Strategic Planning Committee, 29 October 2024

00:03:17Colin, sit down Colin. Sit down Colin. Yes sir. Good morning everyone. To kick things off with a health and safety announcement, there's no fire alarm drill anticipated today so if the alarm sounds, please leave the door through, please leave the building rather 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.

00:03:44And please also make sure all phones are either muted or switched off. To start the meeting then, good morning everyone and welcome to the Strategic Planning Committee meeting on Tuesday the 29th of October 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, Thea Bilita, new community manager, Damian Hunter, planning solicitor, and Wendy Harris, Democratic Services Officer. Can I remind everyone present that this meeting is audio recorded for subsequent publication on the Council's website, so please can members and officers making a contribution to the meeting use a microphone or your comments will not be recorded. We'll now start the meeting by doing a roll call of committee members and declarations of interest thank you for those in the audience slightly mystified at this we have a new microphone

00:05:18System which we're still getting used to um after a couple of meetings um thank you for sorting that out folks um attempt to then for the roll call thank you chair so I'll start with yourself Councillor Olive I'm present and I have nothing to declare um do I I understand there might have lobbying on on a few or most of them yes everyone has been lobbied so pretty much everything yes thank you um Councillor Mike howell yes I'm here and nothing further to declare thank you Councillor Brian bailey present wendy and I've been lobbied I would imagine the same as everybody else. Thank you. Councillor Jess Bailey. Present and yes, subject to lobbying. Thank you. Councillor Blakey. Present and no declarations beyond the lobbying.

00:06:18Councillor Colin Brown. Present and no declarations. Councillor Bethany Collins. Present and nothing to declare rather than lobbying thank you Councillor Davey present no other declarations Councillor Fernley present thank you Councillor Hayward an effects nri for item seven uh Cranbrook town center family members living there effects nri agenda item nine uh being the clerk to Axminster town council and as with everyone just general uh lobbying emails received thank you thank you going back to Councillor Firmly can you just confirm you've got no declarations apologies no further declarations thank you Councillor Ingham right so yeah um present no declarations other than lobby thank you Councillor Jung present no declarations thank you Councillor Ledger no Councillor Levine is arriving later and Councillor Parr present and no further declarations thank you back to your chair okay thank you uh we come then to uh agenda item one minutes of previous meetings held on the 20th september and 9th of october 2024 does anybody have any comments on either of these sets of minutes no in which case I will move those from the chair all those in favor please that's

00:08:17Unanimous so I will sign those in a moment agenda item two apologies yes sorry so I think it's just apologies from Councillor Ledger Councillor Hayward? From non-member Councillor Jackson, who's feeling alone. Thank you. Agenda item three, declarations of interest we have already done, which brings us then to agenda item four, general public speaking. And we have first up, Henry Gent.

00:08:59Hello, I'm here to talk about Exeter Airport, a site that isn't, strictly speaking, on your agenda at all. So I appreciate that what I'm going to say will seem disruptive and my timing is terrible. But I want to argue that Exeter Airport is not a great airport, but would be a great place to put houses. It's not a great airport because, first of all, it doesn't make money.

00:09:21The airport's never paid a dividend to its owners since they bought it in 2013. It's made a small operating profit, but only in six of the last 12 years, and only once in the last five years, and that was mostly just rents. The small profits made have been reinvested, but not at a level which enables the airport to keep up with modern regulation. Passenger numbers are less than half of pre-pandemic, whereas Bournemouth and Bristol are well above.

00:09:49Not that many people even use the airport. Bristol is used by more than 20 times more passengers than Exeter. West Country residents, even residents who live in Exeter, tend to go to Bristol Airport for cheaper flights. Flights from Bristol are cheaper because they use less fuel. This is because the runway at Exeter, which is relatively short, cannot be used by the more fuel-efficient modern jets. If flights from Exeter use more fuel per passenger, they'll probably cause more carbon emissions per passenger per kilometre than flights to the same destination from Bristol and Bournemouth.

00:10:25Royal Mail is going to give up using the airport in March. Exeter Airport's contribution to the regional economy is probably negative. Exeter Airport has a negative impact on the development of the surrounding area. So, to summarise, it takes tourists abroad, if they can afford it, in high-emission flights, but fails to make money, blights the area, and has a poor future, as it's suitable only for less efficient aeroplanes.

00:10:52In contrast, it would be a fantastic site for housing. Close to Exeter, very close to employment sites, can benefit from good active travel infrastructure links between Cranbrook and Exeter. It would provide more people to use the railway station and the swimming pool at Cranbrook. It would improve the connectivity of the new Denbo town and Cranbrook, especially for active travel, because it would be easier to cycle from Denbo town to Cranbrook without having to detour around the airport.

00:11:23The character of the site is suitable for new high-density housing, which could make a big impact on housing needs. It's a site of very low biodiversity with not even so much as a single bush, so it would be relatively easy to obtain 10 or 20% BNG. overall Exeter Airport is a site that's far more suitable than various sites that you're considering or have considered which lie on the outskirts of the towns and villages of East Devon other regional airports such as Cambridge are to be converted to housing the owners of Exeter Airport I think could I ask you to wrap up please [member of the public] yep I'm thinking that owners of Exeter Airport think the Planning Authority wouldn't allow a change of use. Only you can put that possibility in front of the owners. Thank you. Thank you [member of the public]. I think I'd rather the new community was called Townie McTownface than Denbo but there we go. Next up [member of the public].

00:12:24Thank you Chair Members. Good morning I'm Colin Danks and I'll represent the owners of Greenhaze a possible new development area to be considered later today. I wanted to speak to committee before you start today's wrap-up session. My colleagues and I have sat through all of the September and October site selection committee sessions and we want to acknowledge the challenging process you have had to go through. We appreciate that finding housing land is not easy and that there are difficult decisions to make. Section 3.4 of the officers report says that based on what has been agreed to be allocated to date there is a shortfall of 2,278 dwellings. To progress with the plan today it is strongly recommended that the provision is made through land allocations to address this shortfall its entirety. That's what's in the report. You will see in the report that nearly all of the most challenging sites already rejected by committee are back in front of you again. I'm here to explain that there is still a choice of alternative sites. Within

00:13:43Your information pack today, at the very end at page 96, there are sites that have not been considered as part of these committee sessions yet. [member of the public], sorry to interrupt and respectfully, are you registered to speak on those sites? But on a different matter, it will become clear in a moment. I'm not talking about the site specifically, I'm just talking about process and procedure. It sounds awfully like to me you're about to say that you want your site to be allocated, which is something that should really be for later on. That's not what this first presentation is about. I've got a presentation under my item nine for that. Okay, carry on.

00:14:24So before returning to the site to revisit sites which we know you clearly have technical concerns over I respectfully request that you look at green haze first green haze is located between creely and greendale just so that members are aware where it is I'm sure most are members of this committee also visited the site on the 16th of august and there are minutes which state that it was one of the least worst options. Those are published minutes on the public domain. We've obviously heard the phrase least worst options when supporting sites for allocation. So I'm grateful to speak for the opportunity under item 9 later about the reasons why Greenhaze could deliver 1,500 new homes. But please don't miss this opportunity to consider this site first today as a reasonable alternative before putting sites you've got concerns over back in the plan and maybe bring this item forward on the agenda. It could significantly reduce the number of technically constrained sites that you will need to consider your position on in today's session. Thank you. Thank you [member of the public]. Before you leave the microphone

00:15:47You mentioned a site visit by committee in august where have you got that from because unless I've developed um memory problems I don't think I've seen news of a site visit uh so that that's on the website it says um there's a there's a minute on there from 16th of august maybe it should say um officers I don't know whether it was officers or members or both so we we weren't uh obviously at your site visit but there are there are minutes on your um website right are you aware of a site visit of any kind mr Freeman for the record I'm not no I would have to check what what's being referred to there okay we can pick that up later perhaps but thank you mr danks Councillor Collins Thank you Chair As you may remember I spoke on the 20th of September about the loss of agricultural land the situation I feel has got much worse the world seems to be heading to World War 3 it's very very concerning to me lots of countries are

00:17:20Fighting over various things and they're taking up sides and I think we could well be heading for World War III. I still have my ration card from 1953 and I can remember food rationing. It went on way past 1953. There were lots of shortages in the shops because the governments from the 1930s had run farming down And we were relying on imports to feed the country. Of course, you know very well that the Germans were sinking the ships from America, bringing our food.

00:18:01Our food production in fruit is down to 45%. Meat is down to about 50%. And every acre that you're building on means that three acres of national green forests in Brazil and places, and the world is in Africa, the Sahara is going, extending by 50,000 acres each year. I watched a program, I watched ITV news a fortnight ago at 10 o'clock, and they showed Mongolia. Mongolia has been suffering drought for the last three years, and now of their main rivers have dried right up because in the Himalayas, the mountains aren't getting any snow anymore. There's no snow falling on these mountains. So they rely on this snow to melt, to keep the water. The farmers there are having to sell their cattle or else have them slaughtered. Well, they don't farm, sorry, they don't farm cattle, they farm yaks. And these yaks produce milk and meat and things, and they farm goats and sheep, and they're nomad farmers. They run over thousands of square miles of land and plains, high up in the Himalayas, and they can't produce food anymore. You've seen what's happened in Ukraine

00:19:31With the war. I mean, we've got no food, very little food coming from there. A lot of the food production land in this country. Biggest states are putting as much as 4,000 acres into biodiversity stopping producing food. And here we are in East Devon taking up good farmland just to build houses. What sense is that? It's time all this stopped. Thank you.

00:20:02Thank you, Councillor Collins. Could somebody turn the microphone off, please? Thank you, Roy. I have Councillor Faithfull listed as well, but I don't see Peter in the room. No? Okay. Yes, late buses, I imagine, indeed. So we'll move on then with the rest of the agenda. Agenda items five, matters of urgency, there are none. Agenda item six, to agree any items to be dealt with after the public have been excluded, there are none.

00:20:35Which brings us then to agenda item 7 Cranbrook Town Centre, [member of the public] you very much Chair I'm just hoping Can you get HDMI 2 up please Oh it's on here It's on there Oh hang on, no that's me Perfect, thank you very much Yes, I'm here to talk about the Cranbrook Town Centre Master Plan and I thought I'd just go through a few slides to highlight some key points so on the screen here Cranbrook is obviously a very young town I think everyone knows that but we've extrapolated some comparison data from the 2021 census and the top image it's annotated as figure three up on the screens is the age profile of Cranbrook being the green line compared to the East Devon, Devon and England age profiles and you'll see it has these spikes in children um age zero to ten really and then also then in adults from 25 up to about 40 where they are above um all of the East Devon Devon and england comparisons and then it drops off a cliff and we those of us who visited the town know this you've got these

00:21:57Young children the parents and then it really does drop off as you get older such that there's incredibly few people aged um pensioner age and in fact I think it's 3.4 percent are age 65 and over um and then that obviously then um brings itself out into the town having an awful lot of people who are economically active so that's people age 16 or over and we've got 80 percent of them in employment quite low unemployment rates and then fairly few in economically inactive compared again to those East Devon, Devon and England figures which is obviously quite a surprise given that East Devon has the highest number of any local authority in the country of people aged over 100 and yet it's also got the county's youngest town. So on the right hand side are some key points that came out of the previous community engagement about those community priorities in terms of they really want to see a leisure centre and GP surgery built and having a variety of places to go and socialise and shop and eat. They're keen on sustainability and

00:23:05Accessibility, having places for markets, and then also for youths to go, as we can see that young age profile, and for small businesses. So we've, oh I'm moving my size forward, that won't work. So we've pulled that through into a plan. Now this master plan sort of follows a narrative, So it tells a story and then this is how the town centre could come out. It's identifying locations for a leisure centre with swimming pool at the very south of the town onto Badger Way and immediately adjacent to a health and well-being centre.

00:23:41If we require a fire station in the town, that would go again at the bottom of the town centre opposite it. And then the other buildings which we identify locations for are the Till House, which is Cranbrook Town Council's multi-purpose facility. So it would house the town council themselves along with their ranger who does outreach work across the country park. But also that would be a place for community and cultural activities to take place, as well as housing small businesses.

00:24:11And that would go up at the northern end of the town centre, opposite a second town square. which in itself would lead down and sort of act as this greening element to get down to the country park which is at the northern side it's kind of off the image but it's the green sort of blob is the existing attenuation basin in the country park the other project that we identify a specific location for is for cram box and that can come around that town square onto Tilhouse Road and help to frame the high street because we already have buildings in the town centre which have been constructed on the southern side of that high street on Tilhouse Road where there are retail units and apartments that have been built and are in the process of being occupied.

00:25:00All other blocks are sort of indicative to frame themselves around those the orange lines are sort of the desire routes the places where people want to go to and from by foot or on cycle and they help to frame how things can come forward how that happens is for later discussion and projects to facilitate but this master plan then helps to set that and gives the council and other local authority bodies who will in time own all this land between us they then the opportunity to progress those projects and to seek people to develop them can we move forward slide please thank you very much then the final thing I was going to show you is we've identified some potential building heights. We haven't actually gone above three stories as there are no buildings in Cranbrook at the moment that go above three stories in height and I think if we start to introduce that then that could start to feel a little incongruous in the town centre as even the town centre buildings that have been constructed to date are themselves three stories

00:25:59In height. So they're a range of two, two and a half and three. Obviously how high a story is depends upon the need so it could still be higher than a three story house that we have in the town for example um but not likely to be skyscraper height and that I think is everything I was going to say on it okay thank you very much um do we have any questions or comments from outside committee first Councillor Aurora bailey if you've not been logged in it might be simpler to just use the public speaking mic. Good morning. I just want to ask, with Cranbrook, with all what you've got

00:26:57There, are you going to have a police station? Is that going to come into it somewhere? I have spoken to the Commissioner, Alison Harandes, and there's a possibility. I just wondered if that's on the agenda for it. Thank you, Chair. Yes, we have engaged with various stakeholders, including Devon and Cornwall Police Service and they do have a need for a presence in the town. It's unlikely to be a full-blown police station, so the discussions we've had with them to date are that they would co-locate in one of the other public buildings.

00:27:36Exactly which one is yet to be determined because that depends upon how they come forward and when their need arises, but yes, they have been engaged in this process. Councillor Bloxham.

00:27:50Thank you, Chair, I appreciate you have a long agenda today so I'll try and be as brief as I can. As the report indicates, the community in Cranbrook is in need of facilities and the delivery of the town centre has been anticipated for far too long. I think that we can all recognise that any town desperately needs opportunities for sport and exercise. We're doing what we can with facilities like the skate park, pump track and Ingram Sports Centre and the education campus is doing what it can to offer basic evening sports opportunities, but the reality is the town needs a leisure centre.

00:28:21Also crucial is the simple fact that the existing medical facility at the Young K Centre can barely cope now and will be outgrown within a year or so. And this is despite the Town Council working with the practice to double the original clinical space. Cranbrook needs decent health provisions sooner rather than later. I accept all this will cost money. And whilst the basic town infrastructure is delivered by developers through Section 106, there's an argument that the town should benefit from bidding into the current seal pot, bearing in mind that Cranbrook is delivering around half of the current strategic housing needs which otherwise would have to be delivered in and around other towns and villages in the district.

00:28:59I want to highlight the significance of the majority of the town centre land being in public ownership. The consortium has been very slow to deliver key infrastructure. The consortium has failed to deliver the town centre road, pavements and crossings and one developer has now occupied the remaining retail land on the south side of Tillhouse Road with the South's office without planning consent. To have council control over deliveries, therefore welcome, but that control has to be translated into delivery sooner rather than later.

00:29:29If the council is equally slow to deliver, the frustration of the community will quickly shift from the consortium towards the council. This master plan provides us with an opportunity to move forward. As the report states, it's not a definitive document and is designed to shape and inform delivery as the town centre grows, which I feel is the right strategy. I ask for two things. You endorse the Cranbrook Town Centre Master Plan and by agreeing the recommendation to delegate changes and corrections to officers in consultation with the portfolio holder, there's a recognition that actual delivery of the plan fully involves both ward members and the Town Council.

00:30:06Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bloxham. I think you'll probably find a lot of sympathy from this committee for pretty much everything you've just said. Do any other members outside committee wish to speak? Have any questions? Councillor Collins.

00:30:24Thank you, Chair. I had a lady only last week was complaining to me about Cranbrook, and she complained about a month ago before. She says there's no facilities there for socialising. She has to go into Exeter to do dancing and different things, and Tiberton and Honiton she goes to. she moves there and she is very very disappointed that you haven't got facilities there's no gymnasium there, she has to come to Honington Sports Centre to do her exercises and things you should have made the developers pay for this not expect the ratepayers of East Devon to pay for all this thank you thank you Councillor Collins I don't think there's any suggestion that the ratepayers of East Devon are going to be paying for the town centre to be built is that Miss Billeter so for the expansion of Cranbrook we have a Cranbrook plan development plan document and that includes expectations for the developers to make capital contributions towards a number of facilities in the town centre including a leisure centre and the health and well-being hub we can't

00:31:37Make them pay for the whole of it because that wouldn't be proportionate to the need that they create but yes they will contribute towards that and much of the land that, well all of the land that we don't yet own that's not in public sector control is due to be transferred for a pound essentially. So the developers give us that land value plus they make a capital contribution towards the town council's till house building and also three million pounds towards facilities for Devon County Council to operate services from. Okay thank you.

00:32:11Coming into committee then members. Councillor Davey to start off. Thank you, Chair. It's been very heartening to see the amount of support in the town for green space, social space and active travel and the level of engagement by the people of Cranbrook in the process. So my question is, is this master plan going to be shared with the people of Cranbrook? Are we going to ask for feedback because there's nobody can work out a master plan better than the people who are using those on the ground every day and I appreciate that it it varies quite a lot what is actually there and so it's early days but hopefully people can envisage how those desire lines will work and I'm really impressed with the work that's gone into this and the way it's been structured and the way it's been approached and I was also highly amused by the item on the lobbying by the American car industry when there was a serious danger that cars would be banned from town centre so our life could have

00:33:26Been very different if we did not been successful but there we are but it's good that people want to see certain things at the town centre and the last thing I see you know people asking for is more car parking they seem to want to actually be able to walk and and ride and and get buses into the town centre and I think that's to be applauded so the recommendation is not is just the this the document to be endorsed by this committee and then used as a document by project teams obviously if you wanted to I think we can take the comms pointer away there has been consultation to help develop the master plan but we can certainly look at some comms should a committee decide that it wants to endorse the master plan and with that said then Councillor Blakey Thank you Chair Yes if I can just refer back for a moment to what Councillor Davey has said that there has been consultation upon consultation regarding the requirements and uses of the town centre.

00:34:43One could even say ad nauseum. So I think that we are at the point now where those consultations have been gathered together and considered, and this is part of the result of all that consideration. The layout and the plan as it currently is proposed is very much in line with what the Town Council and the members have in their minds so delighted to see that Councillor Bloxham has made the point and I barely need to repeat it but obviously delivery is the key here funding the development is not anywhere near ready yet so that's going to be a key issue but back to the actual agenda item we've merely asked for endorsement of this plan today and as far as I'm concerned it is fine in its current form and therefore I would like to propose it as written. Okay thank you Councillor Blakey I saw Councillor Fernley's hand first was that seconding do you wish to say anything? Councillor Ingham anything to add? Yes Chair I'm happy to second that.

00:36:00It's important through lessons learned we see all the mistakes that we've made in creating a settlement like Cranbrook and learn from them but in addition to that there's positive learning as well and looking at the demographic as we saw just now of Cranbrook compared to which is really important we see the opportunity with a second U-turn to improve that balance even more if we do that correctly and it's so important that as Councillor Collins said that we do that appropriately because if we do it piecemeal which um Councillor Collins perhaps is alluding to and I I would agree with him then we make these mistakes whereas we have a more coherent and sustainable settlement and community added to East Devon rather than stretching the viability and sustainability of already existing settlements. So I welcome the report. Thank you, Councillor Ingham. Do any other members of committee wish to speak? Bearing in mind we have quite a long agenda to get to now okay in which case we have a proposal from Councillor Blakey seconded by Councillor Fernley for the recommendation as

00:37:36Written in the report all those in favour please I think that's an abstention from Councillor Levine is that correct as you weren't here for the paper yeah so Councillor Levine's not voting but otherwise that's unanimous thank you members and thank you [member of the public] enjoy the rest of your day that That brings us then to Agenda Item 8, the East Devon Local Plan 2020-2040 Consultation Draft Consultation Feedback.

00:38:11Mr Freeman. Yes, thank you, Chair. So this report just briefly summarises the consultation feedback from the additional Regulation 18 consultation that ran from May to June earlier this year. members will have seen some of the consultation feeding through into the reports over the last probably five or six meetings now I think in terms of where it's related to chapters of the plan that you've been considering or specific sites that you've considered so you've actually seen a lot of these consultation comments previously but this report or the consultation feedback report that's appended to this report sort of summarizes the feedback received through that consultation as a whole I think overall we had a good response rate approximately 1,300 respondents through the Commonplace online software and 250 separate emails and letters received and you can see in section three of the report some of the key headlines coming through from that in terms of support particularly for brownfield sites much more than greenfield sites I don't think that's a big surprise but we don't have very many brownfield sites

00:39:19Unfortunately very much more interest in housing sites rather than employment sites across the area and a great deal of support for our town centers and for green wedges as an important tool to prevent settlement coalescence and retain the setting of existing settlements so I won't say more than that at this stage the response report is simply there for members to note at this stage so that it can be published on our website and obviously ask members to be mindful of the feedback received through that as we work through the agenda and future agendas as it needs to obviously inform decision making as we move forward with time thank you chair thank you mr Freeman outside committee questions comments again bearing in mind the length of the agenda No? OK. Coming into committee then, Councillor Jung.

00:40:15Thank you, Chair. Reading the report, there are lessons from how we frame the questions. I think the double negative questions were rather ambiguous, and people misunderstood some of those questions. So if we can be careful, next time we send out a questionnaire, we get the questions very clear and very concise. Thank you.

00:40:47Thank you, Councillor Jung. I see no other hand, so I will move the recommendation that we note the feedback report here. All those members in favour, please. that's unanimous which brings us then to the moment everyone's been waiting for agenda item nine allocation site selections for the emerging East Devon Local Plan and I don't know if I'm looking at mr Freeman to my left or mr dickens to my right mr Freeman um thank you chair so um so this report obviously um a bit of a mammoth report I think it's over 100 pages in total but this is looking to sort of pick up where we've left off in terms of recent meetings in terms of site allocations we've obviously been through throughout September and earlier this month all of the main parts of the district in terms of looking at sites for allocation our members have agreed a number of allocations through that process and moved on from another number of other sites where at that stage you didn't feel comfortable allocating those sites um but as discussed at those meetings those moved on sites still remain in a pool of sites

00:42:02From which further allocations could be made um and and that's really the purpose of this report um the first part of section two talks again about the housing requirements for east heaven obviously important that we understand exactly what number we're trying to achieve before we delve into the sites themselves and you'll see at paragraph 2.3 sorry in the report we've set out um I think it's five options in terms of how we deal with issues around the sort of buffer that we're working to as we talked in the past about the 10% buffer and how those figures are calculated you'll see from the recommendation we're recommending that we adopt option B within those options which is effectively now that we've realigned the planned period so that it's now 2020 to 2024 that we don't apply the 10% buffer across the whole of that period acknowledging that the first four years of that planned period have already elapsed and therefore the need for the buffer doesn't exist over those years because it's there to give the market greater choice and flexibility and resilience to our

00:43:11Housing requirement figures so we're proposing that we no longer calculate a buffer for that period but that we try and maintain a 10% buffer for the rest of the planned period and we think that's the best approach out to those options happy to to go into those alternative options that are set out in the report but for conscious of time and they're obviously set out in the report there so So that would then leave us with a need, a remaining need, that's not been met by previous allocations agreed by the Committee of 2,278 dwellings that would need to be found through this process.

00:43:50You'll see of all the officer recommendations that are before you in this report, if they were all accepted and all those sites were allocated, that would accommodate 2,455. um so that gives a little bit of additional surplus um of 177 homes in terms of members deliberations today as you go through those sites um in terms of uh the sites that are before you today um obviously acknowledge that there's there's a lot of sites still in the process and we needed to find some way of rationalizing what was coming back to the committee so you'll the section 5.2 of the report we've come up with a criteria to try and rationalize what's coming before you for consideration today down to those sites that we think have a reasonable prospect of helping us to meet that shortfall in terms of housing numbers so there's there's 10 criteria listed there I won't go through them all but essentially these are sites that many of which were moved on previously when they were recommended by officers or sites that have

00:44:57Members of specific gas to come back or where we've got additional information or other criteria relate to where they are joined sites that have been agreed for allocation and therefore there's potential to possibly expand or increase those sites or look at the numbers of homes to be allocated in those locations again there are a very small number of new sites included within the process as well so some of those came forward during the consultation I was talking about in the previous item from spring this year this is despite the saying we didn't want additional sites submitted at that stage a small number of sites were submitted at that stage and have now been assessed and included in this report alongside some additional land adjoining sites at honarton which members may recall from the honarton meeting where there had been some confusion about which land was to be included and allocated or recommended for allocation rather um so we've taken uh legal advice on including those within this process because obviously those sites haven't been consulted on through the regulation 18 consultations that we've

00:46:04Undertaken uh the legal advice is that we can consider those in this process now as part of the regulation 19 plan uh there are obviously risks associated with doing that in that obviously we haven't got the benefit of comments from the community on on those particular sites um so members did want to allocate those sites the the proposal is that the regulation they go into the regulation 19 plan that goes out to consultation which then gives you the opportunity to seek views on those sites and they come back the members to further consider and then confirm if they wish to allocate those sites before the the plan then goes forward uh to council and for submission for examination so that there is a still a process for us to consider uh views on those sites that haven't been out to consultation so far I would stress that they are a very small number uh and if I recall I think there's only one of them actually recommended for allocation at this stage so we can touch on those issues when when we come to those particular sites if the need arises

00:47:03The other thing to say on that is obviously um through uh the strategic environmental assessment process uh that we go through in terms of assessing sites we have to consider all alternative options so we would be equally at fault if we didn't consider those sites as we are potentially if we're challenged for not considering them so we're slightly damned either way um so we feel it's better to consider those sites and how they can potentially help to meet us our shortfall in terms of housing numbers um so that's kind of the the sort of preamble and issues to the reports um chair I wonder if members want to debate recommendation one first actually think about before we go into this into the sites themselves so that we're clear exactly on the number of new homes that we're looking to allocate apologies I didn't place this before but it would seem logical to consider recommendation one before we go into the sites themselves to ensure members are comfortable with the housing numbers that we're aiming to achieve here Wendy is on that and I'm

00:48:19Sure we can move microphones a little closer as well you've stolen my thunder to some extent there mr Freeman because I was going to make the same suggestion um that we take recommendation one first um members on committee does anybody have any questions about the options that have been set out Councillor Ingham uh thank you chair I wasn't aware when we moved on on several sites previously that officers were going to vet that in the manner that they have because I can think of one site which I have highlighted which would mean a change of usage that is not to be considered today so I think it should have been considered so Can we come back to that one in a moment?

00:49:10I can raise it when we come to North Exmouth if you like Okay, let's talk about it in a second. I want to get through recommendation one first. Are there any questions on the options that officers have set out at paragraph 2.3 of the report? Councillor Bailey thank you um I would like to ask about um an update on where we are and what we know about um the likely publication of the government's new guidance and whether that could potentially impact um item well any of the report um I know that um we're expecting it well I don't know are we expecting it this year and is that going to change anything or potentially change anything? Thank you. I think the answer is we don't know. Mr Freeman. Thank you chair. We certainly don't know for sure or with any certainty. I think all indications are that they received a lot of responses to the consultation but I think the messaging from government has still been that we should expect it before the end of this year but I think it's going to be very much the tail

00:50:24End of this year by the sounds of it but it's only from sort of rumor and conversation with people um so we don't know for sure fundamentally um I think all we can do is move forward based on our timetable that we've set ourselves which has the regulation 19 version of the plan coming to members on I think it's the 11th of december off the top of my head uh which I think is realistically the quickest it can conceivably be done.

00:50:57I think the NPPF that they consulted on, the transitional arrangements gave us a month from its publication to publish the Regulation 19 version of the plan. So unless they magically publish the NPPF in the next, what is it? In the next couple of weeks, then we can fulfil that timetable. but obviously we don't know exactly when it's coming we don't know exactly what the transitional arrangements might be in the final version they may be longer they may be shorter I think all we can do is is keep to our timetable and make sure we're ready uh to publish if if we need to within that time scale thank you mr Freeman Councillor Loud and then Councillor Jung thank you chair I hope this is the appropriate point to raise it but if you turn to and it follows on a bit from Councillor Ingham's approach. If you look at Appendix 3 in this item, and then you turn to Sidford, which is site 041B, locally that is known as the Sidford Business Park. Back in 2019, it was allocated as employment land. I'm interested

00:52:19In the comments that are in this report which surprised me being in a public document that they're written in that way that said that said I have argued as many locally have argued that this site which was lost effectively when it was allocated as employment land has not delivered that in the past five years under the owners who sought that allocation back then and I would say to this committee you would be well advised to think about changing this into housing which is clearly what the owners of this site wish to do because that's what they've put it on the market for so I hope that's an appropriate comment to raise chair and I suspect looking at your face it's not not quite the right time Councillor Loudoun I sincerely apologise Chair that's alright, no harm done Councillor Jung just a point on the new town I know it's going to be delivered does anybody have any questions about the option set out in paragraph 2.3 of this report as to how we calculate the number of houses

00:53:37That we need to find today are you sure it's about 2.3 Ben Okay, Councillor Ingham. Chair, I'd like Mr Freeman to explain a bit more about option D and examples where other planning authorities have adopted that style of delivery or put into their Local Plan. um I'll start off and then maybe matt might be able to add to this but um I think the concern with this option is um this is about discounting the period of 2020 to 2024 completely from the plan period and having a new start date from the 1st of april this year um I mean I think there's concerns that we could be challenged for um sort of forgetting about those four years basically and trying to lose them in the maths of this, where we could be challenged by other parties for potentially trying to artificially lower the housing figures.

