that Seaton does need to see some form of development and uh for that reason um I propose that we approve this site with reluctance I think that caveat probably applies to every proposal we've made this meeting and last. Thank you Councillor Ledger. Does anybody wish to second that proposal? Councillor Ingham do you wish to speak?

00:45:21I second it Chair and just slightly on that mindful of looking at 2, 3 and 5 if that one were to go forward you know I don't think it helps I don't want to be too critical of what this council has done but I don't think it helps when we create a green wedge and then undermine it you know it always looks really bad um in the eyes of the public um and so perhaps after we finish this Local Plan we've got to look at Seaton again and say what is the intent over the next 50 years make it clear and also make it quite clear what we're not going to do and try and stick to it rather than uh you know changing the boundary lines of land designations thank you on this occasion I'm prepared to but we must go back and stop doing this you know to and try thank you thank you Councillor Ian um a discussion for another day perhaps but point well made um do any other members on committee

00:46:28Wish to speak on CTO3. Councillor Pahl. To my mind, the most important point about having the football, land for football pitches, would be to keep it green. As far as I'm concerned, it would be, it would completely change the approach to Seaton if the town was allowed to sprawl right out to the 3052. I think it's really important to keep a green band of open land below the 3052 as the setting of the town.

00:47:18Thank you, Councillor Park. Question, Councillor Ingham? Yes, sir. Didn't Councillor Leger say that the football pitches were in Site 5, not in 3? Oh, that's it. Any other members to speak before we go to a vote on this? Councillor Howe? Yeah, it's really hard, and we all know the scenario and the situation we're in, but 10 years down the track again, we're going to be looking for another Local Plan and another housing allocations.

00:47:54So the thing about looking at green wedges and keeping them for prosperity, great idea, it's not going to happen. Houses, provided the population keeps growing, we're going to have to keep producing houses and keep going. so we've got to be realistic and it's the same with saying you don't want it to hit the 3052 great absolutely but where's this development going to go elsewhere we have housing numbers we've got to hit we're low on them already and we need to find sites so if you're going to take your reduced sites you have to find others in the approximately same area to say yes to and it's really hard and it's really tough and I don't like it as much as everyone else but we're here to make the hard choices to try and make this following [member of the public] phaseology, the best of a really bad bunch of choices and that's what we're doing so I think we need to be careful. The only other thing I want to pick up is on flooding and as Mr. Freeman

00:48:52Has said before, any development cannot increase the risk of flooding by law, it's clear has to decrease it or actually maintain it or decrease it the natural flow of the field off run will be either improved or maintained at the same level with housing on it due to attenuation so flooding is not an issue in these respects provided it is done right slightly separate question but nevertheless so I whole heartedly the whole heartedly unfortunately I support the recommendation thank you Councillor Howie you've provoked Councillor Davey now no not provoked at all uh just a couple of things that jump out of me. One is that this is grade two agricultural land, although I also noticed Mr.

00:49:41Freeman saying a lot of the agricultural land designations are a bit out of date in his submission to the NPPF. And the other thing that I noticed was that it mentions a back flight path pinch point there. We're making that pinch point really, really narrow, aren't we, if this site is developed out is there any mitigation that can be provided for that by say having a tree belt or wide hedge along the northern side of the site bordering the road so that the the back corridor is is preserved is there anything can be done there mr Freeman I think I'd be right in saying that would be a matter for planning stage is that right it would be yes I mean through the application process they have to do a habitat assessment and assess the impact on the protected habitats and species associated with that and build in mitigation I suspect very much in the form that you're suggesting of designing in a landscaped back corridor routes that can help the bats to navigate their way through the site effectively

00:50:54Hopefully unhindered by development and that is possible and has been achieved in other sites on the northern end of seat and then elsewhere okay do any other members wish to speak before we go to a vote on seat oh three no okay in that case then we have a proposal from Councillor Ledger seconded by Councillor Ingham that seat oh three goes forward as an allocation into the draft regulation 19 Local Plan all those members in favor that's not quite it is unanimous which brings us then to seat 05 on the other side of the road and we have registered speak from the public and as Diane Smith if you just push the right hand gray button sorry about that I'm also not completely prepared to speak today but I will do my best I would like to speak regarding the green wedge between Seaton and Colliford. Natural England states in response to a proposal to build within Seaton Colliford Green Wedge that it is not possible to ascertain that such a proposal would not result

00:52:29In adverse effects on site integrity. Impact on the ecology of the wetlands, marshes and sea from increased discharge of sewage, resulting in further flooding to surrounding housing and to the wetlands, which recently had to close because it became impassable to visitors through flood water. Would be unsustainable because there is no access to the town centre from this site that can cope with increased traffic, and the site is beyond the accepted 800 metres norm for residents to access services. With regard to the emerging Local Plan 2020-2040, it is notable that the built-up boundary has been extended to include seat 05, whereas it was outside the built-up boundary in the current 2013-2030 Local Plan. I believe the seat in Colliford wedge should be restored to return the land which has been designated as seat 05 and also the land designated for commercial recreational use and has remained undeveloped for over 25 years it should be returned to the green wedge. As a consequence I am appalled to see that sites 03 and 05 have come up for planning consideration yet again. Site C-05 has been considered for development

00:54:03On three previous occasions since 2012. It went to appeal in 2015 and was refused by the Government Inspectorate. I have to ask, why has this site been included in the emerging Local Plan suitable for development. With regard to doctors, dentists and schools, at a time when the NHS is stretched to the point of collapse, should you be considering bringing in some 450 plus people to the town to further exacerbate what is already a dire situation? This would also apply to dentists, schools who are similarly under pressure. It is notable that the NHS in the locality are now opposed to further housing development in the Seaton-Colyford Greenwich, stating that this development will create potentially long-term impact on the Trust's ability to provide services as required. That is a quotation. Infrastructure. The sewage system in Seton is already at capacity, increasing the population by housing. Approximately 450 plus in the green wedge can only make the situation worse. Some areas within Seton adjacent to the proposed site have already suffered flooding and runoff. Further development will only

00:55:35Exacerbate what is already a serious situation. Natural England has told EDDC that it should no longer grant planning permission to any development that could increase phosphate levels in the River Axe, a situation that is already causing some considerable concern. Seton's outstanding natural environmentalists, especially its wetlands, is its most precious and defying asset. And policies for the conservation, enhancement and sensitive management of the landscape, heritage and wildlife of the area will be prominent.

00:56:14The Axe Wetlands, Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site, Jurassic Coast and surrounding exceptional coastline will be key environmental assets that will be integral to the future success of the town.

00:56:36Thank you. And your microphone as well, please. Thank you. Next, I have a [member of the public].