00:54:52So I think it's really the risk of challenge that's the concern with that, which is why we're not proposing to take forward that option. In terms of other authorities that have taken forward that option and how they've got on, I don't know off the top of my head. Matt do you have any comments on that? Yeah I wouldn't cite any examples that I'm explicitly aware of to highlight that are currently relevant. I think the other thing to flag up is that we have an evidence base that's dated from 2020 and to start at 2024 arguably throws a lot of the evidence base out of sync and out of kilter. Chair can I come back this must have originated from somewhere and unless our officers invented this idea.

00:55:44So I am saying you dismiss picking up examples, but if we're supposed to be taking evidence-based decisions, if this is a formula whereby we can rationally deliver fewer houses over a period of time based on what we've already done, I want to know who else has tried this, or where did you get this idea from? I mean, I think the point I'd make in response is we're obviously duty-bound to bring you all alternative options, whether they're good options or not, and whether or not they're grounded in evidence or experience from elsewhere.

00:56:24So it's just another way of calculating it, but I don't think it's a good idea. As I say, I think it runs the risk of challenge for both the grounds of trying to lose those four years in terms of housing numbers, but also in terms of the evidence, which is, as Matt says, you know, we've been working on a 2020 start. That's all of the evidence is based on that. At the very least, if we were going to rebase the plan, we'd need to revisit a lot of that evidence.

00:56:54And then the time scales available, there simply isn't time to do that. So I think it is a very risky option. So if members wanted us to look into that option further and do some research in terms of other authorities that have pursued that approach and how they've got on, we can do that. But I would stress, you know, obviously time is limited and I really don't think it's really a great option.

00:57:23It's there to make sure that members have full knowledge and can see all of the options that we've considered, including the bad ones. Councillor Jung, is it a question about 2.3? Our first question was as well, in minus agreed allocations to date, which is 6902, I believe the new town allocation of 2,500 was included. Is that right? We have certainly included 2,500 homes in this planned period for the new community, yes.

00:57:57Yeah but since then we've moved the date by two years so wouldn't that quantity be increased uh yes so matt might be able to confirm but I think we have added in uh an extra uh however many years it would be three years into the into the plan yes matt's nodding yes so yes it's not two and a half thousand you're quite right for the new community it's whatever the extra couple of years is, which I can't remember off the top of my head, but it's all in the calculations Thank you, if we can have that figure sometime today Councillor Jess Bailey Thank you There is a vast difference isn't there in the number of houses that have to be delivered depending on whether you apply option B or option D and given the fact that we have so many concerns about how we're going to deliver these houses I think it's absolutely essential that we rule out or at least look further at option d I think that's what our our um our residents would expect us to do um so I feel following on from what Councillor Ingham has said

00:59:21Is that you know we need to be clear what what's happening um with other authorities that pursue option D, can we really rule it out? Is there any possibility that it will be successful? Can we take legal advice on option D? So I'm just concerned about going with the recommendation for option B without having fully explored option D. Thank you. Mr Freeman, anything to add? I think the difference is less than 300 homes, unless I'm missing or reading the wrong bit of the report um no I think the need uh in the report and the option d is 18 731 new homes 2024 to 2042 as opposed to 22 000 uh 539 under the proposed favored option b um so it does make a marked difference um as I said it does make a marked difference um um yeah I mean if if if if members want us to look into that in more detail we can I think as the report says there is nothing in government guidance that supports that approach so it is a bit of a uh a winger and I I think in terms of um other authorities um I seem to recall

01:00:51Having a conversation with someone that others were pursuing this approach but I don't think they've got to the point of actually having an outcome from their examination so I think that's also part of the risk but we can we can double check into that and and come back to members um I guess one option will be to to park that um issue if members are uncomfortable with making a decision on that and go through the sites and see where we get to do and come back to that later in the process Councillor Hayward Thank you Chair I sat last week in a room with Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and she was very clear that essentially this new government is doubling down on what the previous government demanded which was housing numbers she spoke to the room and said everyone every authority is going to have to play their part There are no exceptions. There's no deviations. There's no uniqueness. They simply say they are allocating numbers. At one point, there was a Freudian slip that their 1.5 million target over five years was actually 1.5 million over three years. I think that was a Freudian slip because I don't think that's physically possible.

01:02:07I don't think there's enough bricks in the UK to build half a million houses a year. But certainly the focus is on social housing and creating more of a deviation away from affordable to social, allowing councils to build. But the mood music in the room was simply, we are going to build these houses. So a lot of what we are having to do, and we are strategic planning, but strategy only goes so far when you're being compelled to do it.

01:02:34So, any plan I think we put forward, and I appreciate some of the time we're looking at differences of, you know, 100 houses, 200 houses, I think everyone in this room feels that's too many, but you're up against a national government that demands that these are built. And I think we are holding ourselves to a hostage to fortune if we don't robustly look at this and analyse every which way we can, because inspectors will just be applying the law from ministers and will just say, well, your plan failed.

01:03:07And we all know the consequence of that. If we don't take advantage of this interregnum period, the amount of houses we have to deliver will go up. And then this becomes a moot issue because then planning inspectors and developers will have the right to build where they want. So that's the challenge we have. But it's just to explain that from the heart of government, they are allowing us no quarter whatsoever on this.

01:03:35Thank you, Councillor Hayward. Do any other members have any comments? Councillor Howe. It's a bit of a technical question, but on the same front that's just been raised. I see Elmbridge Borough Council yesterday in their Local Plan examination will refuse the right. Well, actually, their Local Plan has been thrown out. They wanted to amend it because they got their figures wrong, funny enough. They wanted to amend it. They wanted 12 to 15 months to go back round consultation.

01:04:07And because the government have enforced a six-month maximum delay on a Local Plan, it's been thrown out. That means they're back to square one, my understanding. If we went this route, and we've got it wrong, if we've got it wrong, I hope we haven't, but if we had, does the Local Plan inspector throwing back out, where does that put us with Regulation 19? Does that mean we have to go back to Regulation 19?

01:04:32Because that would mean in total we'd go back to this number plus 200 more homes per year and everything else I'm just trying to get the risk if you get my meaning if you could explain that please mr Freeman um yes certainly and it's worth adding that um the government have advised the planning inspectorate to be much less pragmatic um in terms of uh the examination of local plans so a number of local plans have taken years in some cases to go through the examination process with authorities given chances to revisit things do further consultation lots of amendments and things um so they are very much putting time scales on that and telling inspector not to be so pragmatic um and to speed things through um so we do need to be mindful of that and uh as Councillor Hayward has pointed out it's sort of read the room in terms of the government's approach to housing delivery which is very much increasing delivery and numbers so So trying to adopt an approach that drives down the figures potentially artificially could be not the way to go if we want to get a plan through examination quickly.

01:05:43But yes, I mean, in terms of plans going to examination and being found unsound, you basically have to go back and revisit your plan. So you drop sort of back from the Regulation 19 stage. you potentially need to look at options to address the issues that are being raised which might lead you to do further Reg 18 consultation, amend the plan, come to a publication draft again and then go to the Reg 19 stage and resubmit so that would cause very significant delay and as you correctly say Councillor Howe in terms of the numbers and the NPPF consultation it would suggest that we would then have to go back we drop out of the transitional arrangements under the NPPF and be required to meet the higher housing figures that are coming forward so it would in effect send us back to square one picking up on that point mr. Freeman could you remind us how much higher those numbers would be well they're effectively 200 times a year more than we're currently planning for so it's a very significant difference and bearing

01:06:51On the challenges that we've had already in terms of finding suitable sites to meet the numbers that we already need to meet, I would suggest that it would make producing a sound plan that meets the housing numbers extremely challenging.

01:07:05Thank you, Mr Freeman. I have Councillor Jess Bailey, then Councillor Ingham. I think the point that I would make is that, you know, I'm perfectly aware of the pressures and the difficulties from central government, but I think given the quantum of the difference between recommendation, sorry, point B and point D, I think it merits more than just a paragraph in a report, even if ultimately we rule it out and decide that, no, we're definitely not going to go with option D.

01:07:38I think we need to be really certain about that because it's not just, you know, 20 homes here or there, it's a really significant difference. And that's not to say that ultimately we might have to be forced to take option B, but I think it's a preemptive approach given how many houses we're talking about. And I think we should be absolutely clear that we have no option. And personally, I'm not convinced based on just one paragraph. So I'll just leave it at that. Thank you.

01:08:08Reading the room then and having everything all right? Okay, I guess we'll find that out in a minute. Reading the room then, I'm going to make a proposal that we provisionally agree that the housing needs be calculated based on option B as set out in the report, subject to clarification being brought to committee subsequently regarding the viability of option D? Does that work for you, Mr Freeman?

01:09:00I mean, we can certainly bring more coverage of option D through to members. I suppose the the risk is what number are we working to today in terms of the housing numbers we're trying to meet in terms of allocations Councillor In him thank you chair can I just check with officers the difference in annual supply between B and T is actually negligible because you're taking four years off that figure is that correct so actually you'd be delivering about the same number per Yes, I think that's the point that Matt was trying to make to me a minute ago, which is that obviously, yes, so it's 18,731 new homes, but obviously it's across the shorter period, so in terms of the annual requirement, the saving is very small, yes.

01:09:59That's important so you understand sorry if I'm because the risk is it's of course confusion but obviously it's 18,731 new homes from 2024 to 2042 as opposed to what are we 22,539 from 2020 to 2042 so the annual figure is is only marginally so to go back to my question earlier then we should be comparing 18.731 to the 19,000 figure in paragraph b not the 22,539 figure because that's not a like-for-like comparison so the actual saving is 269 in terms of what we actually have to put into the plan so it's not a huge okay Councillor Brian bailey thank you chair what I'm about to say won't be too popular but in my opinion it's the truth and nothing but we've got the elephant in the room which is southwest water now we're going to plan for these new houses we all know at the moment we surface water can't cope with the amount of houses they've got you've got a lot of sympathy for I know you're about to say Councillor Bailey but we need to focus on this issue because we have a...

01:11:23Well, I think it's very relevant, Chair. It's not, Councillor Bailey, because we have to make a decision based on the logic of the specific options, not based on the implications of those options, because that would be an unsound approach to making this decision. Wow. I can't agree with that, Chair. That's fine, Councillor Bailey. I'm afraid that's how it is. [member of the public], have you got any clarity to offer us?

01:11:47Yes so apologies I was I was forgetting obviously with the 18,731 figure that the plan period changes so it's shortened by four years so the actual annual figure is not a great deal different from option b which is over an additional four years so that accounts for the difference in in the three and three odd thousand homes between the 18,731 referred to in d in the twenty two thousand five three nine in option B so the difference is only actually two hundred and sixty nine homes between the two options so apologies for any confusion I caused that what you saw the recommendation or the proposal you made had an add-on which I think so necessary I agree with you Councillor Ingham so in view of that then I'm going to propose from the chair that the housing needs be calculated based on option B as set out in the report in view of the minor difference and the risk of going with option D. So that's my proposal. I've made it from the chair so I don't need a seconder. Does anybody

01:12:53Wish to speak further on this point? No, in which case we'll take that recommendation to a vote then. All those members in favour please? 12. Those against two and we have one person missing so that's everyone in which case that is carried then in view of the time we've been going for an hour and 20 minutes now I'm going to suggest that we take a 10 minute break and then come back to the site allocations themselves so we'll reconvene at half past ten okay

01:27:21Folks we're going to get started again with uh agenda item nine the rest of the site selections and to take us in I think we have mr matt dickens trusting the display will work there we are so just by way of uh brief introduction I'm aware committee have seen these slides before but I think it's important to set the context so the site work we've done has gone through a clear logical process you'll see it's a four-step process there leading us down to from stage one identification through to the site selection stage four so there has been a logic in terms of looking at the sites which we've applied on a consistent basis across the district it's important to see that this site assessment work is part of a bigger picture so if you if you like you can see site assessment is the bottom-up component coming into the equation but we've also got the housing numbers and employment requirements so we've spoken a lot about housing numbers this morning you'll see those are there you'll also

01:28:32See the spatial strategy component is there as well so whatever the plan does it needs to reconcile various component parts in drawing conclusions about where to allocate and what to allocate so that's really a very simplified overview of the process we've been through part of the process we've been through and it takes us on to the first settlement on the agenda today which is Limston so you'll see actually with apologies there are a couple of sites off to the left to Exmouth I do apologize a couple of settlements off to the left of this map but Exmouth and on the northern side of Exmouth is the the starting point of the agenda the first site on the agenda is land at Courtland's Cross Exeter which which you'll see on the screen if you look at the map on the top there.

01:29:25LIMPO 7. Okay, thank you, [member of the public]. And to start us off, first up we have a supporter registered to speak, [member of the public]. Councillors, there should not be any further significant housing development on the Expo Peninsula. Education, transport, healthcare, wastewater, etc. are all at breaking point. However, the powers that be impose significant housing allocations, and in not allocating sufficient viable sites now, an additional 200 houses will need to be built each year, and lacking a five-year housing supply results in free-for-all development.

01:30:11Councillor Olliv has stated that the process today is to select the least worst sites. Your approach on 3 September, banking significant housing numbers on less viable sites against recommendations, was a concerning strategy. The debate focused on a few main points. Access. Exmouth Peninsula is accessed by 1A road, the A376, the Branchline Railway and the Estuary Cycle Path, all on the western side. There is a B road through the village of Woodbury and across the common, but this resembles more a rally stage in places than a maintained highway.

01:30:42Therefore, northwestern sites with close proximity to the A376 should be considered least worse, such as this site's proximity to services. There comes a point where a site is so far out from a service centre that it is in an unsustainable location. For example, sites Exmo_17 and EXMO20 are as far from the centre of Budleigh as they are Exmo. Therefore, sites closer to the town centre should be considered least worse, and this site, being as close as the Brixton suburb, is the closest of all today's sites.

01:31:15Greenfield sites will have an impact on the natural environment. The highest protected site locally is the unique Pebblebed Heath, being an internationally designated SAC, SPA, SSSI, NNR and SNA. Long story short, you're not going to get any significant housing much closer than where Expoff is now. So sites not near the Pebblebed Heath should be considered least worse, and this site is one of them. Impact on heritage buildings. You've already selected a site with a grade two star church within it.

01:31:47Any other site under consideration today is less worse. So to maintain strategy, this site should be selected. Flood risk. Many sites within the rainwater catchment upstream of Withercombrook, exacerbating already identified flood risk through eczema. Sites not upstream should therefore be considered least worse, and this site is one of them. You already have the luxury of feedback from the planning department, giving you a heads up on how viable in planning these sites are likely to be.

01:32:14Planning policy is so rigorous. Remember how the HABs reg stopped development in the Axe Valley. This advice should carry significant weight in your decision-making, or I fear you will select sites that will either have significantly constrained numbers or such stringent conditions making it not viable for the developer, or the developer will need to renegotiate on 106 infrastructure obligations to maintain viability. Please do not make the next stages of this process unworkable by restricting viable sites.

01:32:43This will result in even more housing being imposed on the area. Thank you.

01:32:49Thank you [member of the public]. Coming to the objectives then we have [member of the public]. I am here today not only to speak for myself but also as a representative and voice of the hundreds if not thousands of people from both the communities of Exmouth and Limston who have a joint vision and are overwhelmingly and unanimously opposed to any type of development of Limston 7 which officers are suggesting to you. Why, despite all the evidence showing how unpopular this site is for development and East Devon's acknowledgement of this, is it a preferred site and being revisited today? Since these fields were acquired by SLP back in 2008, local people have come together and battle to protect this valuable piece of land from being built upon. We believe and trust that East Devon will protect our environment by preserving this portion of East Devon's most valuable green wedge which has been recognised for over 30 years and is part of our community's heritage and in doing so remove the threat of coalescence. No sort of development here would be seen as sympathetic and it would without doubt be just the start. These fields

01:34:18Denote a clear break in the built-up area of the town and there is a genuine sense and feel of countryside here. The site is far removed from the centre of Limston and from Exmouth and therefore unsustainable. Despite the land owner building enormous banks and planting fast-growing pine trees, the beautiful estuary views are still visible and enjoyed by many walkers along this part of the East Devon Way, and from the estuary you can see the fields. It should therefore definitely remain within the coastal protection area. The National Trust have opposed any development here, and that body of opinion remains the same. Grade 1 listed at Le Ronde is just to the east, and in sight of this land. Even more so now that within the last two weeks, the Devon Bank at the gateway to Exmouth on the Exeter Road turning into Summer Lane has been flattened. The whole approach to and from Exmouth has sadly been altered beyond recognition.

01:35:18We have the National Trust's Lower Holstown Farm to the south which is protected from development. Your paperwork shows the garden wall at Cortland's House, now known as Limson Manor, is Grade 2 listed and that it is opposite this site. Chatter Park, just slightly further west on Courtlands Lane is now locally listed. We are proud to have the Grade 2 listed at Limston Manor, which is the only Michelin-style restaurant in East Eben. Michael Caines is furious with the possibility of this land, which is directly opposite the estate, being developed, as are we. Sadly, the land at Courtlands Barn in Courtlands Lane has recently been allocated, and this will further overload the already highly digested, congested, single-track Courtlands Lane. I note that the suggested access to the Courtlands Cross site would be from an extension of the new non-way roundabout on Exeter Road, but people will still want to travel to the village of Limston by the pretty way Courtlands Lane. Please do not dismiss the wishes of the people, ignore the strong views of the local community.

01:36:25Make your decisions for the right reasons, not because you are under pressure from government. Please use your vote to protect this piece of land for all of us now and for generations to come. Could you turn the microphone off? Sorry, please.

01:36:40Thank you. Next up, another objector. We have [member of the public]. I'm sorry if I mispronounced this. McCausland? McCausland. I was close. Yes, thank you. I'm a resident of Cortlands Lane in Exmouth. The proposed site is within the coastal protection area. The CPA is defined on the basis of visual openness and views to and from the sea and estuary. Its purpose is to provide greater protection against development in sensitive areas such as Limstone 07.

01:37:19This site is situated on high ground separating Limstone to the north and to the south, the valley largely given over to the Lower Halston Farm owned by the National Trust. Average height of the site is approximately 167 feet. It will be visible approaching Limstone from the north on the A376 and on higher ground to the north of the village. The site is clearly visible from the south and west.

01:37:44From the excess estuary, any development will form a backdrop against a green and undulating landscape interspersed by mainly deciduous woodland. Definitely a blot on a wonderful landscape. Light pollution is obviously a concern, but what is at present a dark area? This will have a negative impact on bats, badgers and other nocturnal wildlife, but also the wider community, given its high, visible location. This, I would suggest, is exactly the sort of intrusive development which the CPA is designed to prevent.

01:38:15The Green Wedge was the first to be introduced in East Devon, designed to prevent coalescence between Limston and Exmouth. Exmouth agglomeration has subsumed the villages of Withycombe and Littleham. The Green Wedge has been a huge success in preventing this happening to Limston. If this is breached, then a precedent that will have been established will have consequences elsewhere, as well as for Limston. The ancient church path passes through the site.

01:38:44This linked Limston Parish Church to the wider community on the fringes of the parish. For our forebears, the path underlined the importance of Limston as a central place. For our present population, it's a metaphor for continuity and community. Urbanisation would, of course, destroy this, and this is why there is so much anxiety regarding this proposal. We have lived in Corkegan's Lane for over 30 years. The area, then, was a fertile, open landscape of arable and pasture, a veritable panoramic greenfield site.

01:39:17And I repeat, greenfield, not brownfield, not greyfield, but greenfield. Building on such fine agricultural land seems, at the very least, perverse, given the need to encourage local food production and reduce our carbon footprint. In an uncertain world, such areas must be protected. The site forms a protective zone for wildlife and is in close proximity to the ex-estuary Ramsar site. Overwintering birds are a common site on this land.

01:39:46So, both the coastal protection area and the green wench were designed to protect. Why should we discard them now? I understand the pressure this committee is under attempting to satisfy the Government's top-down planning edicts. Bowing to this pressure, we'll open a Pandora's box full of malign consequences. I urge the Committee not to open this box, but to vote no. Thank you.

01:40:09Thank you. Next up, Councillor Susie Culhane from Limston Parish Council. Limston 7 has gone from second choice to preferred, and now recommended for allocation. despite your own officer's concerns about heritage and landscape constraints and these have not changed. These fields are in the coastal preservation area and the existing Green Wedge 50 meters from the grade 2 listed Cortland's house and closer still to the grade 2 listed garden wall. In your agenda packet states there is a clear visual interconnection between this wall and western parts of the site, and the listed Chater Park also lies close by.

01:41:01The East Devon Way goes across the middle of these fields before joining Cortland's Lane. The site is in a sensitive ecological area. It drains into a small stream flowing into the SSSI-X estuary through a wetland, all vulnerable to pollution from a development of this size. Flooding and water pollution are critical issues in Limstone due to our proximity to SPA, SAC and Ramsar sites in the estuary. In June 2024, we held a public consultation on this new plan and this site received the joint highest opposition by residents.

01:41:37Planning history shows that development here is problematic with two appeals being refused by the Inspectorate, one as recently as 2022, on grounds of maintaining separation between Exmouth and Limstone. One ruling stated that 400 metres green space should be left to prevent coalescence. The development of this site will extend the built form of Exmouth into open countryside areas and erode the physical separation between Exmouth and Limitstone. To include it is contrary to your own policies defining green wedge and coastal preservation areas.

01:42:12Also highlighted from planning history is the unsuitability of Courtland's Lane for increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic. The site is remote from Exmouth and much closer to Lympstone Village Centre, yet access to Lympstone is via an unlit, narrow, single-track lane with few passing places and no footways. Even if a new vehicle access point was punched through a mature hedge and bank off the new Denaway Extension Junction and across the East Devon Way, access to Lympstone's facilities is only feasible by car via the Sadler's Arms traffic lights, which is already a severe pinch point.

01:42:46Lympstone Parish Council understands the pressure this committee faces in allocating sites today we ask you however to consider that Lympstone is already losing valuable countryside and agricultural land to the Dean and Way extension and in future will bear the brunt of additional traffic traveling straight through the middle of our parish on the A376. Building 100 houses on 10 hectares of Lympstone's green fields is a significant threat to our village's rural identity and spirit of place and changing the boundary so that it becomes part of Exmouth does nothing to mitigate the loss or impact of such a large development on our village. Please consider our concerns and arguments carefully. These fields are the green wedge recommended by public inquiry findings and keep us a village. To conclude I quote from your own officers on account of matters to include landscape and heritage constraints the site is not identified as appropriate for allocation for development. So please refuse it. Thank you. Thank you. Could you turn the microphone off, please? Thank you. Lastly, from members of the public then, we have the

01:43:59Landowner slash promoter, [member of the public]. Good morning, members. I'm speaking on behalf of my client, Waterton Park Limited, who are the promoters of the Courtland's Cross site. I'd like to use my time to focus on the issues that were raised on the site last time it was discussed. We've undertaken visioning work and have shared a framework plan with officers which highlights the opportunity the site provides and how it would address the issues raised. It proposes a design and landscape-led scheme focusing built development on the less sensitive south-easterly parts of the site. These are more visually contained by the existing planting along the northern boundary and will be enhanced further by the creation of ecological habitat. This will create an effective buffer in terms of the site's relationship of Lympstone. The provision of new sports pitches and facilities on the western element, which are fully supported by Lympstone Football Club, will minimise any harm to the Lympstone Manor, as well as further reducing landscape and visual impact with the Green Wedge and Lympstone Village. As your

01:45:06Officers recognise in the report, there would remain a significant visual and physical separation between Exmouth and Lympstone, thereby not undermining the purpose of the remainder of the green wedge in preventing coalescence between settlements. In terms of the coastal preservation area designation, we have through previous representations submitted a landscape and visual assessment that identified that views of the site are fully restricted by roadside planting and built development alongside intervening tree cover. This is effective in preventing any visual openness or visual connection with the sea. The transport strategy proposes to deliver access to the A376 Exeter Road via a fourth arm onto the proposed roundabout that will serve the Dean and Way extension. This has been shown to be achievable, subject to detailed design work and will minimise impact on Cortland's Lane that was flagged as a concern at the early meeting and you've heard today. The site is accessible by a range of sustainable modes. There are regular bus services that pass the site frontage and number of facilities nearby allowing for journeys on foot or cycle. The final scheme would provide

01:46:12A number of connection points linking the site to facilities to the south and the wider footpath network. Flood risk and drainage matters would be dealt with through detailed design stage and any subsequent planning application process but the site is within flood zone one and therefore land at lowest risk. Finally at the meeting previously speakers raised the previous refused planning application. However, this was over a decade ago, and the extent of housing challenge that now needs to be addressed by the new Local Plan and the national policy context are both now very different. Instead, the benefits of this scheme and the ongoing work to secure a high-quality, landscape-led development that will minimise harm, in our view, provides significant support for the inclusion in the Regulation 19 plan. Thank you for your time.

01:46:55Thank you. Okay, we come then to committee members. Councillor Davey. It saddens me to see this site develop because I frequently walk through there and I understand the depth of local opposition. And to some extent, I have shared it for a long time. but I have to admit to myself that in terms of sites around Exmouth it is actually one of the least worst and my main interest is sustainable travel I know not everybody is going to use those methods of travel but they're available and if they're not available people don't use them but as we've heard there is a regular bus service that stopped just outside where this development would be.

01:47:56You just need a pedestrian access there to the bus stop and you would have an immediate link to the bus stop. You can get to both Exmouth and Limston by cycling down Courtland's Lane and along the footpath, cyclepath, the accessory, or you can walk to Limston, and I frequently do down the path that goes through the fields I think we heard it, part of the East Devon Way so I think with protection of the footpath which would be mandatory because it's a public right of way and more screening the Green Wedge would still exist even though I appreciate it's nibbling away at it and I understand the concerns of the people of Limston but Withycombe and Littleham was swallowed up long ago and I think with different planning policies now we can still ensure that Limston does not suffer the same fate.

01:49:05We hear a lot about using prime agricultural land for food production. The last time I walked through there it was being used for maize and that maize is going to be used for cattle feed not human beings and I'm not going to keep banging on about this but dietary change could make a big difference in how much land we need and how we use it and I've never seen cattle grazed up there I've only ever seen crops being grown and most of those were for fodder so it's sad to me to say so but I think this is one of the least worst options and I'll probably be lynched when I get back to Exmouth and probably won't be able to show my face in Limston again but I hope you'll forgive me Was that a proposal Councillor Davey?

01:50:03I'd rather hear what others say first but you can I was just checking I didn't hear one but it sounded like I would rather avoid proposing it. I think everyone probably would. Councillor Jung.

01:50:19Thank you, Chair. As ward member, I would like to refuse every application in Nimsden, but I can't. So we've got to look at the least worst. this is actually an allocation for experts as the as the heading says on the map and not for Limston although it is in Limston it's in the green wedge it's in the coastal protection area And as a portfolio holder for environment, I find it very difficult to accept any site that is in the Green Wedge in the coastal protection area.

01:51:07But we're having to accept some because of the stupid figures that we are given by government. So we're having to agree to some sites in natural landscapes, which is the most heavily protected. Looking at the site, the site is going to change dramatically once Deneway Extension is built. there's going to be a roundabout and the hedging has already been removed along there to make way for the character of the countryside from Exmouth to Limston is going to be changing so I'm not going to make a recommendation yet but those are my points I can see it as board member. Thank you.

01:52:08Thank you. Councillor Jung. Councillor Hayward. Thank you, Chair. Again, we come back to the purpose of what we're doing. These are allocations, effectively in principle. We rely on our colleagues on the planning committee as and when these applications come forward to protect our green space, to provide buffers, to provide landscape, to provide drainage solutions, transport solutions, look to our colleagues in Devon to determine the best and safest way to get access to sites so what we are being tasked with today the unenviable task we have is to consider all of the applications that we've already moved on from because we felt there were better alternatives and the numbers didn't stack up so we're back here again today with offers of recommendations and I empathise with every settlement I'm sure everyone in this room when we get to the Axminster applications will empathize and all the speakers from the public will will empathize with what the smallest town in East Devon is having to bear um it's not a thankful task we haven't to do but our hands are

01:53:18Tied somewhat um so again I say that these are allocations only the planning process will allow this authority to apply rules and conditions and caveats upon those who wish to develop them to make sure that the impact on East Devon is minimized as much as possible and the benefit to our residents or perhaps the negative impact on our residents is minimized as far as possible thank you Councillor Hayward I have Councillor Blakey then brian bailey then ingham thank you I'll try to be brief. This is the first of what is a long list of difficult and uncomfortable decisions we're going to have to make today. We already know that the wiggle room we have is negligible. We've been asked by a couple of the speakers to not bow to pressure from government to allocate sites in such sensitive locations, and that's a perfectly understandable point of view. But the consequences of not doing are worse. We put ourselves in a terrible position if we actually don't arrive at an aggregate number, which is going to meet

01:54:37Government's requirements. So, as much as it pains me to say so, I think this is one of the less worse and if you're looking for a proposal then I'm going to stick my neck out and propose it okay thank you Councillor Blakey constitutionally then I need to look for a seconder for the proposal to allocate limbo 7 Councillor How do you wish to speak yeah and first off the presentations from the ejectors and the parish council are fully understood and fully accepted it's It's not that we don't. We actively want to approve this.

01:55:18We just have very little choice. And that's the fundamental issue. It's in a green wedge. It is in the coastal preservation zone. We get that. But already we've allocated land in the national landscape at the other side of Exxon. A planning inspectorate, if we didn't allocate this land, would look at the other and go, well, excuse me, you know, one's worse than the other. You better not have that and we'll be in real trouble.