00:57:03Thank you. First comment I'd like to make is that the Seton Green Wedge, as a result of not just this site, the CTO3, to the northernmost part, is going to be eroded to being almost non-existent. That leaves just the Cauliford part of the Green Wedge, which is quite small and really not sufficient to prevent the feeling of coalescence between the two settlements. I think it's important that the green wedge is maintained and that development is limited to an extent that doesn't create the feeling of coalescence, which is what the new emerging policy and the new plan wants to discourage.

00:58:01It's also worth noting that the current Local Plan makes comment in respect to a seat as being the level of commercial services for the resident population now that the new Tesco supermarket has opened is seen as appropriate to discourage travel to other towns however community facilities school health social and cultural are seen as borderline or inadequate with no capacity to serve additional benefit additional residents that's what's in the current Local Plan that was done several years ago as we all know but there is nothing that I can see as a local resident which has actually served to mitigate or make any substantive alteration to those observations so I do not see how further development can be justified. Furthermore, in the emerging Local Plan, it says Seton is home to around 7,500 people, making it the fourth largest settlement in East Devon. It has one of the most elderly age profiles of any settlement in the district, with 45% of residents aged 65 or over.

00:59:13This is reflected in a relatively low potential workforce in Seton. Nevertheless, the number of jobs in Seton is lower than the number of workers, 0.73 jobs per worker, meaning that many people have no option but to commute elsewhere to work. Just over a third of residents work in Seton, with Exesat, Axminster and Sitmuth being the next most popular places to work. That is what is in the emerging Local Plan. Effectively, if you're adding more population to Seton. You're only going to put more strain on existing services which are wholly inadequate and you're only going to encourage more people to have to travel to more different places to actually find work should they need it. So again, I cannot see the justification for the allocation of these sites.

01:00:09Thank you. Mr. Mason could ask me to wrap it up. I've had my three minutes yes okay well there's obviously a lot more I could say but I haven't got my time I think you get the gist thank you next up then mr richard air from bakery states thank you once again this land as described earlier is a good example of strategic planning for Seaton with a mix of uses that will contribute to the social environmental and economic well-being of the town there's further context in that a large part of this land is already allocated in existing Local Plan for development the reason it has failed to come forward is a lack of value in the allocation in order to be able to deliver what the land is allocated for this allocation would put that right and give a critical mass and a mix of uses that makes delivery much more certain hence we support what is recommended by the officers in their report and their assessment we have an application in currently as we've heard which means that in this instance there's

01:01:09Been much more scrutiny to this site than most other sites before you so there's a strong evidence space in other words. The application has demonstrated the ecology constraints identified can be overcome through a successful Habitat Regulation assessment which has been passed by your ecological officer and Natural England. This means there will be no adverse impact on the integrity of the SAC so this process has demonstrated that ecology is not a constraint or an impediment to development on this site. Landscape impact is limited as specified in the officer assessment and the land is not an important contributor to the green wedge policy aims. It does not threaten coalescence between Seton and Colliford and retains the settlement identity. The ecology and landscaping mitigation measures included to the north of the land in our current application means that an effective and permanent end to the development of Seton can be achieved and the development can be well integrated in the landscape at the new edge of the town. Access can be achieved and drainage improvements provided as we have also demonstrated

01:02:12Through our current applications, satisfying the Highways Authority, the Environment Agency and the Lead Flood Authority. In other words, there are no fundamental constraints to development and those constraints that do exist can be overcome. This has been demonstrated and accepted by statutory consultees in responding to our planning application. The opportunity therefore exists through allocation of this land to identify key job creation, housing delivery and infrastructure and environmental enhancements that will very much benefit the town.

01:02:41We can deliver the residential, recreational and environmental opportunities while there's another party who is looking to deliver the commercial and other job creation opportunities. The result will be a great outcome and investment in the town in a well-planned and strategic manner that also contributes to meeting wider needs. We therefore hope you will confirm the allocation of this land so the long-awaited benefits of the development can be delivered in short order.

01:03:07Thank you. and lastly on our public speaking list for this site then Councillor Harper thank you chair so most of my comments um that I made for seat 03 are the same for seat 05 so essentially the concerns about flooding are still there I know Councillor How tried to uh suggest otherwise but um whilst the site itself any development there may well make sure it doesn't flood itself it's too late after it's built if there are issues for those houses that are already around it so I still have concerns around the overall strategy around building houses and worrying about flooding afterwards that said I think seat 303 and 05 again reluctantly you know they are going to come forward for housing it's going to be a mixed-use site the employment opportunities on seat 05 I think will help address issues around job creation in Seton and you know the reality is it's 130 houses now or 200 houses plus if we don't meet our targets and get this plan over the line so stuck between a rock and a hard place chair I'm

01:04:28Afraid thank you I do sometimes wonder if this committee needs to be renamed the rock-and-a-hard-place committee coming into committee then members I saw counseling and first sorry council Hayward yes chair I'm pleased that this site includes employment land it's no good building houses for people to live in if there's no jobs because you end up by Pembrokeshire or West Cornwall where most of the residents are visitors for six months of the year and the people that do live there have no future if they're 18 to 25 no jobs so it's really important that we do that um interesting to listen to what mark has said you know not here where I hear his concerns with regards to you know water we have to allocate somewhere and I think these are the right ones and I I would hope chair that once we've done this one and I'm going to sorry propose adoption it's an allocation so that we can leave seating alone when we come back and revisit we bear in mind what we've done and what we've allocated

01:06:05The season the seat and what's reasonable expectation for them to tolerate thank you thank you Councillor In and we have a proposal to allocate CTO five does anybody wish to second that Councillor Davey thank you okay I have a Councillor Oh sorry Councillor Davey do you wish to speak now or later I do okay yeah just to say still grade two and I noticed it seems though the two sides I think it's been mentioned three and five go together I notice in the report there's something about a long held ambition first-seated football club to relocate although Councillor Ledger tells me they're quite happy where they are so we'll be quite interested in some clarification on that the fact it's mixed-use and that there is a proposal for some employment land is welcome I think might enable the provision of some local facilities or at least some jobs I'd be quite interested whether there's been any indicative suggestion as to what that employment land could be used for are we talking light industrial are we talking retail

01:07:26But just whether there's been any sort of suggestion what that might be thank you I think that one of the ward members can possibly answer that for us in a moment so I'll continue through my speakers list rather than bothering mr. Freeman. Councillor Hayward.

01:07:46Thank you, Chair. I'm grateful to the speakers from the public who spoke earlier because they've summed up the problem we are facing and this problem relates whether we're looking at sites in Exmouth or Honiton or Sidmouth or Axminster and that's the delivery of commensurate infrastructure to support housing and Mr Freeman has outlined at the very beginning for members of the public who weren't here then that that isn't actually a requirement of this function it's a national problem it's a problem for the Planning Committee and there are things Planning Committee can do this is actually is establishing the principle of whether a site is is suitable for housing we all know there is an infrastructure gap there's a gap both in terms of provision and most importantly in terms of funding certainly doctors dentists and everything else however on this site I'm more reticent and I personally think there's more potential for some environmental harm to the wetlands immediately to the east and whilst I welcome the inclusion of economic and retail space as shown on the

01:09:02Map and I also come back to a point that was raised from someone about the need for jobs well Seton has a high proportion of economically inactive people and those residents need people to serve their needs serve care needs serve social care needs serve retail needs and so those people have got to have somewhere to live and unless we potentially force everyone who's living in a four or five bedroom house on their own to move out and I'm not an advocate of that government mandated practice you've got to build smaller houses, you've got to build places where people can live but on this basis as I said earlier this for me is a more pressing point of that issue of the green wedge above and the coalescence towards Colliford so on this I'm actually going to propose an alternate motion to Councillor Ingham that we move on from this, we essentially park this one and if we have to come back to it and reassess then we can but I think my proposal as we move on

01:10:13I welcome the employment land but I think with the inclusion of the two we've already added into the mix and we've still got others to look at in the seat that this for me is just a little bit too much it's pushing that envelope a little too far and I'd like to park this one for the time being chair so I think unless my memory fails me we already have a proposal that's been seconded um sorry Councillor Hayward so unless the proposed and seconder wish to withdraw it um no okay um but I'll come back to you in the event that the the motion fails uh Councillor Ledger thanks very much chef um with this site I'd like to see us uh retain its current allocation I don't see the merit of eroding into the green wedge as much into this site I I can't understand why we I draw parallels this morning with the sid ford sites that we said the site uh the employment site hasn't come forward because of the lack of lack of interest I just think that we've already heard

01:11:26Today that there's been three applications on this for housing I think that's the reason it hasn't come forward we have another application in planning at the moment for uh use of the employment space and what I'd like to see is us push forward with our previous plan and retain this as employment that's what Seaton desperately needs I'm not uh you've seen from my previous proposal I'm not against development but I think it should be strategic in the town uh there is already light industrial in this area we should expand it out slightly encourage jobs into the area and serve the people of Seaton I I understand the priorities that we've got uh for the district and the challenges that we have but for additional housing I don't think this is the location for it I think we should keep with our current location uh allocation um and promote a commercial use uh so on on that point

01:12:43I have asked mr Freeman to pull up um maps of the existing allocation and green wedge against the planning application just contextualize councillor's point and we will have to give him a minute to do so yeah I haven't gone into any of the ecological sensitivities or anything around the the wetlands because those points have already made but my point on employment I think keeps it from public speaker the figures relating to seats and I just don't think we're being strategic we just go they have loads of houses but fairly any employment that's okay valid point well made we'll get mr. Freeman to pull those documents up for us with that in mind then does anybody else else else wish just it's been a long day wish to speak on this on this allocation counseling and just in general terms I know when we looked at Sidmouth this morning and we heard that there's somewhere between seven eight 8,000 dwellings currently, population 13,000 houses allocated, about 200.

01:13:58Then we look at Seton, which is, I'd be interested to know the population and the current number of dwellings, and we're looking for 250, you know. Okay. So I'm just mindful of the fact that we ask one community to provide far more housing than another one. And they're both coastal towns. They've both got the same issues of a national landscape or coastal preservation area and green wedges.

01:14:38But, you know, we're asking more of Seton than we were this morning of Seton. So my glamorous assistant and vice chair here has pulled up the ONS figures from 2021. Seton is, according to them, an excluding the small area in West Seton that's in Behr and Branscombe, is 3,600 households and 7,100 people. and committee are considering recommendations from officers to allocate 284 homes and 2.2 hectares of employment land if that answers your question Councillor Ingham Councillor Hayward thank you chair um I think there's a pertinent point to make in a follow-on to Councillor Ingham's point um everyone here from the public uh is concerned they love Seaton they love living there and they can they love where they live um last week we had people from exibeth no one from setham was there today I can't see anyone I recognize here from Axminster and when we consider Axminster's applications I very much doubt there'll be anyone from setham it always becomes a little bit parochial and to take count ringham's point when we get to Axminster's allocation I don't want

01:16:01To prejudge or predetermine what we're going to discuss Axminster is the second smallest conurbation settlement in East Devon with about 2600 2700 dwellings and that allocation is going to be a thousand plus so yes every town has to play their part but I would just echo for this committee as you'll consider some towns are being expected to play a put far more into the pot than others. Seton and other coastal towns are constrained by their geography. You can't build in the sea. You can't build in rivers. And a lot of the time, you have, for Seton's example, you have beer immediately to the west and Colliford immediately to the north. It's constrained. It can only build in certain places. Places like Axminster, it's open season. It's just countryside. We're not protected by AOMBs. So I take your point, Cameron, entirely that I don't think you can draw those parallels because if that were the case act minster would be asked to build you know 10 houses and and that would be it it's not everyone is being asked to do different things and that's

01:17:11The challenge you know and I know that's the constraints we have to work to so that's that's the difficult decisions we're making thank you chair thank you Councillor Hayward I believe we can now come to mr Freeman who has some maps and some policies to show us so yes sorry I'm just and do this in a logical order so um this is the master plan for the application that's currently being considered so that shows you the extent of the residential elements uh within the site hopefully you can see that's um sort of this area here and this area here that amounts up to 130 homes this is an outline application at the stage and there's a commercial element retained in this grey area here which we don't have many details at this stage and obviously linked to this is is the football pitch which is over on seat 03. the other point to make in terms of the current position is that the allocation in the current Local Plan is for a mixed use of employment and

01:18:24Recreation purposes there's no housing element to the current allocation and the employment element can be up to 55 percent of the site but it's not prescribed specifically um the issue with that and picking up on council ledger's point I think the reason why it hasn't been delivered is it's simply not viable there isn't money or any significant money to be made from the delivery of commercial units um and so the funding for delivering the recreation element or in this case the football pitch which is desired just wouldn't um be realized from that proposal um which is why through the discussions we've had with baker estates over the years have demonstrated that a residential element is needed if you're going to achieve that outcome and retain the employment element and also to deliver the football pitch um so if I just turn to uh so I'm gonna have to go back to this I'll turn some of those off to this.