01:55:42I mean yeah as time goes on life changes and that's what's happening here this is one of the least least worst of really bad bunch and I'm just yeah well I'm not happy to second it but I don't think we have any choice so thank you thank you Councillor How Councillor Brian bailey thank you thank you chair um there's no doubt about it that given the opportunity we'd all turn our backs on this and say no thank you but we haven't got that opportunity however we're still going to be realistic and this is the gateway to limestone or the gateway to excellent depending on which direction you're going and it's going to be very very prominent and it's going to stick out like a sore thumb the road access is absolutely terrible you can't pass two cars down that lane at all there's one or two parking parking spaces and I I'm not in favor at all and if the children are going to walk to school it's a hell of a way from there to the nearest school which is Exeter road

01:56:58And the poor child will be soaked through the skin so the active travel I understand where Ollie's coming from, but in practical terms, winter is coming, it's going to be pouring with rain, you're not going to send your seven-year-old down that main road on a bicycle to go to school. It's just not going to happen. So people will use their cars. I think this is going to promote car use even more, because it's so far out of the time. And I can't support it, Chair. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Bailey. Or do I need to call you lord stark after the winter is coming um point Councillor Ingham uh thank you chair you've heard the weight of a public opinion on this which has been prevalent for decades and do bear in mind we're meant to represent public opinion uh where they're representatives on this planning authority so we should be mindful of their hopes their aspirations their expectations and meeting with our policies and for 30 years that's been fairly consistent what would definitely been consistent even to the point of a

01:58:14Public hearing where the the appeal inspector recognized the value of this land to the local community and that it should be protected that's why it remains in Green Wedge and it was the first Green Wedge to be identified by this council and the others will follow because this area was identified as being good reason for landscape protection to prevent coalescence we've heard of the East Devon Way going through the center of this and the whole point of having a route like that nowadays is for the enjoyment of local communities so if you go and build houses in the middle of that then that's that's that's going to destroy that that aspiration and enjoyment of local facility it's in the coastal preservation area I was shown last week a A photograph looking across the land that we, I believe, foolishly in Courtlands Lane allocated recently, looking down across towards Dawlish Warren.

01:59:27And it was beautiful. And what a shame that we've trashed that couple fields, those couple fields. We certainly should not be doing similar here. Farming use. Yes, it is used. Currently, that's for corn. That's because the farmer uses that corn to feed his cattle in Woodbury Parish. Yes, and he farms 800 acres. And thank God, that's one farm that still does. Previous, there was pigs there and some of the fields were for sheep previously.

02:00:03So, without doubt, you know, it's rich land. So we should not be turning our nose up at that. And so there is a great heritage value of that site as a landscape next to Chatter Park, next to Limston Manor, next to that wall and adjacent in close proximity to Alaronde. And I would suggest to you, when that new link is built, it'll be even more precious to hold on to the ability to go from Summer Lane down Courtlands Lane, Southern Lane, and into the village in a tranquil landscape, not trashed by accommodating this site.

02:00:50I think it's desperately important that certain areas we do protect that landscape and you've heard from previous speakers for this particular debate we have to provide housing, yes and we have to provide housing on the right sites, I'm not suggesting we don't develop in sites and say that, oh, we're not going to develop any of the sites in Limston or Exmouth and Viron or Woodbury. Yes, but this one is sacrosanct not only to Limston but to Exmouth as well.

02:01:31They get it. Some of us get it. So I'm really shocked that anyone would want to compromise this root cause for green wedges in East Devon. That's where it stemmed from. And so I'll be calling for us to move on again, if that's what we do, or to refuse this one, because it really isn't the right site for allocation, Chair. I'm afraid we already have a proposal, but if that one falls, I'll come to Councillor Ingham.

02:02:04Just picking up that point about moving on versus refusing, we will do the vote to refuse once we've been through all of the sites and got the numbers. So for the moment, it is still move on. But by the time this meeting concludes, we will have voted to reject all of the sites that we do not allocate. We just can't do that until we know we have the numbers.

02:02:26With that said, I don't have any further speakers who've not already are. Now I have some speakers who've not already spoken. So I'll do Councillor Jess Bailey, Councillor Brown, then Councillor Hayward.

02:02:36Thank you um so I've listened really carefully but I just I really and I know I know about the pressures I struggle on landscape and heritage grounds because this was I believe in september recommended for not allocation is that right ed on landscape and heritage constraints it was recommended for allocation there was an error in the technical report yeah so it was it was recommended for allocation by officers okay so I just struggle I think on the on our fiduciary duty to protect the landscape I think it will have a significant impact on the landscape and the heritage assets and I I just I can't I can't support it I understand the pressures we're under but I can't I can't support the allocation of something that's going to think it's going to be really harmful thank you Councillor Bailey Councillor Brown well I've heard anything that would make me support the proposal that you've made um you know it's in a green wedge it's in a coastal exclusion site um you know it's too far away from the school in

02:03:59Winter as Brian says there's nothing there that goes with this site and I know what your answer is going to be if not there were you're bound to say that what about the 113 sites that we've passed so far that are not in exclusion zones are not in green wedges are not in a national landscape there's 6,000 properties there what's wrong with them why have we got to bring forward things that are in a green wedge and don't comply as such and would never get through planning normally.

02:04:36I mean, as there was a question there, what's wrong with them? The same things the committee have voted to move on from them because of. All of those sites have come with a few exceptions. All of those sites have already been through. And I think you've been here pretty much all of every meeting, Councillor Brown. What's wrong with Green and Beck? They will come back. the criteria for the ones that we have brought back are on the agenda, you've heard about them from Mr Freeman, you've read about them in the papers and the sites are there for members to consider allocating it just happens that this one is first in the list I have Councillor Hayward next Thank you, just a point of clarity really if I could ask you and the officers so this is a plan to 2042 So if this particular site, one of many on the list, is rejected, moved on again, does that mean, this is the purpose of everyone's clarity, that between here and 2042, this can never come back?

02:05:42This is just for this plan so essentially there is a field below it, there's a field to the east of it, there's a field above it so if those fields are now not in this discussion once the Local Plan is made if those landowners come forward and say actually I'm going to develop my land can they submit, can they not submit or are they essentially is this the cut off now until 2042, if government says we need another half a million homes the process begins again so there's some clarity on what this is doing for the allocations in East Devon is this the bill on endell or is a case of if someone has a field and suddenly missed the allocation they missed the HELAA they missed the call for sites and actually if you had a change of heart I don't want to farm my land anymore I'd like to turn it to houses can they do it between now and 2042 mr fiend I think the answer is yes isn't it well I mean this is an allocation process

02:06:42For this plan we will need to produce another plan before we get to 2042 so there'll be another process with a call for sites and sites can come forward and be considered so I certainly wouldn't say this rules out of sites between now and 2042 this is just about plans in this plan period once this plans adopted we'll have to review it five years later and potentially do another one at that point which will then extend into the future and of course anyone can make a planning application at any time how it will be viewed is influenced by the Local Plan and whether or not it's within settlement boundaries within green wedges and things but you know if we don't have a five-year housing and supply at some point in the future then it could come forward again so you know never say never these sites could all come back at some point either as a planning application as a future allocation in the future plans I have Councillor Howe then Councillor Ingham thank you mine's more technical question

02:07:42And just for clarity I just want Councillor Ingham to explain obviously his addresses Courtland's Lane I just want to make sure he is not biased in any way living on the lane we are talking about effectively I'm sure he isn't but for clarity for the public I think we just need that explanation yeah I do live in Cortland's Lane. I'm not adjacent to the site in question. I checked with Limston Paris Council on this matter and said, what's your expectation of our community of me? And I even got an email saying, you better speak on it. So it was quite clear what their expectation of me is and how as a community they judge my ability to speak on the matter quite clearly.

02:08:29Can I take the opportunity to carry on and that is to say that was a great question that Councillor Hayward put forward bear in mind by debating this in 2024 in a plan that lasted to 2031 so it's quite clear nothing sacrosanct and we can revisit this as we can all of the sites that we've considered And perhaps another emerging Local Plan in, say, 10 years' time, Chair, we'll do it in a different way.

02:09:08And we'll check and make sure that all landowners are fully aware of the opportunity because I'm sure, and perhaps Councillor Hayward was alluding to this, many sites that landowners didn't actually realise this system was going on and that they should have partaken if that was their want to do. So, yes, it's an important question, and it doesn't mean it's sacrosanct. It just suggests that for a lifetime of five to ten years, it's likely that our policies will protect it until we work on the next plan.

02:09:43Thank you, Chair. I think Mr Hunter wanted to come in. Thank you, Chair. It's just to say I understand Councillor Ingham from speaking to Mr Freeman that you live very close to this site and I think if that's the case my view would be that you are likely to have an effects of prejudicial non-disclosable registrable interest and I think that's something that you should declare if that's the case.

02:10:13You are then able to speak as you have done but my advice would be to you not to take part in the debate and to vote. So I mean you've already taken part in the debate to be quite honest with you so at this stage now I would just suggest don't vote on this matter and leave it to your colleagues otherwise I think that you could have a complaint put in against you Thank you I'll face that when it comes Thank you Chair Okay, do any other members wish to speak?

02:10:43No okay in which case then we have a proposal from Councillor Blakey seconded by Councillor How to allocate site site limp o7 all those members in favor please I count eight can we have hands nice and high please no you're correct seven those members against please I see five and those abstaining. I see two. That is carried, therefore. Okay, that brings us then to site LIMP 08. Anything to add from officers? Just very briefly to say that this site, one of the reasons it was brought back was concern over highway access and you'll see in the paperwork that Devon County Council have indicated with the new link between Hullam Road and the A376 Exeter Road development would be acceptable.

02:12:05Okay, thank you [member of the public]. Public speakers then, we have [member of the public] again. Councillors, there should not be any further significant housing development on the Exeter Peninsula. Education, transport, healthcare, wastewater, etc are at breaking point. However, the powers that be in place significant housing allocations and are not allocating sufficient viable sites now, an additional 200 houses will need to be built each year. And lacking a five-year housing supply results in free-for-all development.

02:12:45Councillor O'Reilly has stated that the process today is to select the least worst sites. Your approach on the 3rd of September, banking significant housing numbers on less viable sites against the recommendation, was a concerning strategy. Your debate focuses on a few main points. Access. Exmouth Peninsula is accessed by 1A Road, the A376, the Branchline Railway, and the S3 cycle path, all on the western side. There is a B Road through the village of Woodbury and across the Common, but this resembles more a rally stage in places than a maintained highway.

02:13:16Therefore, northwestern sites with close proximity to the A376 should be considered least worse, such as this site. Proximity to services. There comes a point where a site is so far out from the service centre that it is in an unsustainable location. For example, sites Exmo_17 and EXMO20 are as far from the centre of Budleigh as Exmo. Therefore, sites closer to the town centre should be considered least worse.

02:13:42And this site is closer than many. Greenfield sites will have an impact on the natural environment. The highest protected site locally is Pebble Beds Heath, being an internationally designated SAC, SPA, SSSI, NNR and SNA. Long story short, you're not going to get any significant housing much closer than where Exmouth is now. So sites not near the Pebble Bear Teeth should be considered least worse. And this site is one of them.

02:14:09Impact on heritage buildings. You have selected a site with a grade two star church within it. Any other site under consideration today is less worse. So to maintain strategy, this site should be allocated. Flood risk. Many sites are within the rainwater catchment upstream of Wyvercombe Brook. exacerbating already identified flood risk through eczema. Sites not upstream should therefore be considered least worse and this site is one of them.

02:14:35You already have the luxury of feedback from the planning department giving you a heads up on how viable in planning these sites are likely to be. Planning policy is so rigorous nowadays so this advice should carry significant weight in your decision making or I fear you will have selected sites that will either have significantly constrained numbers or such stringent planning conditions making them not viable for developers or the developer will need to renegotiate on 106 infrastructure obligations to maintain viability. Please do not make the next stage of this process unworkable by restricting viable sites. This will result in even more houses being imposed on the area. Thank you. Thank you [member of the public]. Now to an objector [member of the public]. A recent FOI request

02:15:41To prove that there are 491 vacant dwellings in Exmouth and over 500 flats or houses up for sale. In the Local Plan objectives, EDDC list promoting vibrant town centres. So with some renovation and developers' investment, the houses that you seek are already built. Then last month, you agreed the building of the in excess of 600 new houses. So that's 1,600 from Exmouth and Limston alone. Out of all of East Devon, we all know that there's still capacity at Cranbrook and in the location highlighted between West Point and Farringdon.

02:16:17Spaces there which can be genuinely planned are closer to employment and extant infrastructure and generally more sustainable. Yet still we live under this constant threat that we need you to stop. Any development of Limston 8 would be an insidious example of the urban creep of which your colleague, Council of Faithful, warned you so vividly on the 20th of August. Limston and Exmouth are two separate settlements and the residents of both wish that to remain so.

02:16:49EDDC appear at times to think it's OK to just slide boundaries of, you know, planning allocation lines, parish boundaries, built-up area boundaries etc and think we won't notice. We live there, we do notice. Our families have lived there for generations and we won't accept it. The prevention of coalescence between Limston and Exmouth is vital. The desecration of the Wotton Valley breaks my heart. The vanity project threat of the Dean on Link Road passes immediately adjacent to Limston 08 and it's already an area under huge threat and scrutiny. Devon County Council don't want houses built here because of access issues. Their ecology report includes the existence of specific batch roosting sites and soil buntings at this location. These are highly threatened species legally protected by Natural England. Deluding yourselves that these creatures can be rehomed in mitigation habitats off-site would be laughable were it not so serious. The importance of sustaining ecosystem services for human health and well-being cannot be overemphasised. I highlight the EDDC Local Plan Objective 8 to protect and enhance our outstanding natural environment and support an increase in biodiversity. This site drains into

02:18:11The Wootenbrook catchment area and the threat of flooding Limston is covered by others here today but it is also the negative impact on water quality that must be avoided because whilst in both Limston 8, 9 and 10 there are specifically low base flow tributaries which run through these sites of greater vulnerability of pollution. The 2022 House of Commons report on water quality in rivers made clear the damage to human health and roads picked up by chemical and microplastic pollutants.

02:18:45The attenuation ponds might stop some flooding of our village but they won't improve the quality of the water in which we drink, bathe and swim in. I strongly request you oppose development of this site.

02:18:58Thank you. And the last public speaker for this site then, Councillor Culhane from Linston Parish Council. Hello again. This site is within the current green wedge. It's another one. So the policy states, development cannot be committed if it will conflict with the aims of the policy to maintain the open character of a green lung, contributing to health and well-being for residents, providing valuable wildlife corridors and habitat, and protecting areas of landscape importance and visual amenity.

02:19:46It's situated on the southern slope of Wotton Valley, currently within open countryside and visible from Wotton Lane, Lympstone. Both Lympstone and Summer Lane residents have recorded a variety of wildlife species on a flight route from the top end of Wootten Lane, about 250 metres away. There's a list of 34 different bird species which are regularly spotted here, including barn owls and tawny owls, as well as bats, nuthatches and the occasional field fair.

02:20:18In addition, many other wildlife have been spotted in those fields between Wootten Lane and Summer Lane. Pheasants, stoats, weasels, field mice, bulls, deer, moles, foxes, a variety of butterflies and moths, occasional dragonflies and damselflies, many species of bee, beetles, including stag beetles. The site is very close to the Grade 1 listed Pointing View Chapel and Mance. The community here are already very concerned about the impact of the Deenan Way extension.

02:20:47I spoke to a resident who lives at Pointing View on Saturday. She was appalled to hear that this site is on the agenda, citing concerns about the loss of wildlife and Summer Lane becoming a housing estate. Even with access directly off the Dinaway extension, this will be a difficult site to build out. It's a small pony paddock earmarked for 14 houses, which, given the known flood risk, will require a suds and also a septic tank because Summer Lane is not on main sewerage.

02:21:19The site is remote, being at the far northern end of Exmouth, with access to services only feasible by car due to the presence of busy roads. This site drains into the Wootenbrook catchment along small territories with very low base flows, making them very vulnerable to pollution. Surface water runoff is high in this area, and this increases the risk of pollution. And if members want more detail, the Upper Wootenbrook Catchment Study Phase 2 report and the limestone flood risk model will lay it out for you.

02:21:51The Diener Way extension poses a risk in itself to the Wottonbrook catchment in terms of additional surface water and road runoff. This development will only increase that risk. From a Lympstone perspective, this is another site which, although currently in Lympstone Parish, is allocated to Exmouth, which we understand is over-target on housing numbers. There is no benefit to Lympstone, but the opposite, an increased risk of flooding and pollution, loss of wildlife and countryside. Please refuse it. Thank you.

02:22:24Thank you, Councillor Culhane. Coming into committee then, members. Councillor Ingham. Thank you, Chair. I'll just remind members that this is on Summer Lane, if you know Summer Lane, cutting across from Holland Road to the A376. and you've heard of Pointing View Church if you've ever been down Summer Lane you might have seen it and there's also Alarond there so development in Summer Lane probably last time goes back to probably the 50s for three bungalows that are there and all of the other developments there have been prior to that date So if you are to sanction development in this lane, you're breaking a tradition, an attitude of, I would say, probably at least 70 years.

02:23:31And do you find a chapel, by point in view, sacred, worthwhile? Do you find Alaron something to protect and respect? If you do, if you find that landscape east of the A376, because I know some members don't find the landscape west of the A376 to be worth protecting. But if you think that we shouldn't be encroaching north of Summer Lane, which is a significant boundary, that's the boundary of Exmouth, and building towards the extension just for the sake of it, because you can, well then you should be rejecting this one.

02:24:26So I'm going to propose that we move on. At that point, constitutionally, I need to seek a seconder. Does anybody wish to second the proposal to move on? No? Okay. Councillor Brown, do you wish to speak? Okay, thank you. Councillor Jung.

02:24:49Thank you Chair. This site is just off Holland Road with a small caravan park between the Holland Road and this site. It's just down off Summer Lane which I understand is proposed to be stopped up for and used as access only and cycleway and then the north side of it will be the denum way extension. So it's going to be cut off dramatically from the rest of those fields so there's that to be taken into account.

02:25:37Looking at all the other sites in Limston and this side of Hexmouth, it's possibly one of the least worst, but I won't be making a comment on if I would support it or not at the moment.

02:26:06Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Jung. Members? Is that a hand, Councillor Howe? You're pointing at Councillor Davey. Councillor Davey. Yeah, this is another area that I know well. Point of view, church actually does have quite a few houses built around it at the moment to house people associated with the church. But I feel as though this would be a small isolated development of 14 houses. I think it should only come forward if and when the Denon Way extension is delivered, because I think an exit, a vehicle exit onto Summer Lane is not a good idea.

02:26:56There's going to have to be some access only onto Summer Lane if indeed the Dinam Way extension is completed and Summer Lane does become, as was promised to me, a walking and cycling route. It'll still have to be access only but perhaps with a barrier down the middle you can ensure that it is access only because at the moment it's widely used as a cut through. But what bothers me is the isolated nature of this site and I don't see it being close to any other amenities and I see people jumping in their cars to get to any kind of entertainment any kind of social interaction so at the moment I'm not very happy about allocating this site it's a relatively small number and I I think we can afford to move on from this one, even though I didn't support Councillor Higgum's proposal.

02:28:05[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.]

02:28:57So, you know, I mean, it is 14. I'm not overly concerned about this, but the points being made are the same time and time again. And unfortunately, a lot of the comments are not accurate. And it is a shame. But understandable, I suppose, is the best way I can put it. I mean, this is a really awkward little site, But we've got the Dinnum Way extension cutting it off, the new boundary, if you get my meaning.

02:29:25Councillor Bingham's point of Summer Lane being the boundary. Actually, Dinnum Way extension will be the new boundary. And that's the question that's got to come. But we'll see. Do any other members wish to speak? No? Okay. In which case, we have a proposal that's validly made and seconded. Don't ask me who made it and seconded it, because I don't remember. counselling and made it seconded by Councillor Brown thank you mr hunter um all those members in favour of moving on from this site please I count eight yeah hands again please nice and high folks those against those voting sorry I know that that was that was my fault actually because I said those against um because I meant those against this site being allocated which is of course not what we're voting on those in favour of the proposal to move on please sorry that's my error I see five on the left, three on the right, which is eight, and those against, and those abstaining, the remainder, which is six.

02:30:55That site is not allocated at this time against officers' recommendation. Okay, that brings us then to Exmouth 04, land at Marley Drive. And we have again [member of the public]. Do you have anything to add to your previous comments, [member of the public]? Okay, I think we can safely say those are noted. Do you wish to say it all again, just conscious of time? If you want to speak again, then you can speak again.

02:31:40You're registered to speak, that's fine. councillors there should not be any further significant housing development on the express peninsula education, transport, health care waste water etc are at breaking point however the powers that be impose significant housing allocations and in not allocating sufficient viable sites now an additional 200 houses will need to be built each year and lacking a 5 year housing supply results in free-for-all development Councillor Olive has stated that the process today is to select the least worst sites. Your approach on the 3rd of September, banking significant housing numbers on less viable sites against recommendation, was a concerning strategy. Your debate focuses on a few main points. Access. Exmouth Peninsula is accessed by 1A Road, the A376, the Branchline Railway and the S3 Cycle Path, and all on the western side. There's a B Road through the village of Woodbury and across the common, and it's not a very well-maintained highway.

02:32:37Therefore, north-western sites with close proximity of the 376 should be considered least worse. This site's location is less worse than sites you've already selected. Proximity to services. There comes a point where a site is so far out from the service centre that it is an unsustainable location. Therefore, sites close to the town centre should be considered least worse. This site location is far from Exmouth Centre, but it's similar to sites you've already selected.

02:33:03Greenfield sites will have an impact on the natural environment The highest protected site locally is the unique petal bear teeth being an internationally designated SAC, SPA, SSI, NNR and SNA Long story short, you're not going to get any significant housing much closer than where XMF is now so sites not near the petal bear teeth should be considered least worse This site's location is less worse than the site you've already selected Flood risk Many sites are in with the rainwater catchment upstream of Wythcombe Brook exacerbating already identified flood risks through Exmouth Sites not upstream should therefore be considered least worse This site drains into Wythcombe Brook similar to sites you've already selected You already have the luxury of feedback from the planning department giving you a heads up on how viable in planning these sites are likely to be Planning policy is so rigorous Remember how the Habs regs stopped development in the Axe Valley?

02:33:57The advice should carry significant weight in your decision making or I fear you will select sites that will either have significantly constrained numbers or such stringent conditions making it not viable for developers or the developer will need to renegotiate on 106 infrastructure obligations to maintain viability. I do not believe the 10% headroom is sufficient given the complex planning constraints of several of the sites and that will become apparent.

02:34:25Please do not make the next stage of this process unworkable by restricting viable sites. This will result in even more housing being imposed on the area.

02:34:36Thank you. Thank you, [member of the public]. Coming to the objections then, [member of the public]. Morning, councillors. This site is unsustainable. The internal length of the site is 700 metres. Add this to the distance from the nearest facilities in Pines Road, and it makes the site too far away to access other than by car. Higher Marley Road is used as a rat run for commuter traffic to and from Exeter.

02:35:16The northern section is very narrow, and given volumes of traffic, it's highly inappropriate to add even more traffic. It is a dangerous road to cycle, and I'm sure some of our councillors will be able to confirm that. There are significant issues with access onto this road site, onto higher Marley Road, just at the access point. It's just not feasible. Surface water flooding is a very significant issue, and locals know that there are springs in this area.

02:35:46I think if you did a percolation test there now, you would find that it just remained full of water. Even an attenuation upon there will be a profound impact on flows into, won't have a profound impact on the flows into Goodmore's site and eventually down into Little and Brook. This area is of ecological importance with numerous rare species including Barbicel bats. Badgers and deer are frequently seen in this area which forms a wildlife corridor between Bystock Woods and North Limstone.

02:36:21Part of the site is designated in the priority habitat inventory as deciduous woodland and would need to be protected. A report by the Woodland Trust in 2016 indicates the area incorporates ancient woodland and open wood pasture, the lawns, which contains numerous veteran lochum oaks, I think more than 10. Although the proposed development won't build directly on these areas, its proximity and location of attenuation bonds will cause irreparable harm.

02:36:59I'm sure most of you know the NPPF requires local planning authorities to review development that would lead to the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitat such as ancient woodland or veteran trees. any potential access to the site via Mali Drive is on the north side is inappropriate. Devon Highways have already mentioned this. These are unique reasons for not approving this site for inclusion. They are not just issues of minutia that can be dealt with at the planning stage. Please remember the site was rejected in 2016 for these very reasons. Thank you very much. Thank you mr roberts um just for clarity mr Freeman before I come to the final public speaker um is the proposal or the recommendation from officers to allocate all of the site or part of it uh no chairs it says on the screen it's the southern parts of the site that we're proposing to allocate so not the sort of north eastern parts so just to clarify it's the proposal is to allocate the southern parts of the site only as shown on the screen and uh what what's the what's the boundary of that

02:38:22Southern part of the site is it the pinch point that's sort of two-thirds of the way up yes so that pitch point uh further northeast of that isn't uh proposed as part of the allocation it's the southern part to the south of that pinch point okay in which case the access would be from further south on High Marley Road adjacent to Bystock? Yes, that's right. OK, thank you.

02:38:46The final public speaker then I have, [member of the public]. It's interesting, I've just learnt about Exmo_04 two minutes ago. Not a good start really. I'm going to concentrate on the land below Marley Drive, but I think you've just said that that's not going to be included. But it's practical that it shouldn't be included anyway because when you take the protection areas on one side and the buffer zone around Marley Woods on the other side, you've ended up with a strip of land about 20 to 30 metres wide.

02:39:27So it's very impractical. But now talking about the land below the pinch point, as you say, which is a point of Marley Woods, the land here contains, as my previous speaker said, ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees. The government statement dated 14th of January 2020 says that the Natural England and Forestry Commission Standing Advice is a material planning consideration for local planning authorities. I'll just repeat that it's a material planning consideration for local authorities.

02:40:11The Standing Advice that's referred to states you should refuse planning if the development will result in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees unless, and this is the big one, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons. The statement goes on to say that ancient woodlands and trees are irreplaceable. You should not consider compensation measures of part of your assessment of the merits of a development proposal.

02:40:48So the question today is very simple. Are there wholly exceptional reasons to include Exmo_04 in the Local Plan or not? Many alternative sites and schemes have been identified, so the answer must be no. There are no wholly exceptional reasons to include Exmo_04 in the Local Plan, and therefore it should be excluded. You have allowed a concrete jungle to be built at Goodmores, and now you've added Lympstone 14 to that jungle.

02:41:23Now is the time to say enough is enough and put wildlife conservation ahead of other considerations for Exmo_04. I put it to you that Exmo_04 should be removed from consideration fundamentally.

02:41:38Thank you. Thank you, [member of the public]. and we have Councillor Brian Bailey in committee.

02:41:48Thank you, Chair. I'm very familiar with this area and what previous speakers have said about the state of the ground and the many freshwater springs there is quite correct. So it's going to make building out a considerable problem. But worse than that, there's no pavement. there's no structure for a cycle lane no pavement for the children to walk to school and it's so far away from any services that it's not going to be viable it's very nearly on the common and it's only a matter of a few months ago that we turned down an application for someone to put two clamping facilities in their garden purely because it was wet closely to the Pebble Red Heaves.

02:42:41Well, this I eventually suggest it's right on the Pebble Red Heaves and for that reason alone it shouldn't be built on. Also, the nearest shop is going to be probably Brixington, which is, as a crow flies, probably just make the required distance. But as you're walking or attempting to walk it or drive it, It's going to be well over the distance for what is considered to be sustainable.

02:43:10Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Bailey. Mr Freeman, what facilities are coming forward in the Goodmores development adjacent? Well, the planning permission includes for some employment spaces and a sort of neighbourhood centre. So it is envisaged there'll be some facilities there which will be within walking distance. And obviously there are opportunities to create walking routes, walking and cycling routes into that site because it shares a boundary with Courtland's Cross development.

02:43:44So there are opportunities there if this site were to come forward. But obviously it forms part of a wider area as we'll see as further sites are on the agenda that potentially need master planning together if members are minded to allocate them.

02:44:00Thank you. You've preempted my next question, so I will come to Councillor Ingham. Chair, you've heard the reasons why this shouldn't be selected. I mean, ancient woodland and ancient trees being prevalent within that site. And that's including in the half that we are considering. then without doubt we've already allocated more than enough sites for Exxon. We had a target which we've already exceeded by about two, three, yes it is true because we considered on the 3rd of September we considered about 1,400 but we wanted to go forward and we exceeded that by 140 I think it was and we've added to this environment already this morning I think it's time we leave Exmouth alone if this means that we're going to be promoting commuting which as you've heard from the speakers if you develop on this site you're going to be promoting commuting because we haven't got facilities there, you've got the infrastructure to commute to Exeter, but that's not what we should be promoting, Chair.

02:45:26We should be promoting local commuting within each community. And Exmouth's big enough that we can do that succinctly, coherently, over the next 10, 20 years, but doing this will exacerbate that and you're actually promoting all the actions we don't want to with regards to long-term sustainability within East Devonshire. So that's why I would propose that we move on. I'm going to make an intervention at that point.

02:46:08There was no target set for Exmouth. Officers recommended a set of sites to come forward, and you're correct. We did allocate more than that. No specific targets have been set for any of our towns, any of our villages. That's not how we've done this. It's simply not true. If you want to make the argument that the quantum of houses that we've allocated at Exmouth is enough and that more would be too much, okay, fine, you're entitled to that view, but we haven't set targets. We categorically have not. Councillor Jung.

02:46:41Thank you. My view has always been that the entrance to Exmouth along Holland Road should be protected. It's got TPO trees on either side and any development along that road would be detrimental to Exmouth and to the area. So I definitely do not support Exmo_04, and I would like to propose that we move on from this site.

02:47:17Thank you. Councillor Ingham has already proposed, so is that a second? I second it. Okay. On the ancient trees point, Mr Freeman, am I right in thinking we've already allocated sites which have ancient trees on and that at a planning application stage, any proposals that did come forward that involved risk to damage of removal of those trees wouldn't be looked on favourable under national and indeed our own policy?

02:47:43Yeah, no one's proposing that we remove ancient trees or veteran trees. They are a constraint which will limit the developable area of this site and other sites that are in this process. But you'll see we're proposing, what is it, 50 dwellings on this site, which is a relatively small number for the size of the site. And you'll see in your papers you've been given a master plan, or there's a master plan that the developers have submitted to us, which we're not commenting on, that's for the application process, but it does show how they propose to develop the areas of the site that are not affecting those historic trees and ecological assets of the site.

02:48:25Those are details that would be a result of the planning application process, but we are content that there is sufficient developable land that doesn't impact on those assets within that site area to accommodate the 50 homes that we're proposing to allocate here. Is it a direct comeback, Councillor Jung? Yeah, it's not the trees per se because, as I say, they are protected, but it's the setting of those trees.

02:48:54To have a load of trees which are protected with houses just beyond it would destroy the visual aspect of the setting of those trees. Councillor Hayward.