01:19:27You can see that in the adopted Local Plan, the boundaries in relation to the built up area boundary in the green wedge were drawn around the allocation. So in effect, what we're talking about now is extending that extent of the allocation to include these areas to the north and this area, this sort of foot of land coming down to the south and east of the existing allocation and as has been pointed out including this residential element which I think is key to deliver anything here really in terms of the green wedge I would make the point that green wedges are often thought of as a moratorium on development that isn't the case they are effectively areas in which we are mindful through the planning process that development in those areas could lead to settlement coalescence and could undermine the independent identity of adjoining settlements and that we need to give serious consideration to those areas those issues within those areas but it isn't a moratorium on development and I think the committee probably need to ask themselves

01:20:41Whether or not reducing the green wedge in this area is going to have a significant impact in terms of settlement coalescence or the independent identity of season and coiford as separate settlements and I think it's useful to look both at the extent of the change in terms of that plan but also if I show you an aerial photograph of what's actually on the ground in that area particularly if I can get rid of the hatching apologies and this on the hoof so the extra area we're talking about is this this field here the northern part of this area and as I say this foot coming down here and you can see that there's quite a significant copse of trees in here a further copse of trees in here and quite strong tree belts through here and here which mean I think actually in landscape terms the material difference of removing these areas from the green belt to its purpose of delivering settlement so green wedge in terms of its purpose in terms of preventing settlement coalescence and the independent identity of

01:22:02Of the adjoining settlements is there is an impact, I'm not going to lie, and I think that was identified in the appeal decision previously which residents have spoken about but circumstances have changed in terms of the availability of alternative sites, better alternative sites and we simply don't have sites that are less harmful than this to allocate at this time whereas in the past and at the time of that appeal decision we did have alternative sites and we were meeting our housing needs through those alternative sites so I would just make that point while members are considering that I think the other point while I'm speaking was I think council baby was asking about the requirements of the football club I think previously there was an aspiration to relocate the entire football club to this site which was part of the justification of the previous allocation for recreation purposes on this site um I think you know obviously proposals haven't come forward for that again I think there are viability issues with that um so the proposal currently I think is just for this additional

01:23:12Pitch as has been said for youth purposes to satisfy the additional land and pitch requirements of the club whilst retaining their existing facility alongside hopefully that clarifies a few things and helps members in their deliberations Thank you, Mr. Freeman. Okay. Am I right in thinking we have a proposal on the table to allocate this site? I'm sorry, it's been a hot minute. Who was it from? Councillor Ingham and Councillor Davey. Thank you for reminding me. Would anybody else like to speak on this site? Councillor Park.

01:23:50Yes, again, whatever Mr Freeman has said, it's the perception of separation that the Green Wedge delivers. Because when you come along the other road, which nobody has mentioned, the road from Colley Ford through to Seton, not the 3052, but the other lower road, at the moment, Seton has a green setting.

01:24:29And the more the houses creep into that green setting the less there is that perception of a countryside in between settlements and I think we have to be incredibly careful because if this site is allowed again it does erode that green wedge um I regret very much that it's a site larger than in the um existing um Local Plan thank you thank you Councillor Parr okay last call then for speakers before we go to a vote is it very quick Councillor Yeah very quick it's just yet again um during the emergence of this Local Plan were told time and time again by officers and some councillors will of course green wedge only exists while we want it to you know and that's all negotiable during the Local Plan that's new to this Local Plan no one ever said that during discussions for previous emerging local plans so you really have to make it quite clear to the public what we're going to do moving forward are these green wedges of little worth during emerging local plans

01:25:59[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.]

01:26:29Those members in favour? Yep, six. Those members against? Two. And abstentions? One. Okay, seat 05 is carried then. As we've been going for nearly an hour and a half now, can I suggest a quick five-minute comfort break and we'll reconvene at half past three.

01:36:29For the benefit of members of the public in the room, I would get us started, but if I did, we wouldn't be quarantined. So we're just waiting for one of two of the other members to come back in.

01:37:30Welcome back, Councillor Hayward. Ah, yes, I know the feeling. Okay, we'll move on then. Councillor Parr will just have to join us as soon as she can. Next up, we have seat 08, and I have a [member of the public]. You have three minutes.

01:37:54Thank you very much. I would like to support the recommendations made in the Local Plan that this site is not suitable for allocating for housing or employment purposes. Any development on this site would have an adverse impact on the topography and skyline on the western boundary of Seton. In the case of this site, it can be seen from multiple viewpoints, such as Seton Beach, the mouth of the River Axe, and the area of outstanding natural beauty on the eastern side of the River Axe estuary.

01:38:28As such, this site has a high landscape sensitivity to development. It is also in the coastal preservation area. This site also shares a landscape characteristic of type 2A, which is in the East Devon Landscape Character Assessment. where the plan is to retain undeveloped horizons at the top of the scarp, and these often form from the skyline in views from below, and any development here would be very prominent.

01:38:58Due to the rising character of the area towards the skyline on the western and northern boundaries of Seton, this site should be protected, not built on. This is particularly important as it is adjacent to two prime agricultural fields to the north and south of it, so any development on this site could potentially set an unwelcome precedent for this part of Seton, which would damage its unique and very special topography.

01:39:25The site is also well known for an abundance of vegetation that helps promote habitats for a variety of species, which the site selection report did not pick up on in its methodology. I can personally vouch that the species seen by local residents include adders, grass snakes, field mice, foxes, badgers, bats, deers and various species of owls. So, in other words, the ecology is a major constraint for this site.

01:39:55The position of this site on the western boundary overlooking the town would not likely contribute to affordable housing provision being made. And development would not integrate well into the landscape either because of its prominence on the sloping topography there. It also serves as an important firebreak between the built-up area and the adjacent woodland of Kuchel Coppice. And there is no vehicular access across the site or the adjacent fields to provide entry into Kuchel Coppice fire response vehicles.

01:40:28And we have in the last few years had several wildfires in Kutal Coppice. And finally, the existing sewage pipework in Chestnut Rise is already struggling. In recent years, it has required three major repairs to be carried out to numerous pipelines underground, which is, as I say, the sewage pipeline, and there are already indications of further work likely being required in the near future as the road in Chestnut Rise is sinking in places.

01:40:56Therefore, it would not likely be able to cope with the demand from additional dwellings being built.

01:41:01Thank you, [member of the public]. So I hope you all go with the recommendations in the report.

01:41:07Thank you. Okay, I have no further members of the public registered to speak on this site, and the recommendation is not to allocate, which I'm happy to move from the chair in accordance with the officer's recommendation. Do any members of committee wish to speak? No? Okay. In which case, can I ask all those in favour? of the proposal to move on that's unanimous okay we come then to site Seton 09 and we have [member of the public] from Bell Cornwall welcome back thanks thanks committee this is a smaller proposal within the Seton 01 site you considered earlier the main concern I think that the members had you guys had was the impact on the coastal preservation area.

01:42:03This is an extremely modest proposal and I'm absolutely 100% confident that it would have no impact whatsoever in terms of visibility on the coast. It could be delivered without need for any access because you can rely upon the existing access. It's tucked into the southwest corner, the lowest part, and it's surrounded by housing and by the woodland. it's low-lying and therefore you know I think it's a small opportunity site for you guys makes a small contribution but not unless an important one and still benefits from the state sustainability attributes that's described earlier in terms of its ease of access to the town center and so on and so forth so I would urge you to consider it allocation. As you fully recognise, the town is a location where you need to optimise the amount of housing to meet the government and your own housing requirements. Thank you.

01:43:07Thank you, [member of the public]. Okay, I have no further members of the public registered to speak. Coming into committee, Councillor Hayward.

01:43:16Thank you, Chair. Following on from our early discussions about larger site um and thank you for the speaker for his his comments um again I come back to the point about the actual density I appreciate as a methodology um and I I understand that perhaps mr Freeman could confirm in terms of this designation of seven dwellings then I don't think you can compel for any affordability proportion but but there'd be a contribution, perhaps, as a part of one, or perhaps not even that.

01:43:53But on this one, I am minded to propose approval of this very small scheme, as the speaker said, as a contribution towards what we're trying to achieve and the fact that it perhaps has far less impact than the larger site that was defined. so on that I'm proposing approval of the site chair okay thank you Councillor Hayward do we have a seconder I'm afraid I don't think we have a seconder Councillor Hayward sorry Councillor Ledger I think this is a site that we can possibly revisit later down the line if we come to the end there's a short form it's one of them that in to my mind is borderline there is it's whether they can get access in through well whether we'd be happy to get access in through the rejected site into the smaller side um but no I'd be happy to propose that we move on chair okay thank you council ledger do we have a seconder Councillor Brown does anybody else wish to speak on this site no okay then in which case we have a proposal from Councillor Ledger seconded by Councillor Brown

01:45:18To move on those members in favour that's five and those members against quite right to Councillor So that's carried then thank you that brings us to site seat 10 the 12 houses not proposed for allocation and we have [member of the public]. Thank you very much I apologise, this is going to sound quite repetitive but I do support the recommendation in the Local Plan that this site should not be allocated for new housing any development on this site would have an impact on the topography and the skyline it is worth noting that this site is visibly present from various elevated viewpoints in Beer Parish.

01:46:18Again, it's a site that attracts a lot of wildlife and it is part of the distinctive characteristic of Beer Road in Seton. So I've spoken about that. I don't believe it will contribute to providing affordable housing based on its location in the town because the properties here tend to be fairly high-value properties. and I don't believe this development would actually integrate well into the landscape bearing in mind it is on a very steep slope so I can't comment at all on drainage works for this site but I would be concerned about it based on as I say it's a particular landscape characteristic and I'm more concerned obviously about the impact it would have on the topography of that side of the town so in summary I support the recommendation in the Local Plan that this site is not suitable for housing thank you very much thank you mr morgan uh coming into committee then does anybody wish to speak council ledger I suppose that we move on chair I think we had a report from ed

01:47:35Agreement before where we looked at the worst case planning in these this area is one of them that was potentially could fall into the sea in 75 years time in the worst case scenario so I don't think it's probably the best idea to be out of their councils there. Thank you Councillor Ledger and I will second that proposal does anybody else wish to speak no okay in which case then proposal from Councillor Ledger seconded by myself that we move on all those in favour that's unanimous which brings us then to sites 13a and 13b 13a being the northern parcel proposed for allocation or recommended for allocation and b the southern parcel and not recommended and we have Councillor Hartner thank you chair so um I agree with the recommendation for seat 13b that it shouldn't be allocated but I also think 13a shouldn't be separated from that site I think it should be treated as one site um there is a an ancient shed with monument which is in the ownership of east end district council it's a well-used um field for recreation I think

01:48:55Having houses right next to it on on seat 13a wouldn't be um particularly uh uh pleasant and And I also think that there's risk that there could be further Roman remains beneath seat 13A, and I think that may hinder any future development as well. So I think in light of the other allocations that have been approved here today, I think 13A and 13B should be treated as one and not allocated.

01:49:25Thank you. Councillor Hartnell. Committee, do any members wish to speak? Councillor Hayward. Sorry. Reluctantly, I disagree with Councillor Hart on this. I think the proposal, again, I can use that word again, is a pragmatic approach. I quite agree that 13B should be disregarded. I've walked through that site and in due deference to Ted Gosling, he recently passed away. He did a huge amount of work there and brought it to the attention of local people. But I think 13A, given its correlation to existing housing access, has the potential for development without impacting too much on the SAM.

01:50:19So I again, it's always reluctantly because we are mindful of these areas, but that we approve 13A with the segregation of 13B to be discounted thank you council I which that was a proposal to accept 13 a and move on from 13 B council I would thank you Councillor Ledger thanks very much yeah I tend to agree with 13 B that's just a non-starter it's a very well used field for recreation dog walking and 13a has had quite a lot of comment from from local residents they are concerned regarding surface flooding in the area but if that can be mitigated and there is no effects to residents of axe view road um I can't see an issue I I can't see a reason why we were to reject it knowing that some of the sites that we have approved today yes okay we have a proposal then to allocate 13a and move on from 13b uh proposed by Councillor Hayward seconded by Councillor Ledger do any members wish to fellow members wish to speak no okay then in which case we'll take them one vote at

01:51:56A time a proposal to allocate 13a those members in favor that's unanimous and to move on from 13b those members in favor that's unanimous okay that brings us to the last seat and site then site 15 the proposal is not to allocate I have no members of the public registered to speak do any members of committee wish to speak note in which case I'll move from the chair in accordance with officer recommendation that we move on uh all those in favor Councillor Ledger go on quickly it's just with this site in general so it's getting brought before us today for residential previously it's been brought to us for uh a mixed use I believe for a hotel what's happened there why are we just looking at the residential element of it and not the the hotel element I just want clarification on that before we vote please okay I will look to one of the officer team I think it came up this morning actually that's like on the edge of submit from that what we're looking at allocating is housing

01:53:14Unemployment land rather than any other sort of related uses it was submitted through the HELAA as a proposal for a housing site so we've assessed it on that basis there's no evidence in terms of a need for a hotel in this particular location that we're aware of so we've assessed on that basis I mean even if we were to assess it for a hotel you can see the constraints for the site and they're in the report in terms of the flooding and county wildlife site etc so So even if we were to consider it as a hotel, I think we'd still struggle with that, to allocate it for that.

01:53:48Okay, take two then. The proposal is to move on from Site 15. All those members in favour? That's carried. Okay, that takes us to the end of the Seton sites then, and brings us just up the road to Colleton, which I believe is a new agenda item. Am I right? Can somebody? Yes. Thank you. Yes. Agenda item 7B, sites at Colleton. And we start then, thank you both, with site Colley 02. Sorry, Mr. Lane, do you want to introduce Colleton at all? No? Okay.

01:54:37Well, again, briefly, Collarton's slightly different to Seton, for example, because it's in the third tier of the settlement hierarchy, so it's a smaller level of facilities, and we're calling it a local centre in the emerging Local Plan, so it's got a reasonable level of shops and services in the centre there, and the GP and recreation grounds, but obviously not to the level of Seton and some of the other large assessments, relatively few sites around the settlement that we'll go through now.