02:49:09Thank you, Chair. Now, I suppose what I'd really like to say is ask members when they make factual statements, and this isn't aimed as a criticism of any particular councillor, but please, before you make a statement that such and such is this distance away, please check your facts. From this site, I've just Googled, look at Google map, there's Morrison's Daily, 0.64 miles away, which walking distance is seven minutes.

02:49:42Can we have sorry folks can we have quiet from the audience please okay so I I I will suspend the meeting thank you so I appreciate members of the public may not wish to agree that but this is a google map this is an analytic computer program which says if you go up jubilee drive down deanham way and then up uh by stop road that is a distance and not as the crow flies that's far shorter. But taking a route along highways is 0.64 miles. Walking route is roughly three miles, walking distance, three miles per hour. So this is just maths. This is maths. It's not this one and the next application, the next one. But it's asking members, before you say there is no access to local community thing, please, there is. And that's just a statement of fact.

02:50:38And none of us want to be agreeing these. We have moved on from all these and members of the public understand when we come to Honiton and we come to Sidmouth and we Seaton there will be identical comments but the fact is applications that were considered in 2016 it's eight years ago a new government has decided that planning applications will be considered that if we do not deliver housing numbers as unpalatable as they are then there is a risk that we will have another 200 per year. So over 24, that's another 5,000 houses. And here we're talking about 50. So compare 50 here, 12 here, 15 here to another 5,000 dwellings. This is what this committee has to consider. And it's unpalatable. None of us want to do this. None of us chose, well, we chose to be on this committee, but not to make these decisions. But our hand has been forced. So coming back to the original point, before members say there is not X within a thing, please just go on your computer, go on your device and

02:51:41[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.]

02:53:05About the numbers that are set by government. We have no power to challenge those numbers. As far as I know, no authority in the country has ever successfully argued for a lower housing number for pretty much any reason. I'm sorry, that's reality. If we don't do our job here today, two things will happen. One, we won't have a five-year housing land supply. That's a requirement that's set out in the MPPF. And when we don't have that five-year housing land supply, something called the tilted balance comes into play. And Mr Freeman will sigh with exasperation when I say this but that more or less means that developers can do what they want and we have even less power than we ordinarily would do to control them I I see lots of eye rolling and and looking at the floor um from from folks in the gallery now and you know I I kind of understand that because that's an easy excuse to hide behind it's also the truth the other thing that will happen if we refuse to

02:54:14Produce a sound Local Plan is the government have made it pretty clear they will come in and do it for us and let me tell you a planning inspector sat in their office in Bristol is going to be an awful lot less sympathetic and do this an awful lot less carefully and with an awful lot less community involvement than we have tried to do so I understand why you're unhappy believe me I do. Everyone on this committee does. We all live in East Devon. We all share your pain. But please, shouting rubbish at members of this committee while they're speaking doesn't get any of us anywhere. We have a job to do. I understand you may not like it.

02:55:01[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.]

02:56:08No, sorry. I thought you said Dinan Way. No. The road we're talking about is Marley Road. I mean, higher Marley Road, yes, you're right. Opposite where you'd access the site is the start of the footpath that goes down Bystock Road down to Dinan Way. I appreciate it doesn't run straight into the site, but that's a much room. But we're looking at existing. That's where we're making our mind.

02:56:29Yeah, yeah, I'm looking at existing and I'm on Street View immediately where the site will be. It wasn't there this morning when I came back. I mean, it's there now, Councillor Bailey. Okay, fair enough. Some quick moving highway guys. Okay, thank you, Jack. I've made my point.

02:56:45Thank you for allowing it. Thank you, Councillor Bailey. Councillor Jess Bailey, could you turn your microphone off, please, Brian? Brian.

02:56:51Thank you. So, Exmouth is a Tier 1 settlement, and I think it would be helpful, if it's possible, to have a sense of how many, and this is, so I emailed yesterday, and I appreciate that you probably haven't had time to collate the information, but we are meant to be applying a spatial strategy where the most houses are in the highest tiers.

02:57:21And I have no sense of where we are with that and whether we're being compliant with that and whether we're undermining our own Local Plan by potentially allocating more in our teeny tiny villages than for some of our tier one and tier two and possibly even tier three settlements. So obviously we've got the figures that are coming forward today, But it's really difficult because we haven't, I don't think, got a clear picture of actually what we've potentially allocated so far.

02:57:53So it's just a request, if not right at this minute, but to help inform the committee and also to, you know, any members of the public actually what we're trying to do, which is really difficult um and you know none of us I don't think want to see these um greenfields and uh sites are full of wildlife and ancient trees none of us really want to see that but we've got a spatial strategy and the the thing that's on our minds is if it's that where are they going to go where are the houses going to go so I think it's it would be helpful to have our spatial strategy and some targets um to help us with our decision making thank you um so yes certainly I have a spreadsheet running in the background that shows um the numbers agreed recommended and totals in each location and I've been updating this as we're going so that we can see where we sit in terms of the numbers as we progress through the meeting and

02:59:03The shortfall in terms of housing numbers um so what you've got on the screen is the probably best focus on the first two columns so you've got the the main uh sort of settlements uh and and sort of west end as a as an area of the district that we've we've included in the plan um and column b is is what's been agreed so far so you see we've got 1,290 homes agreed at Exmouth so far up to now so that includes must include Cortland's Cross because obviously it's not gone into Limston because that's only showing 60 for Limston so that's counted as as Exmouth and so you've got a fair of a 333 recommended. So you can see the relationship with the other settlements and if I scroll down you can see the other settlements further down and the numbers for them. So yes if members want to see this at any point I can show you the numbers in each settlement agreed and recommended and there is also this spreadsheet there's this other page to it while I'm talking which has all of the sites

03:00:14Listed and shows us the running shortfall so we're currently with Cortland's Cross included we now have a shortfall of 2,170 homes to find thank you Councillor Ian thank you chair you mentioned earlier that members of the public, you hope that they would accept the engagement that we've had with them. But because of what you said, I point out that if you ask communities to engage in a process, which they have done, and when their body of opinion is so strong as it has been on some of the sites without going through them if you then as an authority through our officers ignore that or say that isn't justified and that you don't give weight to that opinion and that you strongly recommend to members of this committee that they should follow that line then you can understand why the public said, well, why bother consulting us? Don't ask us our opinions and then ignore us.

03:01:41If you're going to ignore us, just get on with the job. But I feel that that's the problem with the public here today is that they feel that they've been let down big time by us as a planning authority because we haven't actually listened to their engagement. We've actually devalued that and stuck to the opinions of officers and pushed that through with our council members. And I think that's why they're upset.

03:02:21So we've considered two sites so far. One of them we've gone with officers' recommendation. One of them we've gone against it, based quite substantially on the views that have been expressed by you and Councillor Jung as ward member and by the public. Do any other members wish to speak on this site? we have a proposal. Councillor Davey? I think if we allocate every site in East Devon on the level of public opinion, we're going to end up with very few sites and we might as well throw our hands up now and just invite the government to come and write our Local Plan for us. Maybe they'd make better decisions. Well, maybe they would.

03:03:03But I would suggest that they stand as councillors then and come and sit here and join the Rock and Hard Place committee Councillor Hayward was absolutely right he did the Google Maps and it's quite right you can walk and actually where it's proposed to come out onto just the top of Gorse Lane is I have cycled up there um the the bit up to there is quite pleasant um although it's quite a steep ride up um up Marley Road um higher Marley Road is horrible um and I've been passed at high speed by vehicles there I think I only ever did it once um but um he's right you know that there could be pedestrian access, and I was totally opposed to this site when I thought that the access was likely to be from Holland Road. If we're looking at access out onto Goarse Lane, and I realise this will be unpopular with the people who live in that area, then there are sustainable walking and cycling routes um or a route anyway um and um again it's the least worst option I'll get noticed now I'm

03:04:36Going to oppose anything to the north of Hulham road so um I'm I'm not going to propose allocating it but um I think again we're we're in least worst option territory and of course you couldn't propose it anyway because we already have a proposal from councillors Ingham and Jung Councillor Hayward then Councillor Howe. Thank you I just want to come back on one point this council does listen to residents we have unfortunately we found ourselves not being listened to by government we have made endless appeals we've written we've beseeched government ministers to acknowledge East Devon's uniqueness and we've had it thrown back in our face. We are not unique, we are simply an area of the country where they wish to build. For every speaker here there are probably thousands of people who don't have, don't own a home, are in private rented accommodation. They would dream of owning a house. Some speakers here may own their own house without a mortgage. Some may be rented. Some people who've spoken may own two properties, have buy-to-let properties. That's a luxury for some. I was born and raised on the biggest

03:05:59Council estate in Slough. That would solve your housing problem straight away. Just build 5,000 council houses and plonk them in a green field. 5,000 people are then accommodated. Most local residents probably wouldn't want 5,000 council houses with all the problems that that brings, but that's a solution. But in real terms, East Devon, and again, I come from Slough, East Devon is 7% developed. The whole of East Devon, two thirds of which is AUNB national landscapes. We have amazing coastal landscapes. We have SSSI's. We have protected sites. We have beautiful rivers, but only 7% of it is developed. And I take Councillor Collins' point earlier, that agriculture is incredibly important, but take Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire is having these same discussions. I was speaking to the leader of that authority, a rural county which is being clobbered with housing. We're not exceptional. We're not unique. We are in the same boat as every authority, so if anyone has not been listening, it's successive governments that They set the rules, and as you quite rightly explained, Chair, if we do not do it, a government inspector will.

03:07:13And I do have to disagree with your cats, Ringham. They will not make better decisions because they will simply look at a map. We have local knowledge here. We have local councillors who can make, sorry, Brian, who can say, yet there are no pavements. The pavements aren't fit for purpose. I live on new estate. I own half of that house. I don't own it at all. I own half of that house.

03:07:33The pavements there are a foot and a half wide, because that's what developers have been allowed to do. You can't get a mobility scooter on it, you can't get a wheelchair on it. Mums in push chairs have to walk in the road. That's a failure of planning, not of allocations. So we will do our very best. But if the NPPF is consulted on, reconsidered, and the government of the day says, tough, we're just going to build houses. That's what National Planning Policy Framework will dictate and then we as a local planning authority have to accord to that and again I come back to that word it's an unenviable awful situation we find ourselves in but every planning authority in the UK is in the same boat we're all having the same conversations and at least we are in the position that we have a plan that we're trying to mould for those authorities that have now been told your Local Plan's worthless they're in a worse situation so at least we have a bit of a

03:08:32Backstop, tiny one. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Hayward. Well put. Councillor Howe. Yeah, I do understand the public's view, but I take exception to Councillor Ingham's view of we as a council or even a committee do not listen to the public. I sit and read every single email, as many submissions on the planning websites and everything else I can. I have. and done that doesn't necessarily mean I can agree with it or the situation and scenario we are in makes it acceptable because other solutions aren't readily available there is real challenge to what we're doing there has to be real challenge and I want the public here to question us every step of the way because we have to look in on ourself and the decisions we make that doesn't make the decision any easier or less painful for the public or anyone else but we have virtually zero choices and that's the fundamental issue nearly every submission I've seen so far mentions things we should have done differently most of them have been done the only thing we never took up as a

03:09:49Council and it's ten years away at least is coming up with the master plan for at the Magnolia Centre in the centre of Exmouth. You know, but we can't do that because it's 10 years out at the earliest, probably 20 years in reality with the number of landowners and everything else. We have no brownfield sites. And then we come back to the reality, and the Councillor Bailey was making the point, Councillor Jess Bailey.

03:10:14Exmouth, I think, is about 15,000 homes in size, probably slightly more than that due to the population. We are allocating 1,400 roughly homes. That's a tiny proportion compared to most of the other communities, particularly the smaller ones that are taking 20, 30, I can't even think what Axminster is, massive increase in proportion.

03:10:43Exmouth is the most sustainable location. And even with the outer limits we are pushing, it is still the most sustainable location. Show me a place that has a GTP surgery that has vacancies. It doesn't. Show me schools that aren't at capacity or near capacity. They don't. Devon County's got to solve that. The NHS has got to solve the GP surgeries. We have done everything we can every step of the way.

03:11:09And we are trying to make the best decisions so I really take offence of being told I don't listen I do I think we should take offence and I mean it because I don't think what you're doing not you personally but this council is doing is coherent because when you take the biggest settlement within a district that is just about coherent in its sustainability and you add 1,500 to 2,000 houses to you, you wipe that out.

03:11:44And that's why it's so important that we really should have been planning a lot earlier than 2024 for the second new development and getting that right, which this council has avoided over quite, well, at least four years, which it should have been cracking on with two years ago. What? No, I'm sorry, councillor, and that's nonsense. How many years has this authority been working on plans for the new community, Mr Freeman?

03:12:19Well, it started with the Great Exeter Strategic Plan at least five years ago. Which this council threw to the wind? Parts of it. Carry on working. No, no, no. Sorry, councillor, and you've just said we should have been working on the plans for the new community. sooner than 2024. That's, we were. If it starts under the greater... Two and a half thousand dwellings within a short-term view when we should have been saying, is it not possible to create 5,000 to alleviate the current communities and not exacerbate the small amount of sustainability they've already got?

03:13:06I think most of our communities think I'm right. But respectfully, Councillor Jungham, you can only sell so many houses in a given area in a period of time because the market won't absorb it. And like it or not, that's the system we're stuck with. I happen to not like it very much. Councillor Jung. I'd like to just confirm that we have been working on Newtown within the Greater Exeter Treaty Plan, which I was a member of six, seven years ago.

03:13:37Thank you. Okay, I'm going to take us to a vote now. We have a proposal from Councillor Ingham, seconded by Councillor Jung, to move on from this site. Those in favour, please? Three. Those against? I would say that clearly fails. I will propose from the Chair that we allocate Exmouth 04 as part of a wider master plan up in this area of Exmouth. All those in favour, please? Eight. I mean, I'll take it. It's more than half either way. Against? Four. And abstentions?

03:14:22I see one, in which case that is carried. We've now been going for nearly another two hours, so we're going to take 10 minutes until half past 12.

03:29:11OK, thank you, members. Welcome back. We pick up again with LIMP09. Anything to add from officers? No? OK, we move straight to public speaking then. [member of the public], do you want to repeat your speech? He's entitled to. I don't want housing development in this area. There are no good sites. However, your hands are tied. You can only consider, is this site less worse than other sites you've selected, both today and on the 3rd of September?

03:30:02Please get this right and select enough of the most viable sites, or this will come back to you. And what will come back to you will be worse. You will have less control. Strategic Planning Committee, get this right today, please.

03:30:20Thank you, [member of the public]. [member of the public].

03:31:05Last month, 75 people from Limston gathered to walk the nine and a half mile boundary of the parish in the mud and the rain. Aged 7 to 84, they did it because they care about the village in which they live. When we repel the threat of coalescence with Exmouth and reiterate our right to a spirit of place and our desire to retain a separate identity and heritage, this is what we mean.

03:31:28I know that several councillors here know Limston and Exmouth well and care very strongly about each. They recognise and respect their individuality and distinct differences. Preventing coalescence between the two is vital for both. In reference to Limston 9 and 10, I quote one of your board that any development within this special area must be totally resisted. The green fields of Limston 9 herald a gateway into the parish through agricultural grazing land for which East Devon is loved and needed, but being a long, skinny village, the proposed site is totally unsustainable.

03:32:05We all know the problems with sewage, but there's no provision for it here. The distances to doctors, schools and railway station in either Limston or Exmouth are a minimum of 1.7 miles away, I believe, and unsustainable. The lanes here, already beyond capacity, often single width, no pavements, lined with trees of such significance they've been protected since before 1972. The complete dependency on car travel caused by any house building on this site is in contravention with the EDDC climate emergency strategy and additionally opposes Devon County Council's climate policy of reducing car numbers on Devon roads.

03:32:46There's no spaces in the secondary school or employment potential within a sustainable distance so that sees traffic using the B3180 to commute to Exeter, increasing dangerous congestion and worsening the Pebblebed Heath erosion and the environmental impact of considering building on these fields. To do a meaningful wildlife survey, you need to know the land and you need to wait and watch. The tawny owls and little owls only come out at dark.

03:33:14The bats, deer and smaller muntjacks emerge at dawn and dusk. Foxes and buzzards are a little braver, but not quite bold enough for the men with clipboards to register them. Unless we nurture our natural capital, the health and well-being of those living locally will be diminished with the consequent proven social and economic deterioration. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, in line with the Department for Leveling Up, discussed the policy for the protection of dark skies. This involves both light pollution and light spill from buildings, which cause annoyance, harm wildlife and undermine enjoyment of the countryside. Planners are obliged to consider the proximity of proposed sites to intrinsically dark landscapes such as national nature reserves or SBAs such as Limston Common.

03:34:08They must consider when new lighting will be conspicuous and out of keeping. Governments will change, targets will change, but houses and roads cannot be unbuilt. I urge you to reject this site once and for all. Thank you [member of the public]. [member of the public]. I'm going to talk about the flood risk to sites 9 and 10. I'm a member of the Lipstone Flood Resilience Group which has been working with the Environment Agency, Devon County Council and the West Country Rivers Trust to mitigate the flood risk at Lipstone. JBA consultants have made a computer model of the wooden brook catchment in which these two sites sit. This has been used to test what nature-based solutions would help to slow the rate of runoff from the upper catchment. Both sites drain into the wooden brook. The catchment is steep with a flashy runoff. The underlying soil is a clay loam which is naturally low water permeability. Members have been sent a map showing the flow pathways from these sites and how all the surface water runoff ends up in the brook. The brook can be

03:35:21Tide locked for a period of up to two hours. This means that the water backs up in the brook until the tide goes out increasing the possibility of flooding in the centre of the village. Climate change is likely to result in heavier, more intense localised storms, leading to more extreme rapid runoff. This increases the flood risk to the village and the possibility of flooding on the scale experienced in Newton-Portleford last summer.

03:35:43To avoid increasing the flood risk to the village, these sites in the upper part of the catchment should not be developed. It is possible that they could be used for natural-based solutions to reduce the possibility of flooding. It is proposed in the recent review that these sites should be included in the coastal preservation area. So members have to choose whether they want to go with their recent recommendation that it's included in the coastal preservation area or allocate them for development.

03:36:09Hullam Road, I believe, is a natural boundary for the expansion of Exmouth on the western side. At the September 3rd meeting, Councillor Hall referred to a golden triangle for development to the east of Exmouth. He saw this as an area for major expansion. Wouldn't it be better to consider a properly planned urban expansion which could include a new secondary school and health hub to have development in a series of disjointed individual fields.

03:36:38I therefore urge the committee to refuse to have a development on these sites.

03:36:46Thank you, [member of the public]. Sorry, Councillor Andrew Minter from Limston Parish Council. Councillors, Limston Parish Council strongly objects to this greenfield site being recommended for allocation in the new Local Plan. 9 and 10 are proposed coastal protection area fields all have significant and fundamental disadvantages and they should not be allocated for inclusion they're far outside the BUAB for Limston the site selection pack states that the development sites to be credible the land of the south needs to be developed first this is fallacious even with the southern development complete there are fundamental negative access considerations Holland Road is narrow and busy and bordered by TPO and veteran trees and ancient hedges.

03:37:37It doesn't have a pavement or lights, cannot be widened and is unsuitable to cope with the increased traffic any development of the site will bring. The other roads bordering the site are single lane lanes with passing places which are gridlocked whenever the 376 or B3180 are busy or blocked. There are already evidence flooding concerns along Hull and Road during poor weather. Limps and Flood Resilience Group regard the site as very unsuitable for development.

03:38:01The site feeds the Woodenbrook catchment area. development would significantly increase runoff offering a real and existential flood threat to Limston village. LRFG are a respected and knowledgeable body and we take their concerns very seriously you should too. The site selection pack considers the site to be remote actual travelling distance to services is at the upper ends of 1600 metres if not above there are no safe pedestrian routes or pavements to a bus stop or services in Limston or Exmouth. The site is distant from all services so vehicle use will be necessary. Active travel on foot or by bike is not an option for this site due to the remoteness and existing road provision. These sites cannot be regarded as sustainable because they do not have accessible services and do not align growth with infrastructure. DCC have stated in other Limston sites in the site selection pack that secondary education provision in Exmouth is over capacity and that catchment areas will require redrawing as part of the greater extra strategic plan. There are currently no secondary school spaces in Exmouth to support

03:38:57This site and severely limited primary spaces. There are considerable concerns in safety for wildlife. Both sides of Hullam Road from the common Pebbabed Heath to Exview Road are covered by TPOs and contain several veteran trees which would be adversely affected by any development. The site is next to Exview Woods, an unregistered ancient woodland which has significant flora and fauna. In another EDDC meeting salient points were raised about the unsuitability and lack of infrastructure of this area and how the new Local Plan should be building communities.

03:39:27We cannot see how either this site or 10 could fit into a community. Consequently, in that meeting, it was felt these sites were totally unseedable for development, but might present an opportunity for a SANGs area, which has been proposed by Limston, Woodbury and Exmouth councils. We encourage you not to allocate this site and choose other, more sustainable sites.

03:39:48Thank you, Councillor Minter. Lastly then, [member of the public] on behalf of the landowner or promoter.

03:40:03Good afternoon, members. I'm speaking again on behalf of Waterton Park Limited, who are promoting LIMP 09 and 10A as a single site opportunity, and I'll deal with both together as part of this presentation. Again, I'd like to focus on the matters raised at the previous meeting, and some of which we've just heard gain. Visioning work has been undertaken for the site, and an indicative framework plan has been prepared, which members will see as being referenced in the report. The framework plan establishes some important principles for the site and the opportunity to deliver an attractive residential development in close proximity to local facilities with good connections into Exmouth and nearby planned growth.

03:40:40Furthermore, the delivery of the Adenum Way extension will significantly improve access to this part of the town. The site is relatively unconstrained, not subject to any statutory designations. There is only one nearby designated heritage asset, Exview House, which is referenced in the report as being approximately 25 metres from the site, but this is to site 10B, the distance from 10A and land parcel 9 is significantly greater. The site as a whole lies outside of the adopted green wedge and the adopted coastal preservation area. Issues raised last time centred around connectivity, flood risk, tree loss and the relevance of the coastal preservation area. In respect of connectivity, the framework plan now clarifies how the site would be served by two separate accesses with pedestrian footpaths set within the site.

03:41:30Connection between parcels 09 and 10A will be achieved through a build-out in the highway associated with proposed traffic calming measures along Hullam Road. This would improve the walking environment for pedestrians and provide safe crossing points to the south, matching desire lines and linking to the wider footpath network and new services and facilities, again associated with nearby planned development. Devon County Highways agree in principle with this access strategy, but again, that's subject to detailed design.

03:42:00The site lies within Flood Zone 1, and the officer report confirms there's no evidence of any history of significant surface water flooding. In terms of tree loss, placing a new footpath within the site enables retention of the existing protected trees along the boundary with Holland Road. The framework plan demonstrates that the site can come forward as a landscape-led scheme that minimises any loss of trees and provides for additional landscaping.

03:42:24At the earlier meeting, the site was referred to as being in the coastal preservation area to confirm this is not the case. Instead, it would be affected by the proposed extension, to which there are objections and has not yet been confirmed. As with the Cortland sites, we have previously submitted a landscape assessment that sets out in detail why the site is not discernible in views to and from the sea because of the intervening mature hedgerows and hedge banks.

03:42:48It therefore does not warrant inclusion in the coastal preservation area, in our view. I hope that briefly clarifies matters raised last time. In light of the suitability of the site and the role it can play in supporting the Council in achieving its challenging housing requirements, I hope members are now able to support the allocation.

03:43:04Thank you again. Thank you, [member of the public]. Coming into committee, and I'm going to go round everyone once, just in the interest of time.

03:43:14Councillor Ingham, your hand was first. Okay, Councillor Jung. Me first. These sites are very remote, both for Exmouth and for Limston. It's got no relationship to Limston Village at all. So it's an extension to basically Exmouth on the wrong side of Holland Road. That road is very dangerous, and I try and avoid it on my bike at all times. So, to suggest two more accesses off that road would be very, very tricky.

03:44:09As you can see from the plan, there's a big woodland to the site of 2009. Having housing right next to that woodland would be very detrimental to that woodland. The two sites which the developer was talking about is split with a private property between the two. So there are two sites and two accesses. You can't describe it as one development. The flooding issue, yeah, quite right. There is not flooding as such, but there is massive water runoff from the common coming down that Holland Road.

03:44:56And it's sometimes six inches deep coming right down that road. And you have to take your life in your hands when you're driving through a storm coming down that road. So, yes, there is a lot of water that comes off that land and into the catchment, which then affects Limston. But to sum up, it's separate from Limston. It's got no relationship to Limston. It's too far out for Exmouth.

03:45:29And I wish this one to be moved forward if we can't actually throw it out now. Thank you. Was that a proposal to move on, Councillor Jung? Okay, I'll look for a seconder. I thought I might be coming here with Councillor Ingham. Do you wish to speak? Yes, Chair. I'm going to add to what the Paris Council said. I think Councillor Minter spoke well and so did...

03:45:57Sorry, can you speak up please? I thought you spoke very well, Councillor Minter, and I thought also Helen Diamond spoke well, an ex-councillor, and city planner, which is why she knew what she was talking about. I think it's important to note, with regard to flooding there, that field drains from sort of northeast to southwest, So you see the lane, that's Exview Road coming down north to south, that floods because there's a gate in that bottom southern corner of that field that floods onto Exview Road and then, of course, onto Harlem Road.

03:46:43So, although we're told, you know, the Pebblebed Heaths end further up by the Salterton Road, you know, that cuts across, I assure you, that clay comes right down to Exfury Road and west of that. So this really is a poor site because you will encourage even more flooding and also point out that the boundary of Exmouth to Limston Parish is just southeast of that map. But if you were to redraw that and say, well, let's go up to Holland Road, which you're keen on, then you've got to draw a line somewhere and say, why would you cross over Holland Road why would you exacerbate the flooding that's coming down into Hullam Road and make even more problems that they're experiencing, of course, at Goodmores, which was Goodmores' farm.

03:47:42So that's why I'd support Councillor Jung to always say thank you.

03:47:48Thank you, Councillor Ingham. I have Councillor David and Councillor Hayward. Thank you. I've been prepared to consider some of the least worst options But this is a step too far for me. I just cannot envisage development on that side of Holland Road. I just cannot see how it can be made sustainable, how it can make the road any safer, because it certainly isn't with two further accesses onto that road.

03:48:21I just I cannot support that. Council Young is right, development right next to that wood is not going to be good for the wildlife there and I think I've got to draw a line somewhere and for me this is it. There are some nice walking routes shown within the site but they don't go anywhere there's no way that I can see that you walk out of that site and there is a footpath that goes nearly to the, well, I think it does go to the top of Dinon Way, but it stops at that junction of Hollam Road and Dinon Way.

03:49:07There's no further footpath from there, so I just can't see how you can have any kind of sustainable transport, any kind of sustainable links here. There's no bus route. And I just, to me, it's isolated, it's remote, and it just isn't going to work for me.

03:49:30Thank you, Councillor Davey. Councillor Hayward. Thank you, Chair. When we spoke about this back along, I think the next aisle, I was roundly criticised on social media with some very nasty comments from the safety of their homes. about my lack of knowledge of Hullam Road being an Axminster resident. And of course, I can't say that I am exactly familiar with every road in the 800 square kilometres that East Devon occupies.

03:50:04But I did take the opportunity a few weeks ago to drive up this. And on the basis of that, I'm entirely in agreement with my colleagues. um it you you cannot make I mean on one side it's mature trees and private land and unless we start cpoing uh people's frank gardens and verges and on the other side it's it's Devon bank and ditches and I don't think you can safely uh provide uh pedestrian access along here and the car is the only option and I popped in while I was there because again I was criticized for not knowing about king's garden center very nice garden center other garden centers are available um but you can only get to it by car um and this is whereas the previous application we looked at arguably is an extension uh an increase in higher marley road and the the residential development at the top of brixington this essentially just creates a new development a new hamlet um and on that basis I don't think this is viable so appreciate we've got a job to do and this takes another 54 out of

03:51:07That equation, but I'm minded to support my colleagues on this. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hayward. Does anybody have anything to add? Councillor Jess Bailey. I really, I don't think you could honestly say that this was sustainable, because people won't be able to get easily and safely from that side of the road to Exmouth, and I'm also worried about the trees, the lovely trees that run all along the road there, so I won't be supporting it either thank you Councillor Bailey any other comments to add Councillor Brian bailey thank you chair I agree with the previous three speakers it's just unsustainable and all along the road as we're going up on the left-hand side there are dozens of mature trees which have to say that they've been there so long they're actually part of the road the Devon bank is the edge of the road the other side is nowhere to go nowhere for a footpath nowhere for a cycle rain rain so it's just unsustainable and that's it so whatever we think about it otherwise I

03:52:21Definitely not share my answer to that thank you very much okay thank you Councillor Bailey um to emphasize anything to add from anyone okay in which case we have a proposal from Councillor Jung seconded by Councillor Ingham to move on uh from site limpo nine all those in favor please 12 it's clearly carried one way or another those against and those abstaining is me and Mike yeah that's very clearly carried okay that brings us then to limp 10 limp 10 powerpoint thank you Matt [member of the public] anything to add this is limp turn and we'll take them both I don't want housing

03:53:35In the area there are no good sites but your hands are tied therefore this site is this site less worse than sites selected to date the sites sites a long way out from Exmo but not worse than the already selected EXMO20 sites. Therefore, for consistency, this or these sites must be considered. Thank you. Thank you, [member of the public]. [member of the public]. Thank you very much. This site and 10B should never have made it through the initial site sifting process.