01:55:05Okay, thank you, Mr Lane. Take two then, on site, Collie 02A. And first up, as an objector, we have [member of the public]. You've changed hats. not quite I'll explain in a minute so uh last time for me today um I speak in relation to coli o2 but actually as the promoter of um coli o3 so that probably explains it coli o2 is prominent site as identified in the report assessment and is viewed to have a high medium landscape sensitivity this is the same conclusion as for coli o3 which you will consider next the IWAS authorities indicated the access can be achieved from Clay Lane and Old Smith Road.

01:55:53Similarly, they have indicated that Collier 3 can be accessed successfully from Fairview Lane. The impact on the historic environment in both cases is considered to be minimal. In relation to ecology, the impact on both sides is considered to be significant, moderate, adverse. Both sites are mainly Grade 3 agricultural land. From this comparison, it can be noted that conclusions on each matter are the same, so there is little to choose between the two potential sites, COLI-02 and COLI-03.

01:56:22With significant opposition to COLI-02, it would be a perfectly logical conclusion to not allocate COLI-02 and to allocate COLI-03 instead. The evidence produced and considered would make that a sound choice supported by evidence that the committee can point to. COLI-03 can be allocated for a similar level of development and there is plenty of scope and opportunity to provide environmental enhancements to go with the development. An allocation of 49 and Collier 03 would be supported by Baker Estates as the promoter of the site instead of Collier 02 and the committee has a justification and evidence to do just that.

01:56:56Thank you very much. Thank you [member of the public]. Not quite the change in hats that I thought we might be seeing but there we go. Next up I have Councillor Stenning from Collington Parish Council.

01:57:17Thank you. I hope you've all had the chance to read the email with the views of Colleton Parish Council, which was circulated and contained a number of bullet points. It is a very grave matter indeed, destroying the natural setting of Colleton. Collie 02A and B are above the town and widely visible. It is a field at the top of a very steep hill outside the built-up area boundary in open countryside. A planning application to develop the site was rejected by EDDC in 2016. Drainage from the site already causes flooding in Hillhead, Burnersfield Road, Clay Lane and Ridgeway Lane. Concreting and tarmacking the hillside will only increase the amount of surface water despite any attenuation devices and it's a long way to the River Collie to dispose of. Burnersfield Road which was dug out of this hillside sits a great deal lower than the hill itself. The gardens on the southwestern side flood regularly and residents are greatly concerned about how their privacy and safety will be protected.

01:58:31This skyline site can only be reached by single track lanes, one only eight feet or less wide, that's Clay Lane. No new houses should be built in Colton until Southwest Water seriously upgrades the steerage system, which is 140 years old. It has failed by being overloaded by the increasing number of houses it serves. Now it will be further overloaded with the addition of 72 houses currently being constructed at the former Ceramtec site. This development, which includes 14 affordable dwellings, will fulfill the housing need of the parish as stated in the 2022 housing needs survey and provides six light industrial units where is the employment provision in these proposed strategic sites southwest water has stated collards and sewage treatment plant is at capacity i.e. much too small and said they would line the leaking pipes running above ground with a skin Yet nothing has been done. Their engineers visited last November.

01:59:41Colleton has had a critical mass with sewage leakages and manhole covers being effluent in the streets. We've had enough, so implore you not to give the go-ahead for 49 additional houses to join the sewage system.

01:59:55Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Stenning. it's worth saying if and when an application came forwards for any of these sites sewage capacity would be one of the things that was looked at at that stage and folks may be aware that we've been deploying what's called grampian conditions to prevent development actually happening until sewage upgrades sorry sewage infrastructure upgrades have taken place so that that would be a matter for that process rather than this one necessarily but point absolutely taken and you won't find any disagreement in this room I don't think on that note um at that point then uh Councillor Arnott thank you very much chair I wasn't going to speak because I was confident that Councillor Stenning would get it right and she has on behalf of the parish council um I'm just slightly stunned by the sheer chutzpah of our friend from baker estates at the back there who's tried to do a little bit of that so that's brought me here to the dais um coli 2a I don't have any difficulty

02:01:06With um on the basis that as everybody has seen here today we have to find numbers it's horrible but we have to find numbers I think the real problem is coli 2b so if you look there you can see that collie 2a in terms of how to get there by not terrible roads is it's okay it is on the edge of town and to a certain extent the fate of collie 2a was sealed when with parish council backing um the affordable uh development which is just to just below there you can see uh went ahead whenever that was 10 12 years ago it's very hard to rely on this argument of visibility because that that is already there and collie 2a as far as I'm concerned is not significantly higher it may even be at the same level I would ask committee though since I'm here to look more carefully at collie 2b where Councillor Stelling is absolutely right you can see a crossroads there to just below Collie 2B.

02:02:21You are by that time, you are on more or less single track going both that way and going that way. It is not somewhere where it is appropriate to put many more houses and I think you're looking, it's another 24 there, isn't it? So that would be my contribution, Chair, that I know you're looking at Collie 2A and Collie 2B that Collie 2A makes a kind of sense, Collie 2B doesn't make any kind of sense at all.

02:02:53And I won't come back for Collie 3 except to say I just disagree entirely with what the gentleman said.

02:02:59Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Onert. Into committee then, do any members wish to speak? I'm guessing Councillor Parham may. Yes, there we go.

02:03:13Thank you. Well, I agree with the comments of Colleton Parish Council, and I do support them in particular, this site, or these two sites. If developed, there will be significant harm caused to the setting of Colleton. The site has high-medium landscape sensitivity to new development. that's from our own landscape officer it's highly visible from the national landscape to the north of the town it forms the backdrop to Colleton it's part of an undeveloped skyline and development would change that forever I can't agree with the comments previously made about the affordable housing site that was very difficult to get through committee on landscape grounds, but it was an exception site.

02:04:21It was outside the built-up area boundary. It was different. It had no open market housing at all. So I can't take that as a Trojan horse, so to speak. I don't think we should add to that if it did damage. Ecologically, this site is very sensitive. It's within the Beer Quarry Caves Consultation Zone. Need, there is no need. We've had just commenced the Sarantech development of 72 houses.

02:05:0614 of those will be affordable. and also they are going to put in six employment units and the Devon Community's Together Housing Needs Survey in March 22 showed a need for 12 affordable houses so that need will be met. We shall have open market housing, 72 houses in all with affordable and employment land. There's no offer of employment provision with this site, either A or B, to be sustainable.

02:05:45We should have employment with housing, and that's been said before about other sites. Devon County Council has stated there are insufficient primary school places. The secondary schools in Axminster, this is a 25-minute bus journey, or seven miles by car, and that's obviously the same if you want to get to the station. Accessibility, the highway network has been mentioned is, I'm amazed Devon County says, okay, they are single track roads.

02:06:22Clay Lane is virtually a footpath. It's been completely impassable for years until suddenly, for some reason, they resurfaced it. some of that's already been taken away but anyway these are the narrow lanes that connect that site to the town and main roads we've heard about the sewage system I mean we have got sewage coming out of manholes by a bus stop children from school walking home being splashed by sewage more sewage there we do need joined up thinking collerton has been designated as a local center but the primary school won't have capacity and there's no employment going to be provided with these houses we've got inadequate sewage system your comments say contribution to spatial strategy this development will help maintain the town's role as a local center well without infrastructure to support the town collerton can't be a local center and housing alone will not help collerton to maintain that role so I really think um this both these sites should actually be um we should go go and pass them on at the moment um and see what other sites we come up with

02:07:52Thank you thank you Council Paul I have to say I disagree but there we go I'll see what other members of committee have to say first Councillor Hayward thank you by myself in partial agreement with council past certainly you know to be I mean I'm looking at the the street view view from clay Lane cross through a farm gate across the valley looking northeast across the valley and it's a gorgeous view of Colleton Village essentially it's your quintessential English view as you drive down roads you come across hamlets and villages and you look across them and in fact from that view I think I can see what appears to be Kelmington and probably Axminster in the far distance so in terms of it will be you know in congress because you'll see houses you can see houses everywhere you go on our country lanes um I appreciate there's a view of ridge lines but you know houses have roofs they'll always be ridge lines um but I do agree looking at the this road um you know the junction that these roads are single track roads but as you progress further

02:09:14Towards the village you come to better roads and there is better access in those estates that are nearby so I'm it's a split really expected that we would approve or my proposal is we include 2a but we move on from 2b in this instance is that your proposal Councillor It is yes okay do we have a seconder for approving 2a and moving on from 2b Councillor Ledger do you wish to speak okay does anybody else wish to speak Councillor Brown I've been the the sorrentic site that's gone up there recently I mean there was lots of problems of that the drainage portion and everything like that in fact can't around at the time said you know where does the water go who knows you know if he doesn't know and he's the local Councillor I mean who does know you know it's not a fit site for development as such really there's so many problems with it I mean you know you can allocate the site but whether you get the outage there is very doubtful so what's the point of allocating it go and find

02:10:37Another site somewhere else. Bring it back later if you haven't got enough properties. I mean, I've looked to Mr Freeman on my left. I assume we wouldn't be considering it if we didn't have some evidence from the submitter that it was deliverable. No, we wouldn't. I mean, I think the issue here really is that 2B would have a much greater landscape impact than 2A, that is the assessment.

02:11:07But the bottom line is it's not in a national landscape and we are proposing to allocate sites in national landscapes elsewhere in the district in order to make up the numbers. As Councillor Hayward has said, there are lots of beautiful fields and views in our districts and we're very lucky to benefit from them, but many of them you can see settlements and villages and in the context of houses.

02:11:31I appreciate people probably cherish the views of this site and across the settlement. But unfortunately, we're in the very sad position of having to meet the housing needs and the housing numbers were given in the least harmful places. And because this isn't a national landscape, although it would be harmful to the landscape, we reluctantly had to move from this being what was previously, I think, a second choice site in terms of 2B to bring it in as a recommended allocation to help to adjust the numbers.

02:12:06While I'm speaking, I think there were a number of comments about the access. I mean, I don't see any reason why the whole site couldn't be accessed through 2A, where the road is notably wider and better at that point. And a lot of the other issues are detailed design issues around drainage arrangements, the sewage and infrastructure issues are common across much of the district. So I'm struggling to see what would distinguish this site.

02:12:33And if we do move on from this site, how are we going to find any better sites to make up the 25 homes that we'd have to find elsewhere? I think, Mr Freeman, you've just said my entire speech for me. And saved me the trouble. So thank you very much for that. However, we do have a proposal that's been made and validly seconded to allocate 2A and move on from 2B.

02:13:03Do any other members of committee wish to speak? No? Okay. In which case, we go to a vote. We'll take them one by one. So, 2A, the proposal is to allocate. Those in favour? Four. Those against? Two. To B, the proposal is to move on. Those in favour? That's for and those against? That's two. Okay. So both those are carried, which brings us then to Collie 03, which is not proposed for allocation. And we have Councillor Stenning. Do you wish to speak on 03?

02:13:58You are on my list. Okay. In which case then? We have, oh, Councillor Arnott, okay.

02:14:16Thank you, Chair. Just to thank the officers for an excellent report on Collegio 3 and as ward member to agree entirely with the findings and the recommendation. Thank you.

02:14:28Thank you. Councillor Arnott, do any members of committee wish to speak? Councillor Ledger. Just understanding what we've agreed for 2A and 2B with the issues regarding landscape, is there any merit that if we were to say we move on today, that there is, by reducing the size of this site, any difference to the landscape issues within it?

02:15:02[member of the public], Mr. Lane, Mr. Coles? That would make it acceptable. Could we take another look at this one? Is there any merit? Well, if I start, and then James might want to add, as I think he did the assessment of this one. I mean, my reading of the report is that this site is even more sensitive in landscape terms. I think, as James McBride has said, I think the overall conclusion says high and medium landscape sensitivity, but if you read the details of the report and the assessment, I think it's quite clear that this is more sensitive in landscape terms.

02:15:34Whether or not there I mean as you'll see as we've gone through the sites you know we have tried to break down sites into smaller areas and identify parts of sites that would be acceptable so my understanding is that our view is that there isn't any mileage in doing that James is nodding I don't know if you want to add anything James yeah obviously I definitely agree with what you're saying Ed I haven't specifically looked at this slide to see if I could split it down to anything smaller but um I would say it is more sensitive um from a landscape point of view in my mind than colio too if you were going to develop just a part of this site it would be the part closer to the built-up edge but if you were to do that I've got no idea how you'd accessed it Okay. Thank you, Mr Coles, for clarifying that one. I must say I broadly agree with the assessment that's been set out, so I'm going to propose that we move on from this one from the Chair. Does anybody else wish to speak? No? Okay. In which case, the proposal is to move on. All those in favour? That's unanimous.

02:17:02Which brings us then to Collie 06, and we have Councillor Stenning. This is the only site available to build a new primary school to educate the increasing number of children expected to live in Colleton, with the 72 houses under construction, and even more now that you've given the go-ahead to Collie 02A. It has been earmarked by the parish council for a new school for over 20 years.

02:17:39Is a central site has two car parks space for sports and play on the peace memorial playing fields and is next door to the preschool nursery and youth center the existing school site is landlocked and children are being taught in mobile classrooms built on the playground this site could be sold and developed for housing which would part way fund the new school Applying for a new school to be built takes time, but our Devon County Councillor, Marcus Hartnell, supports the retention of this site for the longer-term priority of a new school.