03:54:24The site was not recommended by HELAA due to issues with accessing the fast-moving traffic on hollum road and I just wondered how many sites have been put forward that weren't recommended by HELAA because I can't think there's very many um next point is there's there is no pedestrian footpath down hollum road which I think many people have already said and I appreciate that from the outline plan previously provided there could be internal footpaths on both sites however there's a 50 meter section by sound and break property where pedestrians would have to walk on the road I have no idea what process you would use to do that I think I've previously sent the committee pictures of an upturned vehicle and that's more or less opposite sound and brake so it's not a it's not a very good place to be walking on the road it's not a sustainable site I don't think it complies with a 1600 meter rule but I'm sure Councillor Hayward would be able to Google this for me but that any trip to

03:55:37The shops would be by car that the site is only 70 meters away from X view house, a grade two listed building, so development should not be permitted. I appreciate it's not maybe directly in line of sight, but it's pretty close. It's pretty close. It's in the coastal protection area, so the site shouldn't be built on. The area was previously designated as an area of great landscape value, so clearly an area of great beauty. It's visible both from the ex-estuary path and from Powderham Castle on the other side of the estuary. I'm sure if you put a few trees or a few hedges you might be able to screen it from some places but it's basically you can see it from a long way away it should be in the green wedge I appreciate it's not actually designated as in the green wedge because it it will lead to unwanted coalescence between Exmouth and Limstone and it is part of Limstone may not be part of Limstone village but it's a key part of Limstone. People have already previously mentioned there are serious problems with

03:56:45Flooding on the site and it makes its way down to Woodenbrook. The area forms a wildlife corridor between Limstone Common, which is a triple SI, and Limstone Village. This site should be excluded from the East Ellumland land. Thank you very much. Thank you, [member of the public]. [member of the public]. Okay, Thank you. Councillor Minter, anything to add? Councillors, much of what follows is also set of Olymps 9, but it's applicable to these two sites, only more so.

03:57:32They're more remote. They're in the coastal protection area. Fundamental access concerns again. There are no entrances to these sites apart from through other fields. And 10B is a long way off the Hunnam Road. Hunnam Road is narrow, bordered by TPO's, veteran trees, and hedges. It cannot be widened. It's dark. It's narrow. There's no pavement. There's no lighting. There are no other roads bordering the site. You've heard Limps and Flood Resilience Group, and I've mentioned that before.

03:58:07It's fundamental. These fields feed the wooden catchment area, which is this. You know, I can't say how significant a threat that is to the village. They are remote. There are no safe pedestrian access routes or pavements to a bus stop or services in Limps and Wrexmouth, and the services are distant, distant. Active travel by foot or by bike is not possible unless you are a madman. The sites cannot be regarded as sustainable because they do not have accessible services and do not align growth with infrastructure.

03:58:41It's illogical to build houses at sites that even DDDC's offices consider to be remote sites. Again, I raised the DCC statement that the secondary education in Exmouth is overcapacity and catchment barriers will require redrawing as part of the greater extra strategic plan. There are wildlife sensitivities, again, that flow on from 2009. And it's lack of infrastructure, it's unsustainability, lack of infrastructure and remoteness. They are not communities. They cannot be communities.

03:59:18They cannot be part of Nymphston, they cannot be part of Exmouth. Please reject both these sites or hold them over. I know it's a difficult decision to make with the number of dwellings that are put there, but you can't resist that, having voted on 09.

03:59:34Thank you, Councillor Minter. For folks standing at the back, the gallery upstairs is open, with screens and audio available up there, but it seems there were seats there. We come to [member of the public] on behalf of the landowner. I won't unnecessarily keep members any longer. Just to reinforce a few points, which I've just heard, is not within the Coastal Preservation Area. It is a proposed extension, which hasn't been confirmed.

04:00:03The trees would be retained on the basis of the footpath, would move inside the site. The link between this site and parcel nine would have been developed through the on-site highway improvements, which would allow to build out into the highway, which would have allowed pedestrian linkage between the two parcels. But clearly, I understand where the debate's going on the basis of where LIMPO nine went.

04:00:30Thank you, [member of the public]. I think you've read my mind there. In view of the vote the committee has just taken on LIMP 09, I think there could have been some merit in this coming forward as part of a wider master plan, but clearly that's now not going to happen with 09 now. I don't necessarily think this would lead to settlement coalescence, but the other points, particularly about expansion north of Hullam Road, in my view, and I suspect the view of most people on this committee, um have some uh some merit to them um but either way in view of what's just happened to limpo nine I'm going to propose from the chair that we move on from this site does anybody have anything to add or can we go straight to a vote is it absolutely necessary Councillor Jung just for good order okay uh in which case then the proposal from the chair is to move on from LIMP 10A and 10B. We'll take those together. All those in favour, please. That's unanimous.

04:01:33Okay, we come then to site LIMP 17, just south of LIMP 10. Supporter, [member of the public]. Okay, thank you. Objector, [member of the public]. Thank you again. I do agree with the officer's recommendation to exclude this site. It's predominantly a wooded area rich in wildlife and flora. It forms a wildlife corridor between Bystock Woods and North Linston, so going across rather than down towards Linston. Access onto Hullam Road from Marley Hayes would be dangerous. Marley Hayes is only single track. There is no room to widen the access display without removing tpo trees it's not sustainable location and travel to any facilities would be by car again so not dissimilar to 10a and 10b there are many mature trees on the sites and tpos on both sides one next to Hulham road and also on the adjoining field to Exmo_45, which I'm not sure is shown on this particular map, but it's part of Exmo_04.

04:02:58Much of this site is designated in the priority habitat inventory as deciduous woodland, so it shouldn't be built on. Site is extremely wet and includes springs, so surface water could be a problem. The site should be excluded from East Devon Plan. I'm slightly under running. Could I also add a point about 9 and 10? As far as I'm aware, DCC have never approved access. We've moved on from 9 and 10. I'm sure you have. All right. Thank you very much for your time. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Minter, anything to add?

04:03:39Yes, I have. Okay. This site has not yet gone through the HELAA process. We noted your officer's comments for not allocating the site selection pack and I agree with the recommendation it should not be allocated.

04:03:58Thank you, Councillor Minter. This site, to me, appears to be pretty much woodland. I suspect it's been caught up in the criteria unavoidably. I'm going to propose from the Chair that we move on from this site. Sorry, Geoff. Does anybody have anything to add? No? OK. In which case, we'll go to a vote on that proposal. All those in favour of moving on, please. That's unanimous. And we come then to the last site in the Exmouth area, Exmo_47. [member of the public].

04:04:44Councillors, is this site less worse than other sites? Having seen the other sites that are significantly further out, I find it hard not to be able to support this site. That's my opinion. Thank you.

04:04:58Thank you, [member of the public], short and sweet. [member of the public], anything to add?

04:05:25This site abuts the boundary of the designated historic estate of Al-Auronde. The landscape of Al-Auronde, from point of view, is registered Grade 2 because it's a rare example of a Regency Ferme Ornay comprising ornamental landscape features combined with more practical paddocks, orchards and kitchen gardens creating an ornamented estate. So it's obviously a very rare example of such a group of buildings. The site is close to two Grade 1 listed buildings excluding Alarond.

04:05:57That's the Pointe-en-Dieu Chapel and the Mance. These have already been damaged in part by the Dinaway extension and their setting within suburban development. As a former conservation officer, I consider that its development would seriously harm the setting of these historic assets, which is always a reason for refusing such development. It should not be damaged further. It appears to be, for example, including any bit of land around Exmouth that could boost the housing numbers, and I feel that the historic assets adjacent to this site have simply not been taken into account.

04:06:34Thank you, [member of the public]. I have [member of the public]. You may wish to reset the mic so your time starts again. Members, Chairman, thank you. My name is [name removed] speaking on behalf of the landowners and developers of the above, 3West. We endorse the inclusion of this site and can confirm that relevant and respected parties are willing to see this site brought forward with all haste. Whilst at the present pre-planning stage, preparatory work has and has been carried out to inform the development offering.

04:07:17Heritage work has been extensive and yields common ground. Three West, as its standard desire, are seeking to deliver a high-quality designed residential development. As you know, the site is in a Tier 1 settlement, Exmouth, and in the emerging Local Plan, it's identified as offering significant potential for accommodating growth and development. The site provides a good opportunity for smaller-scale housing development on the edge of Exmouth. Smaller-scale housing developments carry less infrastructure and upfront cost and offer notable benefits to the delivery of housing, as well as serving opportunity for smaller local housebuilders, SMEs, whose input into the local economy and employment market should not be ignored.

04:07:59This is a direction clearly promoted by the MPPF. The site relates well to existing housing and can deliver a mix of housing and indeed community infrastructure levy. We draw your attention to the highways comments in the Hewlett-Packard, where Devon County Council and Advisors site offers direct access onto the highway, known as Hullam Road, and is in close proximity to local services and facilities in the area. The site is presently grazed by horses and, as reference, mature boundary features can retain.

04:08:29In conclusion, we support the inclusion of this site as a logical and welcome addition to the housing delivery East Devon and the MPPF are seeking to achieve.

04:08:38Thank you. Thank you, [member of the public]. I have Councillor Inge and then Councillor Jung.

04:08:45Thank you, Chair. Mr Freeman will remember about seven years ago that we protected the land immediately adjacent to Alarond, wasn't it? and we debated that and that was expanded and I'm suggesting perhaps we missed a trick because you see that the boundary of those fields there's a footpath at the edge of those houses yes running from the southeast up towards northwest going off the map and that joins summer late I would suggest that building in that triangle is not a smart idea and if anything, we should expand that protection of not only Alarond, but point in view, which you can see in the centre of that square. So I would say that we should move on with this site. Thank you, I propose that.

04:09:41Thank you, Councillor Ingham. I'll look for a seconder. Councillor Bailey, do you wish to speak? No? Okay. In which case, we have a valid proposal to move on. Councillor Jung. I'm actually in favour of this site because it's been taken out of the historic Parks and Gardens designation by Historic England. Therefore, they've withdrawn their objection. and on the opposite side of the road there is residential housing there is pavement, it's a 30 limit it's wide enough for people to park on there it's for 15 houses and I don't see any reason to reject this site Thank you Councillor Jung do any other members wish to speak on this site Councillor Davey. Yeah, I have to agree with Councillor Jung here. I note that development is suggested towards the southern end of the site. There is a footpath that I often walk along that runs along there and there appears to be quite nice vegetation buffer there between the bottom of this site and the other part. I think development there particularly as it's suggested at the southern end would not harm the setting of point

04:11:24In view. As Councillor Jung says there is a pavement on the opposite side of Hullam Road um and uh so although it is only a small site um I think it's it's a logical extension unfortunately but um yes I can support that thank you Councillor Davey do any other councillors wish to add anything okay in which case uh we have a proposal from Councillor Ingham seconded by um Councillor Brian Bailey to move on. We'll take that to a vote.

04:12:04Those in favour of the proposal to move on, please. That's three. Those against? I see seven. Eight. Okay. And those against? Sorry, those abstaining. One. There we go. So that proposal falls. Do we have another proposal? Councillor Jung? move forward with this side do we have a seconder Councillor Davey ok we'll go to a vote on that one then those in favour of allocating Exmo_47 please 8 those against 3 and those abstaining 1 ok that is carried that brings us to the end that was seconded by Councillor Davey that brings us to the end of the Exmouth sites and as it's just gone quarter past one we're going to break for 45 minutes for lunch so committee will resume at two o'clock.

00:13:22Okay, good afternoon, everyone. Welcome back. We're going to pick things up with the Axminster sites. Matt.

00:13:32Thank you, Chair. New town, new part of the district, Axminster. So there's the overview of the town and moving swiftly to the first site, which is Axby 24. Okay, thank you. We have no public speakers for this or indeed any of the other Axminster sites. So we come straight into committee. Councillor Hayward.

00:13:58Thank you, Chair. Just to sort of establish a benchmark, could Mr Freeman just remind me, the committee members, what allocations were the numbers, there's no targets, but what numbers were allocated when we went through this first process on the 20th of September, just so they tally with mine so that when I then speak, it's with the facts behind me.

00:14:30Thank you. Yes, certainly. So, hopefully you can see on the screen. I can try and make it a bit bigger. So, yeah, hopefully you see we've got, for Axminster, we've got agreed allocations amounting to 727 homes. You have before you in the report recommendations for a favour of 354, which would give a total of 1,081 if they're all agreed.

00:15:04Thank you, Chair. So, it's slightly dispiriting that there's no one here to speak on this, so I'll hold up Axminster's end of the bargain. I suppose the first thing I would say is that there might be an element of predisposition, certainly not predetermination. 3.5 within the report that starts off this debate says, total quantum of housing currently proposed in Axminster may be in excess of what the market would realistically deliver and this issue requires further investigation. Obviously it's not just what the market can deliver, it's what the town can sustain and throughout this morning session we have heard many speakers from the committee outside and the public talk about landscape value, access, flooding, infrastructure, habitat, eco value, all of these things which are important across the board. And of course, all of those equally apply in little old Axminster, the smallest town in East Devon. It's doubled in size in the last decade, but Axminster's infrastructure hasn't doubled. In fact, it's regressed. Transport hasn't improved. Our employment prospects have gone down, as have our retail opportunities. But on the 20th

00:16:21Of September, we approved allocations of 727. That was about another 20%. So Axminster's already doubled in size. You've then allocated here another 20%. And then today you're proposing another 354, which we'll go through one by one. And that's 15% of the shortage we have. Axminster is 5% of East Devon's population. So it is a challenge. It's a challenge for Axminster. It's a challenge for the committee. It's a challenge for East Devon. So really, I'll go for each of these. I mean, certainly, I was opposed to two of them simply because they cannot be reached. You have to go through another allocation to get to this particular site, certainly in terms of 80. The topography is terrible. The flooding issues, Axminster routinely floods, and it doesn't flood where the developments are. It floods elsewhere in the town because Axminster is on the side of a valley it's the Axe Valley at the moment of course the whole of Axminster is constrained by Natural England and the moratorium on development because of nutrient neutrality and has been for about two years so really nothing gets built but this is a

00:17:33Local Plan to 2042 so we're looking ahead so it's really for committee to decide has Axminster done its fair share but it's against the backdrop and I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't say it of what we have to consider. Every town is having to take some, but the question will be, has Axminster taken its fair share against a target that doesn't exist, against a national target that's been imposed on us, and of what the town can realistically sustain with its infrastructure, but we're not allowed to talk about infrastructure and southwest water and transport because they are the domains of other authorities.

00:18:10Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Hayward. Bit of a rollercoaster there. to wake us all up after lunch. Okay, members. Oh, very good. Members, what do we think about Axme 24? Councillor Ingham. Chair, based on designation of land green wedge, no coastal preservation area, no national landscape, no. Officers say yes, there seems no good reason to move on with this one so I'd propose that we approve okay I'll look for a seconder Councillor Blakey do you wish to speak just a few words thank you just to say that it's a obviously a fairly small potential development this one but seems to me to be well placed just away from the flood zone um I think it's a sensible uh development for that area now obviously we're going to consider others but um to me I can't see any particular downside to it okay thank you Councillor Blakey um for my benefit because at this point all of the sites merge into one um mr Freeman why did we move on from this one previously uh thank you chair so my uh recollection and I think what we've

00:19:51Said in the commentary in the current report is that the main concerns seem to be the access arrangements to the site at the time of your previous meeting um however there is a current application that's been in for some time uh which is uh for 29 drawings uh which is listed in the in the report and the current position although Devon County Council highways did have some concerns with that application initially following the submission of additional information and additional plans they are now satisfied with the access arrangements so there is no objection from on the highway grounds which was the main concern when this was previously discussed so hence the officer's recommendation is to allocate okay thank you mr Freeman um do any other members wish to speak on this site Okay, in which case we have a validly made and seconded proposal to allocate then.

00:20:48I will take us to a vote. All those in favour of allocating XB24, please. One, two, three on the left. Can we have hands nice and high, please? Four on the left, two on the right, one at the front. Seven. Okay, those against, please. and those abstaining that's four okay axe me 24 is allocated then next up axe me 11d again no public speakers members Councillor Hayward mindful of the officer's recommendation which does accord with my own view of this particular site which is just an egregiously awful sight with the local knowledge we have I'm I'm happy to um propose acceptance of the officer recommendation to not allocate thank you chair okay I'll second that proposal to move on do any other members wish to speak no okay we'll uh go to a vote on that one then all those in favor of moving on from axmi 11d I got 11 but I think it's carried either way those against for the record and abstaining one okay welcome back Councillor Levine next up then g h e d 80

00:22:35Again no public speakers so again we come straight to members Councillor Ingham yet again it conforms with the um selection process by officers it's not in a green wedge it's not a coastal preservation area or a national landscape I see no reason that's in country country to accidents to 11 D I see no reason not to propose this so I propose approval chair is that second in Councillor Davey do you wish to speak yes I mean I was a bit alarmed by the size of this site initially but having seen the master plan I've got here which really develops just the southern part of the site. I'm looking at the right one. Yes, it seems as though it could be actually developed quite well and quite sensitively and obviously it's well located with access to facilities and so on okay I'm going to pipe up this point actually in defense of what Councillor Hayward said earlier I think I proposed at the last meeting that we move on from this site because I think this is fundamentally harmful in landscape terms

00:24:13In a way that we haven't seen so far today and the scale of growth at Axminster of what 750 houses were we looking at so far um I I just think that's disproportionate personally but there we go we have a proposal do any other members wish to speak okay in which case we will go to a vote on the proposal to allocate gh ed 80 all those in favor please six those against okay so uh gh ed 80

00:24:58Is carried, I think. Was that everyone? Any abstentions? Sorry? Okay, a few abstentions. Okay, that brings us then to Axmead 22, which has already been allocated. I think officers are asking us here to reconsider the number. Mr. Freeman, perhaps you could fill us in? Yes, so you agreed to allocate this site but only for 55 um we have an application current application for 104 albeit it's been in for some time and obviously not saying that that's necessarily acceptable um but we do think from the information that we have that the site can sensibly accommodate 100 new homes and I think um the Axminster master plan which was for the eastern urban extension that was allocated in the now adopted Local Plan which includes this site and GHED 80 that you've just considered.

00:25:57I think states a number of about 100 homes for this site or of that region. So we think this is an opportunity where a higher density, higher capacity could be accommodated to help assist with numbers without allocating additional land. So this one's here for a recommendation that the allocation be increased to 100 new homes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Freeman. Do any members wish to comment? Councillor Ingham?

00:26:27Propose the recommendation as stated by [member of the public] by Councillor Blinky. Okay. Any comments? No. All those in favour then of increasing the allocation to 100 from 55, please. Five on the left, three on the right, two at the front. Those against and those abstaining. That's three. OK, that proposal is carried. Sorry, who was the second? The second was Councillor Blakey. OK, that brings us to the end of Axminster, which brings us then back over to Honiton.

00:27:14And slight contradiction there. We start with a site in Gittisham Parish, site Gitti05 on the south edge of Honiton. [member of the public], anything to add? No, suffice to say that you'll see the paperwork in front of you. There's an illustrative master plan from the prospective developer that we've included, which potentially provides some context of help. Okay, thank you, [member of the public]. If memory serves, [member of the public] committee asked for this to be brought back.

00:27:48Is that right? Yes, some members may recall that you agreed to allocate GITI 03 and 04 to the north of the railway line as an employment site, which is a carryover from the existing Local Plan, part of which is about a third of which is owned by the council, the remaining two thirds by Cuma States. A few mistakes were also endorsing residential development of these parcels 05A and 5B.

00:28:15I think as officers we were initially recommending just 5B and then the discussion at the committee was that wouldn't a more comprehensive development master planned across the wider area. So all of those potential sites be a more sustainable form of development that could potentially support delivery of more in the way of services and facilities within the development site. um so uh the master plan that's been included in the paper sort of illustrates how that could potentially come forward um and that largely avoids development within the national landscape retaining those areas as open space within the master plan area um and the commentary within the report uh looks at the issues in terms of infrastructure and services and facilities and how they could be addressed but noting that there are some challenges there. I think it does note that while I think through discussion it was identified it would be desirable to accommodate a primary school on the site but it's not considered that this would be a realistic proposition from discussions with Devon County Council as the Education Authority who highlight

00:29:25That Honington already has a surplus of primary school places and the proposed extra housing provision would not be of a sufficient scale to justify a new school. However, it would lead to a total quantum of development in the area that we would hope would enable the delivery of some kind of neighbourhood centre with a shop and some basic facilities through the master planning process, assuming members are minded to go with the recommendation.

00:29:54OK, thank you, Mr Freeman. Coming to public speaking then, we have Councillor David Valentine from Giddisham Parish Council. I'm going to be directing the majority of these comments to that part of GIT 5 which was previously GIT 5b and as such was previously recommended as not to be allocated. Giddisham Parish Council said no, the local ward members said no, the public said no and most importantly your professional officers said no. There were good sound planning reasons for this. This land falls to the west into a valley and as a consequence the majority of the land has no physical or visual relationship with Honiton whatsoever. The village of Gittisham is situated in this valley. Gittisham village is one of the finest examples of an estate village in the southwest. The entire village is a conservation area with 90% of property listed. Development of 5B will be visible from the village and within 300 metres of the village. The setting of the village within the valley and the national landscape will be severely compromised. Development of 5B and indeed 5A

00:31:21Would fail to meet your sustainability criteria. The town centre services together with the railway station, the hospital, doctor surgery are located both from a vehicle and pedestrian travel distance between 3,300 metres at best and 3,900 metres at worst. Your sustainability criteria advises a distance of no greater than 1,600 metres. The distance to the college is even greater and the nearest primary school between 2,800 metres and 3,400 metres. The further west you move into the site, the greater the distance becomes. The nearest supermarket, Little, will be between 1,600 metres and 2,200 metres. The inevitable consequence of this will be multiple car movements contrary to your sustainability objectives and policies. This is not a sustainable site for residential development and is contrary to those objectives. Vehicle access to 5B and indeed 5A can only be achieved via Devonshire Road through the Heath Park industrial estate. It cannot be good planning practice to mix residential traffic with industrial traffic. There are already elements of this dangerous mix along Devonshire Road as it serves as access to the majority of Heath Park and also to 290 dwellings at Hane Farm

00:32:53And the villages of Weston, Buckrell and Gittisham. Furthermore, this committee recently endorsed the continuation of the allocation of a further 15 hectares of employment land west of Hane Lane, which would also have to gain its access via Devonshire Road. To add a further potential 300 to 400 dwelling units, 5A and 5B, to this increasingly dangerous situation would not be in the public interest. There is no currently safe access to serve this site.

00:33:29And please don't be seduced by an agent's master plan. It never works out.

00:33:35Thank you, Councillor Valentine. Next up we have [member of the public]Salle. Good afternoon. My name is [name removed] and I'm the Estate Manager at Cooma State. I'm here to briefly explain Cooma State's position with regard to the potential allocations we are involved with at the west end of Honiton.

00:34:07Cooma State are the landowners of GITI 05A and B. In addition, Cooma State is also the landowner for GITI 04. All of this land lies to the west end of Honiton. GITI 03, owned by East Devon District Council and 04, have previously been recommended to the committee to be allocated for employment use in the next planned period. We feel that a combination of these sites offer the opportunity to create a sustainable extension to Honiton, providing a combination of high-quality new homes, high-quality affordable housing, employment and community uses.

00:34:43We have reiterated our commitment to working with East Devon District Council and other stakeholders to deliver any development in a sustainable fashion, having regard to long-term benefits to the wider community. In particular, when looking at the area as a whole, Kuma State are committed to ensuring that any development can be held out as an exemplar of delivering integrated employment and housing uses within the community. We would want to ensure that development does not have an overbearing negative effect on the surrounding countryside and wish to ensure that we have regard to the legacy of such development.

00:35:18This will be key to the brief given to our architects if master planning the site is to proceed. The interconnectivity between the employment land to the north and the residential allocation to the south through the use of the existing highway network and the underpasses below the railway will be a feature of any master planning exercise to ensure that residents can sustainably access the employment opportunities and other facilities within the employment allocations at GITI 03 and 04. In short, we would strive to create a legacy of high quality development which Kuma State and the community can be proud of. Our technical reports which we have commissioned confirm that development on the scale recommended is deliverable given the current and buildable infrastructure. We would commend these sites to the committee as an opportunity to provide the homes and additional facilities to meet the needs of Honington and underpin its vibrancy going into the next planned period. Thank you. Thank you, [member of the public]Salle. I believe we have a statement from Ward Member Councillor Alistair Bruce. Thank you, Chair. When considering

00:36:26The revisited allocations for Giddisham, I have raised grave concerns with the Chair over the involvement of the Coombe estate in some of the material in the report before you today. In my view, the inclusion of a master plan proposed by the agent has no place in this public document. There has been zero consultation with any of the affected parties on this material appearing in the 11th hour of this process. I am concerned at the public perception that this could be drawn by its inclusion. I would urge the committee to strike this part of the report and remove it from influencing your deliberations.

00:37:12I think just as a point of correction, I believe Councillor Bruce wrote to the Vice-Chair rather than myself. I certainly have no recollection of that conversation. But there we go. Okay. Mr Freeman, do you have a comment on that?

00:37:29Thank you, Chair. Well, I think you'll see through it in a number of occasions throughout the report we've included information that's come to us through the agents promoting development. That's very much just for illustrative purposes and to help members to understand how the sites might potentially come forward. We're not saying that those plans are acceptable or that they are in any way an excuse for not doing further master planning work and proper engagement with the community through the application process should these sites be allocated.

00:37:57I think it is helpful to illustrate how a site could potentially come forward. And when we've got this information, it seems sensible to bring that to members' attention to help them to understand how schemes are potentially going to come forward if allocated. But they are purely for illustrative purposes and not suggesting that they should be anything other than for information purposes. And, yeah, hopefully they're helpful. But I'll leave it to members to give as much weight to them as they feel appropriate.

00:38:32OK, thank you, Mr Freeman. With that, then, public speaking is done for this site. Members, Councillor Blakey.

00:38:41Thank you, Chair. So I seem to remember from the conversation at the last meeting on this one that one of the reasons that we were going to look at 5A and 5B together as a potential development was the notion that there would be sufficient civil money or one or six money from the development to enable a school to be built. But we now discover that actually Hunderton has plenty of primary school places and that a school building here is extremely unlikely to the point of no chance.

00:39:16So I just wonder if Mr Freeman could comment on whether developing GITI 5A alone would be, in his view, viable. Well, as you said, that was the initial recommendation of officers at the previous meeting. As you said, Councillor Blakey, I think the intention was to look at how much more services and infrastructure, particularly a primary school. I think we've eliminated the option of a primary school, but I think the greater capacity would potentially deliver more of a sort of community and neighbourhood centre, you know potentially deliver a shop and other things that could help to build more of a community in this location um but I think the big concern with this site has always been uh that it it is as has been said quite some distance from the center of Honiton and the schools and services and facilities there um I think that's a product of of how Honiton has grown as a sort of linear settlement which means expansion is always ending up on the east and western edges because it's surrounded by national landscape to the north and south we have these issues in a

00:40:35Lot of our other settlements particularly the coastal towns where they've grown outwards from from the coast and we saw that in Exmouth this morning where we've got the coast on one side estuary on another national landscape on another it is it does mean that um expansion on the The edges of a lot of the existing towns ends up being a long way from services and facilities. But at least those services and facilities are there, whereas in a lot of other locations away from the towns, obviously those services and facilities are even further away.

00:41:05So while I accept the criticism of this site in terms of the distances to the centre of the town and the problems that that causes, I still think the site is more sustainable than a lot of others in this process. um I think naturally coming back to Councillor Baker's question I think 5b is less sustainable than 5a because it is that much more distant from from those services and facilities um but if not at 5b I do question where else we would allocate that he's better in terms of meeting the housing requirements set by government counseling just a question that's I see the perimeter of the national landscape encroaches well into 5a isn't it yeah yes mr. Freeman is suggesting we can perhaps dismiss 5b which is only the periphery is within the national landscape was it not considered that port 5a and b together but omit the national landscape through you chair I think our recommendation has always been that development need not take place within the national landscape whether it's 5a on its own or 5a and 5b and the master plan that's in

00:42:40The papers illustrates that there is sufficient land there to achieve the numbers shown in the recommendation without building in the national landscape thank you Councillor Hayward thank you chair um so okay we we rewind again to the 20th when we looked at this and it comes back to the the point I think Councillor Uh bailey jess bailey mentioned earlier this we have to consider this spatial strategy and there is the issue that with the far western periphery of 5b you are so far from anything and whether that's shops but certainly schools and Councillor Blakey has pointed out that um Honiton does have some capacity within the primary schools but they're much farther within the bulk of the existing conurbation and that if you were to develop this out those sites on the far western periphery you know it would be very challenging for a child certainly a primary school-aged child to walk from there um secondary school children perhaps more more possible um and that's why you know when we did move this on I was always of the view

00:43:51That 5b is 5a rather sorry is is potentially possible and I take Councillor Ingham's point but essentially half of it is in the national landscape but it sort of it links in with the existing development which I know has been unpopular with the parish council already so adding to that would probably be more unpopular but I just can't countenance how you would develop out 5b and essentially create anything other than a development that necessitates car transport it's so far removed from Homerton that it's just not it's not feasible to walk into the town with your shopping to socialize to do whatever you do let alone be educated thank you thank you Councillor Hayward Councillor How thank you chair and not disagreeing with anything that's been said but and the big but is you look further down the agenda we've got honey 15 which is solely within the national landscape so we're choosing to say no to this which is outside because it's distance but we'll say yes because it is in the national landscape but closer and that is a risk and this

00:45:08The balancing act we've got to make up in reality at present we need both and that's the struggle we are having is none of these sites virtually none of these sites are fully sustainable in any shape or form because we've eliminated all those sites already so we have to work out what is the least least harmful in totality and that is the fundamental we need to come back to in So if we say no to this, then you've got the national landscape issue in a second, and that will be even more critical then at that point.

00:45:49Or you say yes to this, and you might have some pressure off the national landscape. I don't know, but it's one site at a time. To move this on, I'll make the recommendation, as per officers, to say yes. Okay, I'll look for a seconder at that point. are you seconding counselling them okay go ahead you know what's also crucial I think wherever possible there's no point building houses unless you create jobs or facilitate that and I understand you know how linear Hamilton is and looks as though it always will be but it's so important that you even if we can't accommodate the school proximity and and that runs against it which it certainly does the fact that you've got jobs and potential jobs on your doorstep it is crucial to for a lot of people and looking to the future I think that's this is one of the ones where we can say hopefully in the future we got that right because we stopped all the unnecessary commuting and traffic movements from your home to your place of work so that's why I would

00:47:05Support it that's that just takes it over the ridge for me into acceptability okay do any other members wish to speak mr. Freeman I mean just one further point picking up on what counseling have said is another point to make about sort of the comprehensive development of 05 a 05 B alongside three and four is is is obviously the more residential value you have that will help to fund and deliver the employment spaces and deliver a genuinely mixed-use development here where you've got jobs and homes together, which I think helps in favour of the sustainability issues, excepting the distance from the town centre counts against it in sustainability terms, but it helps to balance those issues out, I think.