02:18:18I think it's a great opportunity. Councillor Arnott? Thank you, Chair. So I would strongly agree with what Councillor Stelling has just said. I'm mindful of the difficulties. Marcus, as our county councillor, is indeed, as I would be, totally supportive of retaining this site. It is the only place where our primary school could ever go. There is no other site. And the primary school is just bursting at the seams now.

02:19:04It would make a huge amount of strategic sense for it to move down to this piece of land. The difficulty we've got is that we're aware that Devon County Council haven't got the investment allocated to help the community build it. On the other hand, we can surmise that the existing site of the primary school probably has a really serious premium value for it for redevelopment. But also, unfortunately, nobody's begun any actual work on this at all, which puts us in a difficult position now I would love it if there was a way in which this committee could in some way bear in mind it's where the primary school ought to be going if you're unable to bear that in mind I'd ask you to look at the site itself which I think what the community understood is that it was going to be like a ribbon development it was going to just continue down the line of Collie Road and that you might have a row of houses along there I don't think what anybody expects

02:20:19Is if you see the top of the site where it goes in behind some houses and there's a little sort of footpath called Ham Lane behind which floods constantly I mean we're almost at river level there anyway which is why the other site to the right has been recommended for exclusion that funny little extra bit I don't know how that's come into the equation so to me that needs further analysis but coming back to Councillor Stenning's point I completely agree but I just don't know what we can do or within the constraints of what you're trying to do today chair I don't know how we achieve it but yes it should really be a school site and really we should to be fair to this council that idea should have been brought in here for us to consider some years ago probably I don't know if it's too late thank you Councillor Honor I'm just checking with mr. Freeman to my left we have no submissions from Devon County that say they want to keep the site from primary school they are the statutory

02:21:21Consul team indeed as the educational authority they say not I they say Colleton primary has capacity that that's the that that that's the evidence that Devon County have put in front of us as the statutory authority I'm advised by the voice to my left that there's not really a huge amount that we can do on that front irritating as I know that must be members of committee does anybody wish to speak council apart thank you picking up on your point actually on the oh to a and B the Devon County Council comments said there are insufficient primary school places and blah blah blah I haven't got it in front of me but clearly that school is not coping and with this allocation that you've just agreed it certainly won't be let alone if there are any more children from outlying villages that want to come here so I really agree with the two previous speakers it's important that this site is not built on um for housing and that we should look into the um possibility of it being

02:22:58The site for the schools and for that reason I'd like us to um move on with this one okay um I have to go for a seconder for the proposal to move on Councillor Hayward are you seconding yeah I'm happy to second it um just with a couple of really caveats to support that all the arguments that are being put forward I'm just obviously mindful of a place called Tipton St John which is evidence of what happens when you build a school on somewhere that periodically, methodically floods and the issues that comes with that's what perhaps is influencing Devon County Council's comment on this also for the Parish Council and this District Council in the future an understanding that if you did move the school to here there would naturally be I suppose a consideration of using that site for housing and it's again a case of be careful what you wish for because for those people who say that access on Sidmouth Road, the issues of flooding, the issues of water movement etc if you built on that site you'd have exactly the same

02:24:08Problems and actually we know it's quite a constrained site to get to having driven there quite a few times myself so I'm happy to to second the proposal that we reject both 6a and 6b but what happens thereafter is another issue but I suppose all we're doing is is accepting or rejecting and I'm happy to reject both okay thank you council I would just clarify the proposal is to move on not to reject absolutely thank you chair for correcting my terminology to move on on both thank you um just on on the primary capacity point Mr Freeman and I have checked the various reports and the line from Devon County is and I quote from the papers here Colleton and Seton primary schools have some capacity to support development but not to total level i.e. all of the sites that are proposed in the area so there is some capacity across those two primary schools I can I can only repeat the evidence that Devon County County of County County County County Council have put in front of us they are the statutory

02:25:24Authority it's it's their schools all that being said we have a proposal seconded to move on from both of these sites Councillor Ledger the issue that I have with that comment is they include seating and Colleton together they are separate primary schools seating has more capacity I don't believe colton has any if at all some what I would like to see is us double check with the educational authority that they they have no plans to come forward if they have no plans to come forward with a development plan on this site then we should be allocating it I don't think we should be saying let's move on it should be a case of we check with the authority if they have no plans to approve it then we we approve and allocate the site so it's perhaps worthwhile adding that this did come up at the working group meeting and when we looked at the draft version of these papers and the question was highlighted and I believe there was an action to check unfortunately mr. Dickens who took those actions is on leave this

02:26:40Week so we don't know um whether that question has yet been asked I believe is the position mr freedom yes that's right so we'll pick up that action and make sure it is action and we have the definitive answer going forward the other thing I'd just say on on school capacities it's very easy to say based on the current position that there may not be a capacity Devon county when they do these comments have projection models as to what likely future capacity looks like based on current demographics and obviously members would probably be aware that birth rates are actually declining at the moment um and so their projections are that capacities will improve in future in most cases um so that may have informed their judgment in this case and may explain to some extent the difference between people's experience on the ground and what Devon county is saying um but yeah if members need further reassurance on that issue before making any decision in terms of an allocation here we can take that away

02:27:39And make sure that this is worth saying this is one of the reasons why we say move on rather than reject so that we can tie things up at the end so I think move on is probably compatible with us checking this and bringing it back if Devon County say no we're never going to put a score here so if members are happy to proceed on that basis I'll take us to a vote okay in which case then the proposal and we'll take 6a and 6b separately is to move on from site 6a members all those in favor that's carried and 6b to move on that's carried both unanimously that brings us then to the end of colleton members do you want a short break before we do beer brands coming up lime or should we powered through somebody express an opinion get on with it okay we have no speakers for either site in beer we have no speakers for either site in Branscom and we have no speakers for the site in upline and mr. Hunter if I propose that

02:28:55We move on from all five of these together and we take a vote on each are you happy yep take a take a separate vote okay so before I do that then if I come to members does anybody wish to speak on any of these sites contrary to the officer recommendation note in which case I will propose from the chair that we move on from sites beer oh one beer oh three bran oh one bran oh two and apply one five votes then the proposal is to move on from beer o one those members in favor that's unanimous the proposal is to move on from beer o three those in sport that's unanimous the proposal is to move on from brand o one members Those in favour? That's unanimous.

02:29:52The proposal is to move on from BRAN 02. Those in favour? That's unanimous. And the last proposal of the day is to move on from site UPLI 01. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Okay. I believe then that brings us to the end of our agenda for today, the 11th of September.

02:30:15Thank you very much, members, for persevering with us. And we'll see you next week.