00:47:59Okay, thank you, Mr Freeman. Unless anybody else wishes to speak on this one, We will go to a vote then on Councillor Howe's proposal to allocate all of site Giteo 5. All those members in favour, please. I count eight. Those against. Three. And those abstaining. Two. That is carried.

00:48:33Okay, that brings us then to Honi 12, land south-east of Cuckoo Down Lane. Okay, and we have a representative from the Town Council, Serena Sexton. Sorry, is it Councillor Sexton or Councillor Sexton? Yes, as you've quite rightly identified, I'm here to represent the Honiton Town Council who gave all of these sites within Honiton due consideration. Actually, for Honiton 12, I've got nothing to add. They didn't have any disagreement with the recommendation.

00:49:16Okay, thank you, Councillor Sexton. We then have two ward members with us. First, Councillor Jenny Brown. If you're not logged in, you'll need to use the public speaking mic. I logged you out. Right, OK, honey 12, this was originally put down as a no, and we've asked for it to be brought back in, even though it is in the national landscape. It's next to 07 that got put through last time, and it's really well secluded, and it just seemed to follow on and be a natural fit.

00:50:08So we'd like it to be a yes. OK, thank you, Councillor Brown. Councillor Collins, Roy Collins, I should say. You've got the wrong description up there. It's not south of Cocodone Lane. It should be Stoney Lane.

00:50:45So please can that be changed to Stoney Lane. Cocodone Lane is half a mile away from there. This site, obviously you've approved HONI 7, HONI 13, which is in the national landscape, which is adjoining. and I've spoken to the farmer there who farms this land and he says it's impossible to keep cattle in there because there's a public footpath and sheep, he can't keep livestock he can only mow it for silage or hay and there's so many dogs in there you've got a lot of dog mess getting in there so his feed gets contaminated but it is sad to see it built on because it is really good farmland I can't see what else can be done with it other than building on it because of the nuisance of the dogs and things I only would support it if there's access off of Honey 7 which belongs to Cooma State so access would be using the same entrance And also, I want to see access put for the land higher side at Marlpitz Farm, because you may want that for development perhaps in 20 or 40 years' time.

00:52:15I don't want to see any access going down into Higher Blan Lane, where the present field gate goes down, because there's a network of little lanes down through there where the dog walkers use. and we mustn't lose that. The site is very good. It's quite good because there's high hedges there. You need to make sure the hedges don't cut down, and with suitable tree planting, the site could be well screened.

00:52:55Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Collins. Could you? Thank you. Okay, that brings us to the end of public speaking for that site, then. Members. OK, I will move from the chair then, in accordance with officers' recommendation that we allocate HONI 12. Does anybody wish to add anything? OK, we'll go to a vote on that one then. All those in favour of the proposal to allocate? That is almost unanimous, but not quite.

00:53:28Ten. Okay. Those against and those abstaining. One. Okay. We come then to G H E D 39, 39 B. My paper just says 39, but okay. 39 B. And we have Councillor Sexton again.

00:53:54Yes, this was something that again was discussed at the Town Council. We took a different view from the officers and we thought this was a suitable location for development.

00:54:15Okay. Thank you, Councillor Sexton. Coming into committee then, members. Thoughts on this one? I must say I'm slightly floored by that news from Councillor Sexton. Councillor Ingham.

00:54:40Well, Chair, if we look at the land designation for the site, it's not in Greenway, it's not in the coastal preservation area, not in national landscape, and we hear that the Town Council consider it should be approved. Therefore, I would move that we approve this one.

00:55:04Okay, thank you, Councillor Ingham. I'll look for a seconder there. Councillor Blakey, do you wish to add anything? No, I think what Councillor Ingham said is spot on, so thank you. Okay, thank you. I think for my part, I'd only wish to say town and parish councils aren't always right, but there we go. Neither are we, sometimes. Members. I knew that would put the cat among the pigeons.

00:55:38Councillor Jess Bailey. Yeah I am concerned about the landscape impacts because it's particularly, the officers report it as being particularly sensitive in terms of landscape impacts. Yeah I wonder if we could come to [member of the public] or [member of the public] for thoughts on this. Well if I start and I can add to whatever I say but yeah I mean it's right to say it's outside of the national landscape but it abuts it and we still have to have regard to the setting of the national landscapes even when sites are abutting them uh and I appreciate you know some of the sites you've seen elsewhere in this agenda and I've already seen have been actually within national landscapes and we've recommended allocation I think the difficulty is sometimes these national landscape boundaries don't necessarily follow uh the topography of the sites and actually sometimes about logical in some places on the edges of them uh in in this case I think our concern was that this site is quite prominent from within the national landscape and therefore has quite a significant impact on the setting of the national landscape and you'll

00:56:47See in the site selection report on page 67 in appendix one it does say that Natural England advised that the site may struggle to meet the NPPF exception test in terms of impact on the national landscape as better options for development exist elsewhere and I think this is coming back to the concern that it is quite prominent when viewed from the national landscape and does have an impact on that. But we're obviously struggling for numbers, as you know, and it seems to have local support. So it's how you weigh up those concerns about the impact on the setting of the national landscape against other concerns. Matt, I don't know if you want to add anything to that? Councillor Ingham?

00:57:33Can I point out the obvious five minutes ago we were debating site completely within the national landscape and we agreed that that should be approved 10 minutes ago we were looking at two and I asked you what about the fact that those two sites encroach into the national landscape and we were told that's okay because that may be the part of the site that doesn't get developed. Now we're looking at a site that's not in the national landscape and we're being told careful of the national landscape. I just don't think that stacks up to you. I really don't.

00:58:12We've been told that national landscape is really important. We've respected that. We've been told to ignore that and go with the previous application. It doesn't sit well with me that we're now being told that one that's outside shouldn't be allocated. I still hold with my recommendation based on what Hunterton Town Council said. Mr Freeman perhaps you could just be absolutely clear on the point Councillor Ingham's just raised. Well I think the issue is about prominence in the wider landscape the sites we were looking at a minute ago you might recall the um national landscape boundary was this strange straight line that ran uh east to west across the site I think it I think matt can correct me if I'm wrong I think it actually follows an overhead line rather than topography of the ground and and therefore that area while it's in the national landscape actually probably isn't very prominent and visible in the landscape and certainly not as visible and prominent in the landscape as this site which as has been noted isn't in the national landscape but is very visible and prominent from it it's how you weigh

00:59:21Those issues up and again alongside all of the other issues as we've already said we don't have good sites we have limited opportunities um so I can fully understand why uh this site not being not being national landscape you know goes in its favor compared to some other sites um it's a challenging one in that respect but you're quite right it's not in the national landscape we do still however have to have consideration to the setting of the national landscape and in this case it has a more significant impact on the setting I would suggest than the sites we were looking at and the parts of those sites that are outside the national landscape which wouldn't be very prominent from the national landscapes in those circumstances um difficult decisions all around I think okay thank you mr Freeman um we have a proposal that's been validly made and seconded, so that is the substantive motion at the moment.

01:00:14Councillor Davey. Yeah, just a query really. We're looking at GHED 39B and separating it from A, which presumably we're going to come to in a moment. But the original report was, for the whole site, suggested a yield of 100 dwellings developing only the A section. So my question is, is this 100 dwellings in addition to that of the A one? So are we going to put another 100 in 39A, or is this 100 for the whole site?

01:01:02[member of the public], members have already agreed to allocate 39A for 100 houses when you met a few weeks ago to look at sites in Honolton originally. So this would be another 100 homes on 39B if you agree to allocate it. I see no further hands. So I'm going to take us to a vote on. I'm sorry, Councillor Collins, you're outside committee. I'm not going to come outside committee.

01:01:34Councillor Collins, you're not a member of the public. You're a councillor. This site is not in your ward. We're going to go to a vote on the proposal from Councillor Hingham, seconded by Councillor Blakey, to allocate GHED 39B. All those members in favour, please. I count five. Those against? Yehudi's turned into a jack-in-the-box. And those abstaining? The abstentions have it. Okay, well, that proposal is carried. GHED 39B is allocated, then.

01:02:21Uh so next up we come to honey 15 um which I'm aware is a site that's generated um some consternation um mr dickens mr Freeman perhaps you could just fill committee in with what's gone on here appreciating that it is set out in the paperwork as well but for the benefit of the tape Yes, thank you, Chair. So, we did touch on this one when we were looking at sites in Honolton a couple of weeks ago. So, there was some confusion with the consultation on this at Regulation 18 stage with the consultation only showing the middle of the three fields that you can see on the screen to be allocated. And then in the explanatory text, it explained that the two adjoining fields to the east and west had also been put forward but it wasn't made very clear unfortunately in the text that we were seeking views on on the whole site and what was on the interactive map on Commonplace only showed the central field so we're taking the view that only the central field has actually been consulted on through the regulation 18 process as I explained

01:03:39Earlier however we can still consider sites put forward later in the process or in this case one that was put forward but not consulted on and would be consulted on through the regulation 19 version of the plan with comments brought back to you for members to consider and then confirm whether or not you wish to proceed with the allocation at that stage so it would still be consulted on and we've taken legal advice that suggests that that is a sound way forward not without its risks of challenge but equally as I said earlier we are required to have regard to all options and consider all options through this process as well so it would be wrong to to not consider this process despite its slightly checkered past shall we say but that arises from from our mistakes and is is not the fault of those promoting the site so we're seeking members views on the whole site only 15 as shown on the screen and the recommendation is to allocate thank you thank you mr Freeman we start then uh with uh object to mr ray levy good afternoon uh reading

01:04:52The report I'm generally struggling to see how you can have a lawful public consultation if you ignore process and add sites in at any stage afterwards when this protected site came to consultation following the public phase it was only ever a single field the town council fully objected and the site had more objections logged on Commonplace than all the other Honiton and kittisham sites combined and would have been even higher if the public had been made aware of its current extended scale not only did officers not highlight that to members this huge response they also quietly allowed the application to triple in size prior to the working group meeting and september strategic planning outside of mppf regulations now it's come forward again despite the amount of ambiguity and concern from councillors as well as an open and partially upheld complaint to EDDC of improper procedure. Add to the councillor's old admission in February 23 that the Reg A team section had flaws due to limited facilities for public consultation. How can the public have confidence that their engagement is valued? Now it's returned

01:05:56With a lesser convincing legal summary which basically reads we think we can just about get away with it, but it could go wrong in inspection. Let's justify it as we are holding another public consultation via Reg 19, as apparently this has been done occasionally elsewhere. Not with a highly protected landscape with such a large public objection, I would suggest. Further, we understand that requests to see the full legal opinion are being withheld from members and the public.

01:06:22If this site is allowed to proceed, unintended consequences could be severe. The plan could fail from challenge on this. it creates a huge precedent for further development within national landscapes. Developers who've had sites outside protected ANOB landscapes excluded would have recourse to appeal... [member of the public], do you have any planning objections to the site rather than procedural ones? Could we get to those then, please? Yeah, we're getting it.

01:06:49Would have recourse to appeal to the inspector as it's permitted its highly protected site incorrectly consulted on late additions to be included. The probability of re-examination due to 113 sites with 6,000-plus dwellings on your exclusion list, primarily outside protected landscapes. You can't tell me there's none on that list that couldn't be reconsidered over a national landscape. Planners cannot claim there are no exceptional circumstances not to allocate in national landscapes when you have 113 sites excluded outside it.

01:07:22The public have noticed that, and I'm sure the inspector will. This protected site should never have been allocated. It's the main gateway to our national landscape to and from Sidmouth. Even your report states it's highly visible, elevated, pronounced and very high landscape value of sensitivity. No amount of sensitive landscaping will mitigate that, especially the two and two and a half storey dwellings proposed. Don't let this site's inclusion be the card that brings the whole stack down at inspection.

01:07:50The appendix 2 list you have 113 sites that can be revisited for more than to mitigate the exclusion of this protected site and that's the ultimate guardians here prove to the public that you are running a democratic and proper process and want to protect this highest valued asset we have thank you thank you mr levy mr robert fowles the minutes for the last time I spoke said that I objected to the site allocation on the loss of farmland and protected wildlife, both of which incidentally go against your policies 83 and 90. I'll expand on the main reasons that I gave. Point one, the single field was offered for consideration, but the subtext was that you'd actually be voting for all three fields. Well, that turned out to be true. Point two, the visibility of the heights of the building up the slope. This site is highly visible. From the edge of the existing estate, the land rises more steeply. Any housing would stand out prominently because the existing fields can be seen from the Gateway to Honiton,

01:09:04The surrounding area, and out to the Blackdown Hills. The MPPF states the Great Lakes should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in AONDs, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The MPPF requirements are clearly being ignored, as is your policy 77. Point three, houses would not assimilate well into the surroundings and would not be consistent with the landscape character. The proposed houses would not blend into the landscape as the developer claims by softening the edges with tree planting. Policy 75 on AONB states that development in an AONB affecting its settings or appearance will only be permitted where it conserves and enhances the character and natural beauty of the AONB. That's another policy being ignored. Point four, the proposal would be a major development on the AONB. The MPPF glossary defines major development for housing of 10 or more, James McCurry, QC, in his legal opinion, said a decision on whether a development is major depends upon the site and its potential to have serious impact on the AONB by reason

01:10:22Of scale, character, or nature. The proposed scale of housing would destroy the character of this national landscape. Last point, any benefits from building open market or affordable houses could not be considered exceptional would outweighed by the significant and irreversible harm to the national landscape. The NPPS states that applications for development within AIMB should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances. In the matter of Meadagissie Parish Council versus Cornwall Council, exceptional is defined as rarity. The circumstances are not rare or exceptional when there must be scope for building on much of the alternative Appendix 2 113 sites earmarked for 6,100 houses that have been deselected.

01:11:21This is not a worse choice. Selection of the site would not be sound. Thank you. Thank you [member of the public]. Could you turn the microphone off please? Thank you. Next up we have Councillor Valentine from Giddisham Parish Council.

01:11:42Thank you, Chair. Half the site, that's the western half of the site, actually falls within Giddisham Parish. The proposal is considered to represent major development in an area of outstanding natural beauty and where paragraphs 115 and 116 of the MPPF indicate that such development should only be granted in exceptional circumstances and where there is public benefit. The proposed development would introduce development of a significant scale into the AOMB, where any benefits arising from the provision of open market or affordable housing are not considered to be exceptional and would be outweighed by the significant and irreversible landscape harm that would result.

01:12:29Therefore, the development is considered to be contrary to, well, I won't go through the policies, but you've already heard about those. Those are not my words, but they are the opening comments in the reasons for refusal that this council issued in 2015. What has changed? Nothing has changed on the ground. The only exceptional circumstance would appear to be your battle with housing numbers. It would appear that you are prepared to sacrifice all other planning considerations to achieve your statistical target.

01:13:09Does this constitute good planning or bad planning? To be dictated by statistics when everything else says no clearly cannot be said to be good planning. Planning is not just about statistics.

01:13:24Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Valentine. Hi, Councillor Sexton from Honiton Town Council.

01:13:31Thank you, Chair. For all the reasons that you've heard today, I'm not going to go through them all again. But I have to say that Honiton Town Council, when they considered this site, were only considering Honey One, which was the one field. It is therefore very likely that they would come to the same conclusion that they didn't support this application.

01:14:00Thank you, Councillor Sexton. Councillor Jenny Brown. so this site is located on prominent rising ground in a national landscape where the overall

01:14:28Landscape sensitivity is high this is the main gateway to honington from Sidmouth an important part of the town's motto the town in the country honington sits nestled in the valley surrounded by national landscape and the black down hills this development would cause harm to the designated landscape. This would constitute major development in the context of a national landscape for which there are no exceptional circumstances and would cause adverse impact. I ask that you do not allocate this site. Honey 04, which was adjacent on the far right hand side, was not allocated due to its elevated and landscape prominence and that was on the other side of the road.

01:15:17The NPPF is not changing. Potential development sites in the national landscape should be carefully considered with regard to this guidance. Some second-best sites are extremely challenging in this context and would only be appropriate if members felt the sufficient growth in the town could not be achieved without their allocation, or allocation is so significant in location or other terms that it outweighs negative impacts and I don't see any of this happening. I think that we could after all the hours we've sat here be upsetting our plan and having it kicked out just for the sake of this one site. I ask that you really, really consider this as not.

01:16:08Thank you Councillor Brown. Councillor Roy Collins Thank you. I was a member of the Town Council back in the 1980s when Heathfield was approved for housing. I was the only member of the Council to vote against it. They promised to put in play areas, and if you look at the map, there's no play areas on that estate. I think it's very wrong what East Devon Council's doing here And to mislead the public by putting one field in and then putting the other two in, I don't think you've consulted properly at all.

01:17:07I would recommend that this site is refused. We should not be building in our national landscapes. Heathfield Farm originally was a dairy farm, first class farm, one of the best in the East Devon. They used to milk several cows there. lovely farm and that field there is really good farmland and also up through the last plan we looked at you show it was it came up further than that and it knocked down the farm buildings all the farm buildings were gone it's just don't seem to be at all been presented properly thank you thank you council collins the microphone please thank you okay uh that's the end of the public speakers list, I have Councillor Jung first. I propose we move on on this, taking all the information from the local councillors and seeing it in the national landscape, I propose to move on. Okay, I will look for a seconder then. Is that, were you seconding, Councillor Hayward. Okay. Do you wish to speak?

01:18:24Only really to follow up, I suppose it's from a point that Councillor Ingham made earlier, that this is both in the national landscape and is a very high-profile site. And perhaps this is one of those occasions where we accept that the previous allocation was unexpectedly included, so you gained 100. And perhaps that allows, with a bit of quid pro quo, this one to be parked. And so, you know, you essentially offset one against the other.

01:18:55Because when we last discussed this and taken aboard all the points that have been raised about the risk and the potential harm, it is such a high profile site and it's slap bang in the middle of the natural landscape. So I'm happy to second that we move this one on.

01:19:10Thank you. OK, thank you, Councillor Hayward. Councillor Ingham. I value the public opinion and explain to us why it's of value to the community the report actually says how how visible the landscape is and that's the whole point of having a national landscape protection designation so I certainly go along with the proposal chair thank you Councillor Ingham I must say I'm not convinced that it's any more prominent necessarily than 39B but there we go, that decision's been made Councillor Davey Yeah, I take the point about 39B but it's not just prominence I think the visibility from the Sidmouth Road and as Councillor Brown put it so well you know, Honnison is the town in the countryside and the And the more you erode that countryside, and particularly moving into national landscapes, I think the weaker that becomes.

01:20:22This is one where actually a master plan might have been a good idea, because it might have shown us how some of that landscape impact could be mitigated. But I'm very happy to support moving on. It doesn't preclude it coming back as a planning application at some point. there's a windfall side but at the moment I'm not happy about allocating it in our Local Plan Okay, thank you Councillor Davey Councillor Hayward, you have already spoken if you've got five seconds It's been in the countryside too Thank you Councillor Hayward Councillor Brown I think it's working My wife said Councillor Jenny Brown, I mean it is the gateway in Tarnasson you know you come down to Sibbeth Road you look to the left and that site even with no houses on it just stands out so prominent it's one we can't use for building OK, any other councillors have anything to add on this site?

01:21:45OK, in which case then we have a proposal from Councillor Jung seconded by Councillor Hayward to move on from HONI 15. All those members in favour, please. I count 10. 10. Okay, those against. Just me. And those abstaining. That's two. Okay, well, we were up 100 in Honiton, now we are down 40. Okay, next up then, HONI 18. Excuse me. okay Councillor Bethany collins thank you chair yeah I just need to declare an effects and prejudicial nri as a relative farms the land at hell farm which is up to the east of this site so I will leave the room okay uh we come then to uh members of the public Councillor Sexton for the town council I'm very sorry chair but this particular one was not included in our discussions at honington town council so I'm not able to give you the official line from the council my apology thank you Councillor Section I think this is one of those new sites that came up at the last minute um mr Freeman will correct me if I'm wrong yes so this is one of the sites I mentioned earlier

01:23:25That came in through the uh regulation 18 consultation in spring of this year uh so it is a late addition into the process uh which we've included based on the legal advice I mentioned earlier um however the the recommendation is is not to allocate because of issues of gaining access onto uh the highway which national highways uh have currently raised objections with uh the proposals in that regard so without an access it it can't really come forward obviously okay thank you mr Freeman uh mr simon coles from carney sweeney welcome back simon thank you chair good to be back. Members, the company who designed the access, they supply highway design services to national highways. They're reputable and they actually know what they're doing.

01:24:24But it looks to us, members, as if our scheme has not been assessed against the correct criteria. In fact, national highways has assessed it against what is the current speed limit of 60 mph. However, our scheme what it does is it extends the 30 mph permit further up the hill and also introduces a 40 mph transition zone so what that does is it requires assessment against a completely different set of standards and what we're saying is is that if it had been assessed against those standards it would have produced a different result and basically where we are is is that there might have been a few residual design relaxations that would have been needed to have been negotiated with national highways, but actually we're confident that they could have been resolved at the detailed stage.

01:25:17All of this is really just part of the normal planning application process and it would happen at the detailed stage. And what we're saying is, members, is that those access designs create a betterment compared to the existing junction arrangement now. For anyone who drives down the A30, sorry, Daxminster Road into Honiton through the S-bends will know exactly what I'm talking about when they come to the left turn. And turning to landscape, well, there's been a lot said about national landscapes. Show me a site in this neck of the woods that isn't either in it or visible from it. Yeah, it's visible, but any effects can be mitigated through master planning, good design and landscaping. So members, the access and landscape matters raised by your office, as we say, can be addressed.

01:26:12And maybe perhaps it's a case, and it's down to you members, but perhaps give us just a little more time to try and work through those with National Highways. Because this is a sign, if you have a look at the others, that is really well related to the town centre, to its shops, services, facilities, health centres, schools. In fact, it's probably better located than quite a few of the sites that you're currently supporting.

01:26:35Thanks very much. Yes, through you, Chad, I just wanted to pick up on the point about the access arrangements and national highways. So I think the sequence of events is the agent has submitted as a sort of detailed design of an access to this site, to national highways. And they have raised concerns that are in the site assessment that's before you in Appendix 2 of this document.

01:27:05Sorry, Appendix 1, page 76. We have been back to National Highways and said, you know, setting aside the detailed design proposals that have been put forward, which aren't really relevant at this stage. Those are for a planning application process. All we need from them at this stage is to be satisfied that an access can be obtained from their highway into this site. Unfortunately, we haven't received a response to that in time for today's meeting.

01:27:32I would say aside from the access or entrance, it's actually a relatively good site. It's not within a national landscape. It's relatively unconstrained. There are some listed buildings nearby, but I think, you know, with good design and layout, those issues could be addressed. The highways access is the key thing, but unfortunately, we don't have certainty from national highways that an acceptable access can be attained. and hence I can't recommend this one for allocation at this point in time.

01:28:02If that were overcome then that position might change but accepting that timescales mean that we don't have time to wait for national highways to confirm their position unfortunately. Okay, thank you Mr Freeman. In view of that then I'm going to propose that we, if allocating this site is not really a possibility which is my interpretation of what Mr Freeman has just said I'm going to propose from the chair that we move on from this site for the time being I don't think we have another choice Councillor Blakey and then Councillor Jung Just one question is it at all possible that we can delegate authority to perhaps yourself as chair and Mr Freeman in the event that national highways do come through with a satisfactory answer in time for the production of the plan uh I I would suggest that if members are consent with the content with this site in all of our respects and wish to allocate it if an acceptable access can be obtained then uh I think it would be legitimate for you to make a decision to say to allocate the site subject to an acceptable access being

01:29:17Uh the principle of an access being accepted by national highways and in the event that that Isn't the case, give delegated authority to myself in consultation with the Chair to then remove it from the plan if National Highways maintain their objection? If you want to propose that, Councillor Blakey, I'll withdraw my proposal. I would like to propose it. Thank you. OK. Who wants to second that? Me.

01:29:44OK, Councillor Jung, do you wish to speak? [member of the public] on there, the people of Honolton haven't had a chance to comment, or the Town Council, or myself. Why didn't it come up on the 2nd of August? Because... We had a meeting then. I was allowed to speak on the false applications. Why wasn't I allowed then? This has been sneaked in. Councillor Collins, I can... I can assure you, Councillor Collins, there's no effort being made by anyone at this authority to sneak things through, as you put it.

01:30:23As Mr Freeman has explained, This site came in during the supplementary Regulation 19 consultation. Sorry, Regulation 18 consultation. Thank you, Councillor Howe. Earlier this year, in late spring, early summer, when it finished, we made it clear that we were not looking for further sites to come forward. agents have put forward several further sites and in view of that the advice that we have had is that if we include the sites in our considerations then that could possibly be unsound and if we don't then it could also possibly be unsound so we're damned if we do and damned if we don't we have brought the site to seek members opinions on it if it goes into the plan it will be consulted on and it will come back to committee to confirm its decision either to allocate or not to allocate. If committee votes to allocate it subject to the principally access this afternoon it's in my view it's the best that we can do with a pretty bad hand that we've been dealt.

01:31:31Is it in your ward? Then I'm afraid not, Councillor Collins. It's not. It's this is this is the this is the same approach that we've taken with every other site. You are a Councillor Of this authority, Councillor Collins. It's not in your ward and therefore I'm not going to take you as a speaker. I am a neighbour. Yes, that that's councillor, Councillor Collins. I'm going to have to ask you to stop speaking, please. Thank you.

01:32:11We have a proposal that's been made and seconded. Councillor Jung, had you finished speaking? I'm sorry, I've forgotten. I can't remember where I was now. Okay, well, in which case you've seconded it, so I will come to Councillor Jung who has a question. Yes, Chair. I heard Mr Freeman say that this site is not within the national landscape. It says it is. I heard the applicants say, while you can see it from the national landscape, I want that to be clear.

01:32:52Because if we've got to take a decision on this and perhaps delegate, we need to get that right, the facts right, don't we? That's a good spot, Councillor Ingham. Mr Freeman, are you able to confirm one way or another, please? My understanding is it's adjacent to the national landscape and not within, and the slide is wrong. I don't know if Matt can confirm that, otherwise I'm looking on the system to just double-check.

01:33:19Look on the system, I think you're right, but I wouldn't want to say for definite. Councillor Collins! Please. Councillor Collins, I will suspend the meeting and or ask you to leave. Do we have an answer, Mr Freeman? Yes, I can confirm it's adjacent to the national landscape but not within. Okay, thank you. So we have a proposal from Councillor Blakey to allocate subject to the principle of access being confirmed with delegated authority to the assistant director in consultation with the chair to remove it if that is not the case.

01:34:19So that's the substantive proposal that's been made and seconded. Councillor Jess Bailey. I don't like the shouting much, but I think there is a fair... I do feel this may have merits, but I do feel concerned that we haven't got the comments of the Town Council. And effectively, if we allocate it, then it's going to be lumped in with all the other sites that have had a lot more consultation.

01:34:45And I'm just not sure that that's particularly fair to the people of Honiton and anybody else who might be affected by it so what I would like to know is and I know we say oh well it's coming back and it's going to come back again but the reality is the Local Plan it's like a juggernaut isn't it and once things go in they're pretty much yes they might come out but really they're pretty much in and I'd just like to know how can we be fair given that actually there hasn't been well there hasn't it's become into this process late how can we be fair to the people of Honiton well as you identify it's difficult now because we can't turn the clock back and redo well we can't go back and have this site through a regulation 18 consultation now there simply isn't time to run a regulation 18 consultation on these additional sites so the The best we can do is run it, if members are minded to support the site, is to put it in the Regulation 19 plan and seek views through that route and then make sure it comes back through this committee so that those views are considered before any plan is submitted for examination.

01:35:57I can't see any better way of dealing with that from a consultation point of view. I do appreciate that it means the site has only been through a single round of consultation, whereas all of the others, setting aside a couple of other new sites, will have only been through two rounds of consultation. This will only have been through one, but it will have been consulted on and we will have an opportunity for the committee to consider those views before the plan is submitted.

01:36:23As the chair has alluded to, we're down the way fundamentally because there are risks to the soundness of the plan if we don't consider all reasonable alternatives and this is a reasonable alternative albeit one that's come into the process late if we do consider it having come into the process late we're obviously open to criticism that we haven't consulted on it previously um which is unfortunate but I think the process is is such that we have very little choice really but to consider it um we've had legal advice on this issue um and that's highlighted those those risks um and as damon's telling me reminding me it was from king's council so it was quite an esteemed legal opinion that we had um so we're trying to balance those risks um it is very unfortunate that it came into the process late and we weren't able to consult on it earlier but I do think we need to consider it and if members are so minded uh take it forward can it be flagged in some way though during that regulation 19 consultation that it is

01:37:31A bit different from the other sides in that it hasn't it can't to me it can't just be lumped in with everything else because it's a bit different and it cannot be distinguished through that regulation 19 process I'm happy to take away an action to look into that I don't want to make any commitment without looking again at the regulation 19 consultation requirements because the regulation 19 consultation is technically on the publication draft of the plan so it should be the plan as we envisage it it being so it's not the stage where you would usually consult on options we would need to look into whether there's some way where we can present the plan itself as a publication draft but outside of the plan in the publication materials draw attention to it and seek views separately so I'd have to take away an action to look at that um envisage bringing a covering report when we bring the regulation 19 plan setting out how we undertake that consultation so perhaps if I can take away that fault and we can bring that back and address that issue in that report

01:38:38Again should members be minded to to proceed with the site I have Councillor How then Councillor Hayward it was just to point out obviously from here if it's chosen to go forward regulation 19 we've told and we've spoken about but it also goes to planning inspector and that is open sessions people can raise again at that point any concerns they have with this site if they believe it is as we were being told earlier with one we've reviewed we said no to currently or move on from but it's wholly within the national landscape and so although not brilliant it is correct what mr. Freeman is saying we have to consider it it is better than some of the other options we've seen so as such I think a planning inspector would query us if we didn't include it but the public have the full rights at that time to raise issues as well as they do through regulation 19 as well so yeah they have opportunity Councillor Hayward. Thank you. Councillor Hayward, thankfully, said some of the things I was going to say. You know, we don't set the rules. Again, I hope this typifies to everyone watching that we have to obey rules that are forced upon us in terms of consultation and how we, the exact sequence we go through.

01:39:56So this I would class as almost a windfall sign. It's far better than some of the ones we've been asked to look at today. It's sort of on the boundary of existing dwellings, very close to amenities in the centre of town. So all the things I've spoken about earlier actually don't apply. And arguably, yes, the public will have a means to consult on this at various stages.

01:40:20I'm wondering from perhaps a question to the DSO, that because this is the first one of this type that we've had during this meeting, whether the minutes of this meeting could perhaps allude to the fact that it was exceptional to the process that others have followed because the minutes are a public record and it just helps people understand. They'll read the minutes and then when we go to the next stage, they can correlate those back again.

01:40:46And it's just providing information to the public. I agree with Councillor Bailey. It's out of kilter with what we've had, but actually given that this plan is a 24-year plan um and other sites could come forward and this arguably has just come forward sooner rather than later so it's just a thought chair but again I'll it's whatever the um the dso's and the the yourself as chair are happy to do within the minutes thank you Councillor Hayward not an unreasonable suggestion are you happy with that, Wendy? Mr. Freeman? Okay. Quickly, Councillor Brown. Did you take legal, or did Mr. Freeman take legal advice on these sites that came in late? I think he put in a letter to Councillor Jenny Brown that he'd done that. And nobody's seen that advice. No member of this council to see net advice yes so we did uh get legal advice from king's council on this issue of late submissions being included in the plan and that advice is summarized in the covering report I don't have a page reference to hand but it is in the covering report um summary of the

01:42:07Advice that we were given um I I mean I think our usual process is to summarize legal opinions that we've had in reports rather than publish or make them available but I think we've said in the past that we can make them available to members if they specifically want them I don't know if Damien wants to say more on that but we don't publish legal advice generally Are the members out of 12 minutes?

01:42:36On this occasion it's myself who spoke to King's Council and has his view on things so we had a telephone conversation and we discussed it over the telephone so that's the note that I've got of this and And his view is that all of the sites will be looked at in the Reg 19 stage and they will all be considered by an inspector. And if people wish to make representations at that stage, they'll all be taken on board.

01:43:02So he said, in his view, it was fine to proceed, bearing in mind that there were only at that stage, I think, three potential sites going forward. And now I think there's only potentially one. What, the two, sorry. So he said as far as he was concerned, it was quite proper for us to take them forward. OK, thank you, Mr. Hunter. We have a, from the distant dark depths of time, we do, I think, have a proposal to allocate subject to the principle of highway access being confirmed.

01:43:35And with that delegated authority point. So I'm going to take us to a vote on that one. All those in favour, please. Ten in favour. Those against. And those abstaining, I count two. OK, that is carried then. We're going to do one more. Sorry, Mr Hunter. Oh, yes, Bethany. Well remembered. Thank you, Councillor Hayward. We're going to do the last site in Honiton then and then we'll take a break. So, Honi 05. And we have Councillor Sexton.

01:44:23Thank you, Chair. This one was considered by Honyton Town Council, and it might surprise you to learn that we thought it was suitable for development. So obviously with the suitable, appropriate flood mitigation, so you wouldn't be getting an objection from the council on that. and we could quite see that it would be appropriate use for affordable housing etc and it's right in the middle of the town. Thank you Councillor Sexton. Just to clarify something [member of the public] do that after we've heard the rest of the public speakers actually. Councillor Collins. Thank you.

01:45:38I'm very disappointed that you're not recommending this one I have implements on the farm that were made in that foundry cast iron things going back centuries I suppose as you remember I spoke this morning about the loss of agricultural land Here, we have a brownfield site, which seems to be ridiculously recommended to be refused. I can't understand why. I would like to see flats or apartments built here.

01:46:27You could get an awful lot in that site. There's a bus service in the high street, two stops, just opposite. One stop's opposite, one's just slightly down the road. Loads of buses stop in there. People wouldn't need cars. They're not very far to walk to go to the railway station either. Lots of people don't want gardens anymore. You get young couples, perhaps they're divorced, and there's just a single person looking for somewhere small to live.

01:46:58This site would be ideal in the centre of the town and then you go and refuse it it's stupid there's no flooding ever happened there since 1968 it's never flooded there was a large sewer put down through there 20 odd years ago all the facilities are there to develop it it's just so crazy not to thank you Thank you, Councillor Collins. I think there'll probably be a lot of sympathy from committee for that particular viewpoint. So, Mr Freeman, I wonder if you could clarify why this site is not proposed for allocation, please.

01:47:43So the issue is one of flooding. The vast majority of the site is flood zone two and three, which is the highest risk of flooding. I hear what Councillor Collins says, but flood maps are drawn on historical flooding. And while I think there has been a defence scheme since then, it still shows us being in flood zones two and three. And under our own policies and government guidance, we're obviously directing development away from areas at greatest risk of flooding.

01:48:12Um in order to allocate the site we'd need to have done a lot of additional work through level two strategic flood risk assessment which hasn't been done um and that is partly because this site is within the settlement boundary of Honiton could come forward as an application anyway um so there's little to be gained really from from allocating it anyway uh there has previously been allocations on the site where the flooding issues have been raised as well so I'm not convinced it's actually that easy to to overcome and address those issues but as members will be aware we should be focusing development away from areas at greatest risk of flooding we don't have the evidence to suggest that those flood risk issues can be overcome but if someone wants to make an application and progress it through that route then it the site is proposed to be within the settlement boundary and will remain so so there are opportunities for it to come forward as a windfall if those issues can be addressed we don't have a sufficient

01:49:09Information to make an allocation at this point I would suggest okay thank you mr. Freeman I have councillors how then Hayward then you happy to propose the recommendation to move on it is what it is and excluding council Collins you know there's nothing to stop this like coming forward through a planning application because it is within the built up area boundary and that's the Fundamental. OK, I will look for a second. Councillor Hayward.

01:49:39Happy to second. I have to share Councillor Collins' views on this. I think this is one of those sites that we were asked as a planning authority to find sites within a town centre that, well, brownfield that could be reused. and I'm sure with a creative solution you know I'll just throw in the word stilts or whatever you could do something here but [member of the public] quite right this is perhaps one that we park and it comes back as a windfall site at some point in the future and some beautifully designed aesthetically pleasing and a conservation area houses are developed at some point and Honnerton gets the benefit but just not now Thank you Councillor Jung Yeah, the Environment Agency would object to this. We'd have to demonstrate it when it comes to a planning application. We would have to demonstrate that we can overcome the flooding problem.

01:50:41It would also affect the people's insurance if it was built, because the insurance companies would see that it's in the flood zone. And as Mr Freeman said, it can come forward at any time in a planning application because it's in the built-up area boundary. So, yeah, I agree we move on from the site. okay thank you Councillor Brown I think I find that the environment agency done flood alleviation scheme on this a number of years ago and the site nowadays doesn't flood but it does show up a flood zone because the environment agency haven't changed their website or whatever they put their notices on but the flood alleviation has been carried out here it may well have been if the environment agency haven't amended the statutory boundaries, then there's little to nothing we can do.

01:51:51Anyway, anything to add further on this site? No, okay, in which case we have the proposal from Councillor Howe, seconded by Councillor Hayward, with regret to move on. All those in favour, please. I count 11. We've got 9, 10 and 11. five on the left four on the right two at the front those against two and those abstaining none that's clearly carried either way okay um we've been going an hour and three quarters now so we will take a 10 minute break until five to four okay we come then to uh the next settlement

02:07:00To be considered, which is Ottery St. Mary. [member of the public]. Thank you, Chair. So, Ottery St. Mary, and you'll see some sites on the western side of the town that we are visiting this afternoon, starting off with Ottery 10, north and south of Sulston-Burton. Okay.

02:07:29Thank you, [member of the public]. And we have two ward members registered for public speaking, starting with Councillor Faithfull. Of the four sites put forward for Autry, I would place Autry 10 and GHED 27 above Autry 1A and GHED 26.

02:08:10These are the two preferred sites. These sites are outside the settlement containment area or green wedge and do not have such a visual impact on the surrounding area. My main concerns about these sites are the poor access to the sites along Strawberry Lane and the impact on the present residents abutting these sites. Along the northern boundary of the site, the site boundary is formed by an overgrown post and rail fence.

02:08:49It would take very little effort to improve Strawberry Lane. earlier development of the king's reach site was supposed to include improvements for pedestrians and cyclists this has still not been delivered I'm not sure if this is this needs to be discussed at planning or strategic planning either way there is a real need to improve this route which forms the main route for residents travelling between Offrey and West Hill.

02:09:28I support the officer's original recommendation for this site but with reservations. Okay, thank you Councillor Faithfull and I believe we have a statement to be read out from Councillor Johns. Yes, Chair. The land currently has a remote feel and would require a path slash cycleway between the site down through Strawberry Lane which is not wide enough to ensure safety of pedestrian cyclists or any other road user.

02:10:00Historic findings as nearby fields have shown architectural finds. Accessibility shows the site is within 1,600 metres of all facilities except for a train station. However, this is only safely assessed via a vehicle as there is currently no footpath provision. And as stated above, this would be very difficult to put in place. The lower part of the site is proven to flood and so has been excluded. However, by building on the upper part of the site, that would lead to more flooding at the lower sites, including a detrimental effect to the houses currently already near the site.

02:10:44Audrey may be in a top tier site, but it is already severely oversubscribed in every way that matters. education, doctors, dentists, etc. The roads to and from Autry are narrow and has a distinct lack of pavements. The roads be widened due to the nature of interest... That doesn't make sense. Hang on, let me start again. The roads to and from Autry are narrow and has a distinct lack of pavements.

02:11:13The roads be widened due to the nature of the infrastructure of this historic town. Okay, thank you. We don't have a representative from the Town Council, or anybody else for that matter, because that's the next site that I'm looking at. It helps vary the right line. So we come into committee then, and I see Councillor Jess Bailey, then Councillor Bethany Collins.

02:11:42Thank you. Yes, I'm the County Councillor For Ottery, and I'd just like to flag some issues with, Well, first of all, I know Councillor Hayward said that Axelmots is the smallest town, but I think Autry is. And according to the census, it's grown by 3,000 people since 2011. And that is why we're left with these sites that are just hugely challenging. And this one in particular, they've drawn a pretty red line suggesting how access can be safe access into the town which is a massive diversion west when actually the town centres on the east and what this hasn't addressed is the fact that there's currently a live planning application for I think it's site 23 immediately to the west of this one and the owners of the estate to the north have already flagged up that this red line involves their land and they don't actually give consent for it on that straight bit along the unnamed road so potentially you're allocating a site with a route that's not achievable um so it's dangerous to go east along

02:13:04Strawberry lane and I slightly disagree with Councillor Faithfull I think it's impossible to deliver a safe route um along there because the um either side of the road is owned by third parties and here the line that's been drawn is just not deliverable because it's land which is in the ownership of the estate to the north and they've already said they don't give consent so I don't think I don't see how that's achievable and these my comments also apply to number 23 so in in terms of road safety and access this is just this is concerning and I don't think I can support it okay thank you Councillor Bailey could you turn your mic for off please uh Councillor Collins thank you chay I'm really conflicted about um about this site because on the one hand I mean I I supported moving on from it last time because of all the all the comments that Councillor Jeff baby has made about sort of the safe access and and the the lack of safe access um but on the other

02:14:14Hand it is an additional 20 homes to meet our housing number and I'm just really concerned that if we don't meet that number then someone is going to be less sympathetic to artery and sort of just plonk them in other parcels of land that I definitely object to um so I'm quite conflicted about that but I think on balance I would propose that I reluctantly propose that we accept the recommendation on this. Okay I will look for a seconder. Councillor Ingham do you wish to say anything? Yeah it's not in the green wedge, it's not in the coastal preservation area, it's not in the national landscape. The gallery isn't a pack of people objecting to it therefore I second it. Okay thank you Councillor Ingham. Do any other members of committee wish to speak? Councillor Hayward. Just for the sake of factuality. Ottery does have 24 more houses. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification Councillor Hayward. Shall we put that in the all councillors Christmas quiz?

02:15:26Okay any any other comments from committee members? In which case then we have a proposal from Councillor Bethany Collins seconded by Councillor Ingham to allocate site artery 10 all those in favor please I counted 10 and the difference is possibly because Colin put his hand down so 10 in favor those against two and those abstaining none okay that proposal is carried then we're going to slightly shuffle the order of the agenda then and do the site next door, which is GHD 27. So we have next [member of the public], the land promoter.

02:16:25Good afternoon. I'm speaking on behalf of KCS Development in support of this draft housing allocation. The continued allocation of the site is clearly and robustly recommended by officers based on entirely sound evidence and reasoning. As also advised by officers, the allocation of sites such as this is critical to the overall Local Plan strategy. We fully support these conclusions. This is a highly sustainable site in an accepted sustainable settlement.

02:16:55Development would deliver a range of local benefits in the short to medium term, including much needed local market and affordable housing, a significant SIL contribution, contributions to local healthcare projects, improved pedestrian crossings on Strawberry Lane and extensive biodiversity net gains. Notably, the site has been promoted through the various Local Plan consultations and the sustainability and appropriateness of the site for residential development was supported in the draft allocation and supporting evidence. It has also been subject to detailed pre-application discussions with the Council and consultees since at least 2019. Detailed officer and consultee feedback on matters of access, highways works, drainage, flood risk, landscape and ecology have been considered, with the proposals updated to reflect the advice received. A planning application at the site was submitted in September this year following this pre-application advice and community consultation. The application demonstrates development here is entirely appropriate and there are no insurmountable technical concerns. Suitable access can be achieved and surveys show that impact on traffic and junction capacity is minimal. Off-site highways works would benefit both this development

02:18:17And existing Autry residents. An appropriate drainage strategy can be achieved. There will be no built development in areas of higher flood risk and the development can deliver improvements to the adjacent watercourse. There will be no increased off-site flood risk and there is sufficient foul sewage capacity and the site can connect to an existing sewer. As evidenced in ongoing ecology surveys there is no adverse effect on protected species or habitats and overall habitat improvements can be achieved. Biodiversity net gain of more than 10% is achievable and existing trees would be retained and protected. There are also no land ownership constraints. The land needed for the development is within the promoter's control, with all highways works being delivered within highways land. No third-party land is required. In summary, this sustainable site is suitable and available. We fully support officers' clear recommendation that the site should continue to be allocated in the emerging plan, not least as sites such as this are fundamental to ongoing plan soundness. Thank you for your time. Thank you [member of the public]. I have Councillor Faithfull and then again a statement from

02:19:29Councillor Johns. Thank you Chair. This site is lower lying and outside the green wedge between Offrey and West Hill. If this site is to be developed I would want to see improvements to Strawberry Lane which this site abuts. As with Autry 10, the northern boundary of this site is formed by an overgrown post and rail fence, making improvements to Strawberry Lane easily achievable. I am concerned about how any development would impact the present residents of Solstyn Barton and Solstyn Ride. Any development on this site would need to have minimal impact on the surrounding properties. I also comment about the need for improvements in Strawberry Lane is particularly on the section abutting these two sites which is single track width single vehicle width most of the rest of salt strawberry Lane is possible for two cars to pass along most of the length but this particular section is particularly narrow Thank You chair Thank You Councillor Faithfull and a statement from Councillor Jones thank you I object to this site due to loss of grade 3 agricultural land during a time when we have called a climate

02:21:20Emergency and should be actively encouraging farming land which is highly visible from a long way and would cause a severe visual impact. A planning application for this site has already been submitted and has raised various issues from residents and consultees alike including lack of safe access from the site to town. The answer put forward is wholly flawed and raises more concerns than it answers. DDC have raised flooding concerns and I'm aware the site currently has issues with flooding which will not be alleviated by building on the site. Okay thank you Wendy. That finished slightly more abruptly than I expected. We come then into committee and I have Councillor Jess Bailey. Yes, I will not support this because there's no safe walking route into Autry St Mary. It's 65 houses and I don't believe it's sustainable development because everybody will drive because they're not going to walk along that circuitous red line route and also I contest what the developers spokesperson said that no third party land is required because of the letter that's been posted on the current planning application

02:22:48By the owner of the estate to the north. So I don't believe that that red route is achievable anyway.

02:22:56Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bailey. I have Councillors Howell, then Davey. I'm happy to move the officer's recommendation to approve this. It would be virtually impossible to say no to it, being as we just said yes to the site right next door on any grounds I hope all the problems are sorted it has to be sustainable in that the best we can do anyway at this point so say wish Councillor Davey the purple line running across the site is a footpath which comes out admittedly onto the road at Strawberry Lane but at the end so it seems to me there are footpaths into the site and and across it and presumably that's public right-of-way so it can't be built on. So I think that there could be sustainable access created here.

02:24:06With apologies, I forgot to look for a seconder for Councillor Howe's proposal. Do we have one? Councillor Levine, I saw your hand first. Do you wish to say anything? No. Okay. Do any other members wish to speak on this site? Okay. Well, in which case we have a proposal from Councillor Howe, seconded by Councillor Levine to allocate GHED 27. All those members in favour, please. Three on the right, two at the front and five on the left. So ten. Those against?

02:24:43One, two, and those abstaining? One. Okay, so that's clearly carried then. Which brings us back to the original running order then and to Autry 01A. Ms Freeman, [member of the public], could you clarify exactly what officers are recommending for this site please before we go to the speakers? Yes, certainly Chair. So I think the concern here that officers had and I think members also had when this came to you previously was that the further to the west you go on terms of this relatively long sort of linear site alongside Exeter Road the further away from the centre of the town you get, so in terms of walking distance to services and facilities and also the more sensitive in terms of the landscape when we were looking at this again in light of the discussions at the previous meeting, obviously by that point members had agreed to allocate Oshry underscore zero nine to the northern side of Exeter Road which extends further to the west than Ottery underscore 01B that was also agreed for allocation at the same meeting.

02:25:58So the thought occurred about a compromise position in terms of Ottery underscore 01A in terms of allocating part of that site to align with the western boundary of Ottery underscore 09, thereby creating a sort of new western extent of the town that would accommodate additional homes within our 301 a without extending too far west that they were too remote from services and facilities within the town so that was the fault process so therefore the recommendation is that an additional 75 homes could be accommodated on zero one a in there it's not actually indicated on there is it extending as far west as the western boundary of Ottery on the score 09 which you can see on the upper map on the screen so basically continuing that north-south line on the western boundary of Ottery 09 south into 01A to mark a western extent of 01A it's an allocation of an additional 75 homes in that area yes that's right

02:27:26Okay public speakers then I have Councillor Peter Faithfull followed by a statement from Councillor Ricky Johns thank you chair

02:28:17I do not support development of Ottery 01A which is in which is in the green wedge for Ottery and West Hill the site is in open countryside to the west of the employment side, leaving the new residents in isolation from the remainder of the community and facilities of Autry. This site is also very open and highly visible from the town and national landscape of where we are, East Devon.

02:28:59Development of this site would undermine the buffer between Ottery and West Hill at the last fall council meeting of Ottery Town Council Ottery Town Council voted to rescind the vote to support development on Ottery 01A The feeling was that development of this site would leave the whole side of the hill open to development, which Oswee Town Council did not support. I support the original officer's recommendation to reject this site.

02:29:42Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Faithfull. And a statement from Councillor Johns.

02:29:48Thank you, Chair. I object to this site due to the semi-rural feel of the site and the need for a new roundabout, which would drastically change the approach to the town of Autry. The loss of the Grade 3 agricultural land during a time when growing our own food should be actively encouraged due to the climate emergency we have called. Lies within the settlement area between Autry and West Hill.

02:30:14This site lies within the Green Wedge and should be protected. Once again, the infrastructure of Audrey St Mary is already at capacity, and recent planning applications have raised comments from DCC with regards to the lack of school provision in the local area, which would mean children requiring to be bussed out of the area for their education. End of statement.

02:30:38Thank you, Wendy. Coming into committee then, Councillor Jess Bailey. I do not support this. I think the officers were right previously when they recommended that it should not be included in the new plan. It's actually a really long way away from the centre. It's more than 1,600 metres. It's sprawling development in the open countryside in a green wedge, and I would propose that we move on from this.

02:31:11Okay, that's a proposal, so I will look for a seconder. I don't know whose hand I saw first, to be honest. Councillor Bethany Collins, we'll go with you. Do you wish to speak? Somebody's microphone is on.

02:31:26Thank you. Thank you, Cher. Yeah, no, I echo all the comments made by the previous councillors, and I can't support this. It's too far into the open countryside. It really is quite a long way. And, yeah, I just think it's too far. It's too far for residents to be expected to access the services that are already at capacity. And so I can't support this. OK, thank you, Councillor Collins.

02:31:53I was about to ask, do any other members wish to speak? But of course, Councillor Ewing has been sat with his hand up and then Councillor Davey and Councillor Ingham. I think everything's been said.

02:32:03Thank you. Thanks, Geoff. Councillor Davey. Yeah, just to reiterate, this is the worst kind of ribbon development, it seems to me. and I'm really quite surprised that it's recommended for allocation but I think that represents the desperate situation that we're in with finding suitable homes, suitable sites. But yeah, this one I just can't support. It's far too remote from the town centre, no sustainable links just doesn't work for me. Councillor Ingham, then Mr Freeman.

02:32:46Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the clarification on the Eastern Third, the only Eastern Third of this site being the one where it's suggested that development could be considered. I've got a question. Is the whole of Autry 1A in the Green Wedge, which I'd like officers to come back on? and can I remind you I think it was early September wasn't it when we considered these before and do you remember I think it was a guy called Councillor Granger came from Ottery Town Council and he started off when we were looking at Ottery he said well you ought to allocate 1A and 1B and leave the rest alone because that's what public opinion says acceptable. Not what councillors say, but what public opinion is acceptable.

02:33:44Well, you've already allocated those sites that are adjacent and coloured green. We've just allocated those also south-east of Strawberry Lane. But I don't get why that eastern third of 1A is not acceptable. other than the fact it's in the green wedge I mean we've we've allocated sites in national landscape we've allocated them coastal preservation areas and green wedges this one happens to be in a green wedge I don't get why this is any different we said that you know this is too extreme from the town centre well look what's west of the river already okay that's quite significant it's almost like a Buda and Pest, isn't it? You've got two settlements either side of the river, maybe a bit smaller. But to say that that's unacceptable in comparison to some of the sites you've allocated today that are away from town centres, to me that doesn't make sense. You've got to be consistent.

02:34:57So um you know what is it that you're saying that's different about this one in comparison to the others I look forward to hearing from mr free um thank you chair yes just on canceringham's point so um it's not within a green wedge that's allocated in the current Local Plan it is within a green wedge that's in the neighborhood plan for it's not called a green wedge I can't remember what it is called it's called something else um but effectively so the purpose of a green wedge between Autry St Mary and West Hill in the neighbourhood plan and it is in the proposed green wedge for the new Local Plan which identifies the same area as the neighbourhood plan in terms of distances from services I've just measured it the eastern so western extent of 01 of the area of 01a that we are proposing to allocate as officers is almost exactly 1600 meters along if you walk along Exeter road barrack road and into the town from sainsbury's uh as it's been pointed out to me will be slightly shorter distance when the bridge over the river is reinstated and

02:36:11They can walk through lander canaan so um obviously it would be slightly further than that would you walk the roads through the site to get out to extra road I should should say but not much in excess of 1600 meters so I think it is you know on the boundaries of our distances in terms of sustainability but conceivable that people would walk from there into the town I think okay thank you mr. Freeman I have Councillor Howe next.

02:36:42Yeah, I find myself in an awkward situation. I can't understand how we can consistently and easily say this is unsustainable when we've already said Otrio 9 on the opposite side of the road is sustainable. Any planning inspectorate is going to think we're mad. And we have to be sensible. You cannot say one side of the road is sustainable and the other is not when everyone's walking down the same road.

02:37:10So anyone that thinks this is unsustainable, please think long and hard about what you're about to vote on, because that is quite critical, to put it mildly. I don't like it. That's a different question. In planning terms, I think we've got to say yes. I don't really want to come back round again. Is there anything that you're going to hate me forever, Councillors Bailey and Jung, if you don't get to say?

02:37:37Okay we'll go Councillor Bailey then Councillor You so um otrio nine that's a dcc site isn't it um so I won't talk too much about that except to say that that was only allocated that entire site for 90 houses but also for um uh education so it's a bit different so if we're looking at being consistent it's a bit different allocating a mixed-use site to allocating yet more houses and I don't think you can rely much as I am concerned about Coleridge Bridge I'm not sure that you can rely given the issues with the erosion that that's going to be reinstated anytime soon and we should be making our decisions based on facts as they are today and also I've measured it on magic maps uh death row's website and to the very east that I've measured it from um uh the start of um uh a uh underneath uh b and that is 1600 meters to the to the very east of the site so that's before you get into any of the rest of it so I think it is really beyond the

02:38:54Realms of what's acceptable and I think it is for, and I think you can't rely on the bridge being, I mean who knows when, I mean I hope it will be reinstated soon, but I'm not sure that that bridge actually reduces the walking distance very far, so yeah, I'll just leave it at that Okay, thank you Councillor Bailey. Councillor Jung I'll just say that the it's the green wedge that is we can make on this one rather than the distance from the town centre.

02:39:34In the proposed new plan, they proposed to have a green wedge here. And I think that should trump it. Thank you. Okay, so as things stand, we do have a proposal validly made and seconded to move on from this site. I'm going to take us to a vote on that one, and we will see what happens. So those in favour of the proposal from Councillor Jess Bailey to move on from Autry O1A in its entirety?

02:40:14No, it's more than that, seven. Okay, that's seven. Those against? Five. So the proposal's carried, and we move on from O1A in its entirety. There's only 12 of us here, but are there any abstentions? Okay, one abstention. Maybe I can't count. Either way, it's clearly carried. Okay, we come then to GHED 26, in view of the conversation we've just had, and I'll have to take public speakers first.

02:40:55Councillor Faithfull. Thank you, Chair. I very strongly object to the development of this site. This protrudes a long way into the green wedge between Ottery and West Hill settlement containment area, which forms an important buffer between Ottery and West Hill.

02:41:32This site is very open and highly visible from many directions. Development of this site would have a detrimental impact on the views around Fox and Hole and Salston, as well as further afield. This valley needs protection from development for the benefit of future generations. I support the officer's original recommendation for this site to be refused.

02:42:10Thank you Councillor Faithfull. Statement from Councillor Johns. I object to, I object due to lack of footpath and so no link into town. Greenfield site within the open countryside sits within the green wedge. Any changes would make a massive visual impact on the area. lack of safe walking or cycling access to the town lack of infrastructure which hasn't grown out of the rate of the town leading to resources being severely limited that's it okay thank you wendy um in view of expedience I'm going to move from the chair that we move on from this site um do any members still wish to speak no okay in which case we'll go to a vote on this one all those in favor of the proposal to move on please that is carried unanimously Okay, that brings us then right back to the other side of the district, to Seton.

02:43:10Anything to add, [member of the public], on site seat 15? Thank you. Okay, excellent. And we have no public speakers, so we come straight into committee. Members, Councillor Jung. Move on, please. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Collins. Okay, do any members wish to comment? In which case we'll go to a vote. All those in favour of the proposal to move on please. That's unanimously carried. Okay, then site beer 03, land at Quarry Lane, and we have Councillor John Heath, the moment you've been waiting for.

02:43:51Yeah, it is now. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, members of the council and the committee and the general public. I will explain why the proposal for 35 new dwellings in Quarry Lane Beer is unsustainable.

02:44:40Firstly, Beer is not a NIMBY village, as 30 new affordable houses, some of which will be social housing, will be built at short furlong by Live West Housing Association, which is a much more appropriate site for reasons of landscape and ecological suitability, and accessibility to the local primary school and local amenities. It is envisaged that this project will be completed by mid-2027, and the site will be bat-mitigated as part of the development.

02:45:13The proposed site is less than 600 metres east of Beer Quarry Caves, and the curator of the caves informs me that there is the rarest UK mammal, Beckstein's bat, in the UK. There are 181 greater and 71 lesser horseshoe bats nesting, 13 daubensteins, 32 natteras and 9 whiskered bats. All are protected as are a proliferation of dormice in the hedges. If those hedges are removed, as they would need to be to accommodate building, then this would impact upon the construction of the population and interfere with the bat's flights and foraging habitats.

02:45:58Artificial lighting would also affect the bat's flight paths. Road widening would be needed as it is currently single track with passing places. The road is very busy, especially in season, with local and tourist traffic from Beard to Branscombe and to the quarry caves. There is a steep banking behind the hedgerows of a 1-3 gradient, which will make row widening difficult. It is highly likely additional land would need to be purchased and a pavement would be required for health and safety reasons.

02:46:33There is a lack of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure and a lack of safe pedestrian access and limited frequency of public transport. This would increase car transport. The site is over 400 metres from beer shops and amenities, which will compromise elderly and disabled persons and families with young children. There are also significant landscape sensitivity concerns, as beer is AOMB, Area of Outstanding National Beauty, is part of East Devon National Landscape, and is just outside of the coastal preservation area.

02:47:06The majority of respondents to the survey were satisfied with the decision not to allocate. So, in summary, the reasons for recommending that allocation is primarily due to landscape impact, countryside intrusion, combined with significant heritage and ecology concerns, which require careful consideration. Thank you.

02:47:31Thank you, Councillor Heath. I'm going to propose from the Chair, having heard the comments and read the report, that we move on from this site. Councillor Jung, do you still wish to speak? No? Okay. Any other members wish to speak? No? Okay. In which case, we'll go to a vote on the proposal to move on then. All those in favour, please. That's unanimously carried. Okay. Which brings us then ping-ponging all the way back to the west end of the district.

02:47:59We are in Broadclist now, and we have a statement regarding Broadclist 12 from the Broadclist parish clerk Angie Huron. So, she refers to both Broadcliffe 29 and 12, so I'll have to read together. Firstly, access to Broadcliffe 29 is better suited via Site 12A rather than Green Tree Lane. The existing bell-mouth access is problematic due to level differences complicating what can be a chaotic junction. However, a pedestrian and cycle route through the southwestern corner would be ideal, linking residents to essential amenities and bus routes.

02:48:50Secondly, regarding Broadcliffe 12, increasing the allocation from 70 to 100 dwelling deviates from the officer's original recommendation, which found 70 to be the upper limit for Broadcliffe's scale. I quote from the officer's report, any larger development would be too great a scale for a settlement the size of Broadcliffe's. The master plan now proposes a 40% increase in dwellings with minimal additional infrastructure. This site threatens to overburden local infrastructure and services, undermining quality of life and failing the sustainable growth principles in the East Devon Local Plan and NPPF.

02:49:41Pf brooklyn's unique landscape and ecological importance make it vital to maintain a lower manageable density the master plan and new report shows over 40 percent more dwellings than originally recommended spread over a larger area with a slightly increased employment land allocation of 0.6 hectares whilst more employment land and the provision of self-build plots A need identified in the Broadcliffe Neighbourhood Plan is welcomed. The 40% increase of dwellings is of a high concern.

02:50:19The current East Devon Local Plan emphasises the importance of sustainable growth, aligning with the NPPF, which advises that development must be appropriate in scale, character and appearance for its surroundings. Such a leap in scale is inconsistent with principles of proportionate development and contradicts the earlier recommendation, which recognised a development of more than 70 dwellings would be excess for a village of progress size.

02:50:55Moreover, increasing to 100 dwellings risks compromising the objectives set out in our neighbourhood plans, which were designed to guide balanced growth. The larger scale proposed fails to respect the established vision for Boroughlin's future and risks creating an unsustainable precedent for future allocations. Should the committee be mindful to allocate, we request separate access to the employment area so that works-related traffic does not pass through residential areas. Connecting foot-slash-cycle links to the village to prevent residents needing to walk along Wimple Road.

02:51:38Improvements to the existing footpath. Strong local connection required for affordable units. protection of land allocated for self-built plots to meet local demand. In conclusion, I respectfully urge the committee to uphold the original recommendation of 70 dwellings to ensure any development remains proportionate, sustainable and aligned with the community's long-term well-being. Okay, thank you, Wendy. We now have the landowner slash promoter, Alex Bullock.

02:52:31Members, thank you for the opportunity to come and speak today in favour of the proposed allocation of land in Broadcliffe to provide 100 dwellings, 0.6 hectares of employment land and significant public open space. Hopefully, we'll have had time to review our emerging concept layout, which was submitted over a year ago as part of a pre-application to East Devon District Council. This shows the provision of 142 homes, a policy-compliant level of affordable housing, and custom and self-built plots.

02:53:00This is critical to meeting existing and future housing need in this locality. The Master Plan also shows the provision of a site for employment purposes, which is a key aspiration of the NAPA plan. This would provide for office space and potentially light industrial use, and therefore create jobs in the village, which we understand is a critical issue for local people. This development is unlikely to be viable without the cross-subsidy provided by the housing element of this scheme.

02:53:27In addition, significant areas of public open space are included, well in excess of what would be required by policy. This includes an equipped children's play area, extensive public parkland, as well as informal natural and semi-natural green space, which should include a new trim trail walking route for both existing and future residents of the village to enjoy. Of key importance is the delivery of the access from Wimple Road as opposed to that previously shown from Town End which we note was a key concern raised by previous speakers at the last Strategic Planning Committee in relation to this site.

02:53:58This is shown in our master plan and the highways officers have confirmed that our access design is acceptable and is sufficient to accommodate this number, i.e. 142, number of homes as well as the employment use proposed. In addition to this, the pedestrian cycle access is proposed within the north of the site to connect to the existing public right away, at least the town end. As members will hopefully have already noted in previous reports, there appears to have been much enthusiasm for such growth within the working party.

02:54:25See paragraph 3.4, proposed housing and employment allocations, West End and Surround, when considering this site, and we quote, there was a general feeling that the entirety of Broadcliffe 12 was feasible, providing sufficient employment land was included as part of a mixed-use allocation. the committee may feel it appropriate that a larger site area should be allocated. This holistic approach to planning of this site will allow a significant amount of benefits to be realised and we understand that the planning policy team are generally supportive of how our current master plan is evolving.

02:54:54We consider that this is an optimal solution for the delivery of housing in Broadlist that would see a multitude of benefits being delivered and we are therefore pleased to see the revised recommendation to allocate the majority of Broadlist 12. We respectfully urge the committee to support this wider allocation to ensure that this well-planned scheme can be delivered holistically and deliver much wider benefits than which would be secured via the reduced scheme previously discussed.

02:55:17Thank you. Thank you, [member of the public]. I would observe that feasible is not the same as supports. Referring to the working party minutes there, but there we go. Members, Councillor Furnley.

02:55:32Thank you, Chair. It's my turn to despair as a ward member. when we first saw these sites it was only 12a that was going to be allocated and because of access we asked if we could get something through 12b and all of a sudden we have 100 extra houses that you want us to accommodate it was in the officer's report the first time through that we couldn't accommodate 138 houses because it would swamp um the size of brawcliffe village uh it seems to you know give an inch take a mile there's also uh plans by the national trust which I got here um of wanting to bring a safe walking and cycling route downtown end and Greentree Lane and yet we're shown access to through 29 wanting to be accessed going through which is exactly what we asked the officers to look at so that didn't happen so I absolutely despair of of the amount of houses that you're now wanting to put in this area and I don't support okay Councillor Jess bailey but the numbers do seem very large and going back to um a spreadsheet

02:57:02Um according to that we're recommending 124 but then this is 70 um so it seems like the numbers are just kind of getting bigger and bigger and actually that is a huge site um and I'm always nervous about huge sites where you might allocate a few houses or in this case 70 houses and that could grow beyond that so I do I do have concerns about this and the scale of development I think broadcliffe is it tier three or tier three um but even so if you look at the size of that site compared to the existing footprint of the village it's it's not that much smaller than the entire footprint of the village so uh and I think that you know that's not really sustainable development Councillor I can't understand how we can make one rule for one and then break it so quickly afterwards it's not in a green wedge it's not in the coastal preservation it's not in the national landscape it is in close proximity to a settlement what what are we saying no to this for

02:58:30I can understand the nervousness of the member on the size of that but you know how can we say no to this site when you've passed other sites I don't see how you possibly can okay thank you Councillor Ingham Councillor Davey once again I'm grateful for the indicative layout that's given and I know we're bandying numbers about here but ultimately uh this is going to come forward at a planning application the numbers are not set in stone and if this comes forward as a planning application and members feel that the level of housing proposed is too great we can talk about that. But in fact the suggested layout misses out the upper part of the top right-hand corner of the site. What I can't make out is, because the text is too blurred, is just above the 12A. There's another sort of wench going up.

02:59:56Is that the suggested employment land? I can't actually make out what the proposal there is just to be clear again this is illustrative yes so this is illustrative it's also for 142 dwellings whereas the proposed allocation is for 100 and I think as the recommendation says we need to look again at sort of where the boundaries would be in terms of how much of 12b I think it is we would include within the allocation bearing in mind cancer furthest points about what is a reasonable scale of growth in this location um so but just looking at the master plan obviously this this shows the through routes coming through to wimple road which I think was the concern that was expressed you've got an area of self-built plots they're proposing uh there and some employment units down in this area down here um I think the rest is residential if I go across the key hopefully this is clearer than you've got in the papers although I think there was a link to open um and there's some attenuation and parkland areas they're shown

03:01:14To north informal public open space as well an ecological area in that central area coming through here. As I say, I would stress this is indicative, so it doesn't necessarily mean, but it gives you an indication as to what the site promoters have got in mind at this point in time. I mean, I hear the points about the scale of growth in Broadclist, and I suppose there are opportunities here to allocate a smaller area or advise us what members think is an appropriate scale of growth in in this location and for us to then uh tailor the site boundaries accordingly um but I think as soon as you you're seeking a road through to wimple road there obviously needs to be some kind of frontage onto wimple road and development around that for that to make sense as a as a place um so it's difficult to understand where you would draw the boundaries if we're seeking to achieve that thank you thank you mr Freeman um I'm going to make an an intervention at this point to propose officers recommendation for an

03:02:20Allocation of a hundred I take Councillor Fernley's point about the extent of growth and Councillor Bailey's that indeed this is quite a large site if you allocated all of it maybe a third maybe half the size of the existing village equally if we want to secure access onto Wimple Road for the dwellings that are proposed on 12a then there needs to be some houses to help pay for that and I think an uplift them from 70 to 100 is probably an appropriate scale I would like to see a policy requirement for interconnectivity for vehicles between the two sites and for pedestrians through on to is it town lane on the eastern side of the village or green tree yeah one of the two so I I would like to see those reflected in policy, but otherwise I will propose Officer's recommendation from the Chair.

03:03:18Councillor Jung. I was going to suggest 70, and you're saying 100. So can we say between 70 and 100? Well, Officer's recommendation originally was to allocate 12A on its own for 70. so I think this is where the logic of if we're then creating a route through to Wimple Road and providing some frontage and development to support that, that's where the additional 30 came from but as has been said it's not an exact science and obviously an application could come through for more or less so it's approximately 100 days Okay, do any other members wish to speak on this site? No? Okay, in which case then we have a, oh that was a hand up in the end was it Colin do you wish to speak or will you just know Collins Collins just messing around okay the proposal then is in accordance with officers recommendation to allocate a and B for a hundred homes with the exact boundary to be determined subsequently all those in favor please four on the right two at the front and four on the left ten yeah those against two and those abstaining one

03:04:54Okay that is carried then which brings us to our we must be in the bees now because we're going to Budleigh-Salterton. If we can go back to HDMI 1, please, Matt. Thank you. Okay, Budleigh-Salterton. First up then, site Budleigh-01, land adjacent to Clear Stace Farmhouse. And we have a supporter, [member of the public]. Welcome back, [member of the public]. All last. Budleigh-Salterton is a town with a good range of facilities and services, yet has an allocation of only 25 dwellings with the possibility of another 10 recommended in this report.

03:05:39By contrast, Limpston is a village with an allocation so far of 60 with a recommendation of a further 42 and if you count in the Limpston sites for Exmouth it comes to 325. This seems a little unbalanced. The Local Plan strategy is to provide growth to meet local needs and the needs of surrounding settlements in such towns as Budleigh. There is surely a need to find sites for more dwellings in Budleigh.

03:06:06O1 is completely surrounded by houses, and the officer assessment suggests that two of the fields to the north-east would be suitable for development if access could be found. Pedestrian access can be provided easily, directly to the primary school and along pavements to the town centre. The Highway Authority have accepted that access could be from Bedlands Lane or from the B3178, and this could be at the western end of the site.

03:06:32Limited development would preserve the green wedge and minimise the impact on the national landscape. Sites in the national landscape have already been allocated at other locations. The site is a far more sustainable location than those allocated to the north-east of Exmouth. I worked as a planner for a national park for 16 years and that's the highest category of landscape protection and we still had to provide sites for housing.

03:06:57So the fact that Budleigh is entirely within the national landscape, it would seem to be a reason for allocating another site.

03:07:05Thank you, [member of the public]. We have then the landowner slash promoter, [member of the public]John. Thank you for waiting. Pleasure, Chair. Thank you, Chair, Committee. I'd just like to reiterate the points which the previous speaker made, in that Budde-Soltenham is a large town, it is well served by facilities, and given the sort of context you've been discussing today, I would suggest there's an important need to look quite hard at where you can generate additional housing from.

03:07:40Budde-Soltenham is subject to some constraint, being a national landscape, but I would suggest this is a location where development can be achieved in a satisfactory manner which protects the character of the national landscape and the area immediately around. It is effectively an infill site surrounded on three sides by houses. Access is achievable from the northeast via Bedlands Road and the size of the site means that there's sufficient room, as I might put it for features to be built in to accommodate the landscape design requirements that will flow from its location, allow for biodiversity net gain and so on and so forth.

03:08:23So you could come forward with a very high quality, quite modest level of development in an area which already benefits from considerable screening and in a sustainable location. A town with all the facilities you'd expect for town and this site is within easy walking distance of the town centre and the seafront and so on and so forth. So, I think this is something which should be brought forward for development.

03:08:52It can be brought forward in a careful and well-considered manner, commensurate with my client's approach, Clinton Devon's approach, to doing development in this area. And I would therefore ask you to seriously consider the allocation and the benefits of allocating the land for 15-year dwellings.

03:09:09Thank you. Thank you, [member of the public]. And the ward member, or one of the ward members, Councillor Melanie Martins.

03:09:17Good afternoon everybody. The largest number of people who commented on the green wedges item in public consultation for the draft Local Plan was Budleigh Salterton with 327 responses. This shows how highly the Budleigh community value these green open spaces and how strongly they feel about the proposed allocations. The land referred to as Budleigh 01 is grade A agricultural land on a steep slope From the Exmouth Road perspective, it appears as a wide green belt with buildings dotted in the background and it links to the far landscapes of Otterton and Sidmouth.

03:10:09[Passage not reproduced here. It contains allegations or strong criticism of named people or the council, made at the meeting. We don't repeat allegations; you can hear the passage in the council's own recording by playing it from this point.]

03:10:35It would, in effect, swamp them. If this designated green wedge land is built on, there is a real danger that no village would lose its rural character and become an extension of Budleigh. Budleigh 01 is walking distance from the Pebblebed Heath's National Nature Reserve, and you can see the heath when stood at the top of the slope. If you look back at a housing site from the heath, instead of the open space, you'd see a built-up landscape, thus diminishing the effect of having this highly protected heathland for human enjoyment and as a habitat for wildlife.

03:11:11Budleigh residents have watched tankers going down their high street all year, and they know that the sewage infrastructure is inadequate for development on this site. The one medical centre in the town is running at capacity, serving 5,240 residents. The only school of St Peter's is oversubscribed and in great need of repair and modernisation. They have a Just Giving campaign to fund replacement of its inadequate classrooms. The Budleigh community are concerned about flood risk.

03:11:3960% of the site is at a high risk of groundwater flooding and the residents on Knoll Road have already experienced flooding when water runs down the steep slope. I was at the Budleigh Town Council meeting last night and I asked the committee if there were any other further comments they'd like me to make. One comment that stood out was regarding our land and its classification as part of the national landscape, which gives it the highest level of protection.

03:12:05Developing this land undermines the policy and sets a dangerous precedent. Paragraph 182 of the MPPF states that development in the national landscape should be designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the area, and the building of 50 to 350 houses would have a significant effect. It's worth noting at this point that there have been suggestions that this site could potentially be considered for a school in the future, which could have a more diminished impact on the area than the houses.

03:12:34Can I ask to finish up, please, Councillor Martin. I will. the Budleigh community do want to see affordable housing in their town and they support the officer's recommendation that Budleigh 02 is allocated with the increase from 25 to 35 houses but that Budleigh 01 is not allocated thank you okay thank you Councillor Martin um in view of the points that have been made about the site's proximity to services I'm everything all right Castor Bailey I think we're all getting to that point what was I saying in view of the comments about the site's proximity to services I'm going to come to mr. Freeman and or mr. Dickens to give us a bit of insight into why the site's not recommended so as has been noted the sites within the Green Wedge that separates Noll from Budleigh-Sorterton so obviously that's a significant constraints this site um I think the other aspect is that um large parts of the site are quite sensitive in landscape terms as well and obviously the whole area is is washed over national landscape

03:13:42As we know the whole of buddy sorterton is um so I think the report um draws out those issues it does identify that parts of the site are less sensitive than others particularly pointing out I think the northeastern part of the site is less sensitive in landscape terms so if members were wanting to make an allocation of part of the site it would be that part that we would consider to be most acceptable in landscape terms and in terms of the least impact on on the green wedge and its purposes however those parts of the site you would struggle to gain vehicular access to because there's no direct access to that part of the site from Bedlands Lane and then access from Dark Lane is not considered to be suitable so the question is whether or not you can gain access to the least sensitive parts of the site fundamentally so I think that's the issue here the comments in the main assessment do say that access to the site is okay this is Devon County Council Highway's

03:14:39Comments but obviously that access would be into one of the more sensitive parts of the site and so it's balancing those issues so ultimately that's why the recommendation is not to make an allocation here because of the struggles of gaining access to the least sensitive parts of the site where we think an allocation could potentially be acceptable in landscape terms okay thank you mr. Freeman Councillor Ingham question going back to this national landscape business you know it says this is not in a national landscape so I want clarity on that if it is or if it It's definitely in the national landscape. All of Budleigh is.

03:15:24Okay, so it is. Again, not good. Okay, thank you. Was Ollie before Geoff, or Geoff before Ollie? They're fairly close together. Oh, shall we toss a coin? Go on, Councillor Davey. All right, then. Yeah, it's another area I know well. In fact, I should be at Null Village Hall about now. if I'd gone there to play some music, but that's not to be quite clearly.

03:16:00Thank you, Chair. No, that's all right. But, yeah, this attracted a huge amount of opposition when even the suggestion that it might be allocated came forward, and actually what was being consulted on was the Green Wedge and whether that should be included in the Green Wedge or not. But it did get people extremely exercised. It's been suggested, I've heard it's suggested, that Knoll isn't really a separate settlement and could easily be swallowed up by Budleigh.

03:16:36I think the people at Knoll might tell you something different, actually. I think it's quite important to them that it is a separate village. So it would lead to really coalescence completely. I also know that it's grade one agricultural land. We don't get many developments where it's grade one. I mean, sometimes we're talking about grade three and we're arguing about that. Grade one, you know, that is top quality land.

03:17:06You can grow some nice stuff on that. It's in the Green Wedge. It's part of the national landscape. it's had huge opposition from the public and I cannot support it but I do support officers' recommendation Was that a proposal or Yep, I'll propose that we don't allocate this side or move on, whatever you prefer That we move on Thank you Councillor Jung, are you seconding? No, okay, I need to look for a seconder Councillor Collins do you wish to say anything?

03:17:43No? Okay. Councillor Collins wants to go home. Councillor Jung. I'm struggling with Dudley. It's in the national landscape, and it's... So we shouldn't be building in the national landscape, but the whole town is in the national landscape, so that's a bit bizarre to me. The Green Wedge, what's it separating what from what I presume from Knoll to Budleigh but separates Budleigh from Knoll yes but a lot of people consider that Knoll is part of Budleigh so I'm a bit confused there I'm not the representative it said it's open land but I understand it's farmland and there's no public access um I I hear um the issue about the school I believe there's a lot of uh problems with the school and it's in need of a rebuild and it would be if we just thought a bit strategic sometimes and think hang on a minute there's a school there that needs rebuilding there's an area there that needs, there's land there that we can put a school on. Right opposite, where it says path, that is a cemetery so it wouldn't upset too many residents. So you could put

03:19:16A new school there and put some housing there and then you've sorted the school out and you've got some more housing and the amount of housing that is in Budleigh is minimal to the amount of the size of the town compared with all the other towns we've been discussing today so I I would like to see some development in oh one thank you okay thank you Councillor Jung we do have a valid proposal to move on so do any members wish to speak further Councillor Jess bailey then Councillor Blakey uh it's a question really for ed if I can so um Budleigh's obviously tier two and yet we've just allocated a hundred houses for tier three um for broadcliffs 100 plus and it's already got been allocated however many on the previous round so how how does that impact our spatial strategy and does it leave us open to challenge at inspection that we're allocating far more houses for lower tiers than for some of the settlements in our upper tiers yes I mean that I can see what your point there is a contradiction

03:20:42There in terms of the strategy I think um the arc the counter argument would be that but this Sorterton is a bit of a unique case in that it is washed over national landscape and so in terms of that designation it's difficult to find acceptable sites at the town that are not harmful in the context of the national landscape whereas lower tier settlements such as Broadlist in this instance don't have those limitations in terms of nationally important landscape designations uh the the issue there is more about um issues around what's a suitable scale of growth for that community I would suggest um so I think that would be the logic um but yeah I certainly appreciate that in terms of our uh strategy we should be looking to allocate more as a settlement a tier two settlement and the town of the size of buddhiston but it is so constrained by the national landscape it's difficult to see where and how we can accommodate that and I fully hear what members say in terms of this particular site but it is difficult to see how you can

03:21:52Allocate a part of it that's not sensitive or not as sensitive in landscape terms because the parts of it that I think you could potentially allocate that wouldn't be well would be less harmful in terms of the national landscape and wouldn't undermine the purpose of a green wedge. You can't provide a vehicle access to as far as I can see. So we have looked quite long and hard at this about how we could potentially make an allocation in here, but we are really struggling.

03:22:23Thank you, Mr Freeman. Councillor Blakey. Thank you, Chair. Bugley is a tricky one, but I think it has to pull a bit of weight for the rest of the district. It seems to me that the Budleigh one, I accept that access is difficult, but would it not be possible to develop part of that quite substantial area while still leaving a bit of a wedge, if you like, between Noel and the rest?

03:23:02And perhaps most importantly provide some affordable housing for the many young people being brought up in Budleigh who simply cannot afford to live there and who are leaving in droves. So for me, I would like to see that site allocated at least in part.

03:23:26Thank you, Councillor Blakey. Councillor Ingham. I can't help but agreeing with Councillor Blakey on this one because, you know, wanting to stop coalescence is impossible. You want to perhaps consider any further coalescence, that stacks up. And, you know, preserving the landscape around Budleigh-Saltertham completely, putting it in Aspey, you know, it's just not on. We know the demographic of Budleigh. And if you want it to be sustainable at all, it's got to have some sort of growth. And I don't see why we can't allocate this site with restrictions on expectations for housing and working out an access point through the area that doesn't have allocation in order to access the part that does.

03:24:25I see that as possible and I just don't think it's reasonable to allocate left, right and centre for other towns and significant villages and not do so here. It doesn't stack up for me and I'm minded that we have been listening to a planner from the public admittedly who explained that to us and I think it's right I'm getting a look from Councillor Hayward

03:25:15Okay members so we have a proposal on the table to move on from this site do any other members wish to contribute to the debate before we take that to a vote to see what happens no okay then in which case uh we will do just that um perhaps somebody could remind me who proposed and second it proposal by Councillor Davey seconded by Councillor Bethany collins to move on all those in favour of that, please? I see three. And those against, I see six, because Colin doesn't pay his hand up very high.

03:26:12So six against and abstentions. That's three abstentions. Okay, so the proposal to move on from that site falls then um mr Freeman you've heard um the will of committee what do you think no pressure um matt can you turn to hdmi2 so so this is the sites obviously um so my understanding that's time to be credited if matt knows better but I mean looking at the site assessment Devon County Council saying access can be obtained from bedlands lane but not from dark lane the landscape assessment is saying that the less least landscape sensitive parts of the site of this north eastern parts and I think that's logical when you look at it from the green wedge perspective as well because development I think the openness of this side of knoll road is quite key in terms of the settlements separation with knoll and and also this space here separating knoll from this part of the town so access as far as I can see would need to come off this section here and potentially feed in around into this area here of some description um but I don't I haven't been to

03:27:35The site I don't know how that would work um I don't know if matt's able to comment in in more detail in his understanding of the assessment site he says dropping him in it but um that seems to me from the constraints that if members did seriously want to make an allocation that's the the only way it could work but you're putting a uh quite a lot of road in I would suspect before you get to housing which would be a significant cost um and I think the gradient of this site is dropping away from budlands lane down to knoll road if I recall as well uh quite significantly so there are potential constraints there so as to how viable and deliverable that is what you would get in terms of affordable housing and other benefits for the community I I would question so this is part of the reason I have reservations about an allocation here although I hear the will of the committee to make more allocations in bubbly saucer and understand that um I don't

03:28:35Know how helpful that is I don't know if matt wants to add anything to that okay I have Councillor Ingham then Councillor Hayward. I propose approval. Thank you. Of what? What do you reckon, Chair? I reckon this site is what I'm proposing is approved. The whole site? No. As Mr. Freeman has explained, he believes that Devon County Council believe access can be attained. When we consider who the landowner is, they've been doing this on different scales for a few hundred years now. When this authority ceases to exist, I suggest another 400 years they'll still be around as an estate. So, if anyone knows how to work this out, I suspect they do.

03:29:35Okay, thank you, Councillor Ingham. So, if I understand right, that's a proposal to allocate the three fields that Mr. Freeman has just highlighted in that northeast corner. is that is that what we're saying well what I would suggest I'm just thinking back to what members have done on the new site at Homerton about delegated authority I think we would need to work with the site promoters and Devon County highways to see what's achievable here so perhaps if members were minded to make an allocation a report says you could potentially achieve 50 in the 50 dwellings in the least sensitive part of the site so perhaps if members were to give delegated authority to us to work that through with the site promoters in Devon County Council determine a boundary but with the aim of achieving an allocation of potentially 50 dwellings in the least sensitive part of the site delegated authority to me consultation with the chair to determine exactly which part of the site and how that's to be achieved and bring that back through the regulation 19 version of the plan you're happy with mr.

03:30:46Freeman's suggestion counseling okay and Damien's got that okay do we have a seconder for that proposal Councillor Blakey do you want to say anything no I think I'm done with that thank you thank you Councillor Hey would you wish to speak I was going to second that simply on the basis that again another unpalatable decision and perhaps delegating to offices, there's potential for this to deliver something towards our target. Budleigh can then play its part, as the Secretary of State was keen to tell everyone, everyone's got to do their duty.

03:31:21But perhaps that a more creative solution, mindful of Budleigh's heritage and mindful of the national landscape, that perhaps there's a compromise. Houses, perhaps some higher density in the northern quadrant and then some more open SANGs play area green space in the southern portion so that the site is utilized but actually the housing numbers are done in such a way that it's not in congress with the significant number of houses that are already around it but that's the beauty of planning is for someone else to work out the minutiae of it but I think that would be allowing Budleigh to, you know, show its face and say we played our part in East Devon's housing crisis.

03:32:06Thank you. OK, thank you, Councillor Hayward. Are there any other speakers? No, in which case you have a proposal then for an allocation of 50 dwellings to be made with delegated authority provided to the Assistant Director in consultation with the Chair to determine exactly what that looks like in terms of a red line. all those in favour please so who was second it was seconded by Councillor Blakey all those in favour please I see four on the left, three on the right where did you get eight from seven four and three is seven okay so seven in favour those against please and those abstaining I think five or six, if you're Mr. Freeman. So that is carried. Then we will move straight on to Budleigh.

03:33:13Oh, yes. Budleigh. Oh, two, which is not my public speakers list because this is an uplift in numbers point. We have no public speakers, therefore, so I'll propose from the chair then, in accordance with officers' recommendation, that we uplift the allocation from 25 to 35. What's going on? Can we go back to HMI1? There we go. Thank you. Okay, Budleigh 02. The recommendation from officers is to up the allocation from 25 to 35 after review. I will propose that from the chair. Do any members wish to speak?

03:34:02No, it is in the national landscape. So that table is incorrect. Apologies for the error on multiple errors now on the slides. Okay. Do any members wish to speak on the proposal? Note, in which case then, all those in favour of upping that allocation, please. 11, yep, those against. Those abstaining, that's one. OK, that brings us then to Budleigh 03, immediately next door. And [member of the public] has anticipated what's happening next.

03:34:45Right, OK, fine, I'll start, actually, basically. Well, OCU, as you say, has already been allocated. It suggests this is for 35 rather than 25. if this is developed with O3 I think it would give both could be served by access of the B3178 and it would give an arch better scheme with footpath access to school and town which is not possible if O2 is developed alone it's able to be screened from Tidwell House I don't think that's a significant heritage consideration and it would also provide a better opportunity for biodiversity net gain within a larger site which would help within the national landscape Thank you [member of the public] John Thank you, committee. So, I think Budlio3 can make a further and actually very rational contribution to the housing supply in Buckley-Salterton and for the benefits we've talked about.

03:35:49Hopefully, you've seen the indicative layout, which my clients have prepared and which we circulated to you. I think it makes a number of good sense for a number of reasons. You've already proposed to allocate Budleigh O2 on land immediately to the west. To allocate this land, Budleigh O3, would represent an infill effectively. But what it would also do is, together with the allocation to the west, Buddleo2, it would help the whole work a lot better.

03:36:23At the moment, Buddleo2 is dependent upon access wholly onto the road to the north. But what this could do is provide a sustainable pedestrian cycle link across my client's land, connecting via a footpath which could run on the inside of the land to connect into the footpath and footway which then connects into the existing built-up area. For example, it would allow a sustainable access from both Budleigh 2 and Budleigh 3 to the school which is 250 metres away.

03:36:58So that's a very sustainable proposal. The scheme would also be able to provide affordable housing, which contributes to the issues of affordability, which is such a strong issue in Buddy Salterton. So therefore, I think this is a sensible issue. The design as the layout we've provided shows any impact on the natural landscape can be mitigated by careful design with, for example, green infrastructure, open space, etc., located on the northeastern side of the site on the Barn Lane main road junction and that will help mitigate any impact on the national landscape so I think this this provides a sensible proposition it will add to your housing numbers it will provide affordable housing it will facilitate sustainable access to the to the rest of Buddy Salter and the nearby school the services beyond I would ask you to allocate the land.

03:38:00OK, thank you, [member of the public]. I have lost my place in my papers. Where are we? Budleigh, Salterton. Councillor Martin.

03:38:13Thank you. OK, so my comments that I made about the medical centre and the school still stand in relation to Budleigh 03. 3. But in terms of the residents and the town council, in relation to Bulio 3, people are concerned about the highways issues, including the 60 mile an hour speed limits along B3 178. And I think, you know, to propose an access onto a 60 mile an hour limit road, that's going to cause some problems. As it stands, access to the proposed site could either be from a single track lane or the aforementioned B Road.

03:38:56There is currently no footpath to the existing Evans Field development to fields along. The officer report states that Buddleo 3 is a prominent site and would adversely affect and impact gateway views. You have to visit the site to see this. Travelling from Otterton to Knoll, you pass fields, farmland and the historic Tidwell Farm. The existing and unfinished development of Evans Field and the proposed site, Budleigh 02, are screened currently by trees and hedgerows, but Budleigh 03 is on a corner and highly visible.

03:39:32Again, I was at the Budleigh Town Council meeting last night and I asked if there were any further comments they would like me to make regarding this site. And again, the open space and its classification as part of the National Landscape came up, which gives it the highest level of protection. Paragraph 2, which I mentioned earlier, 182 of the NPPF states that the development within the natural landscape should be designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated area.

03:40:04The concern is that developing this prominent land undermines the policy and sets a dangerous precedent. Another comment was regarding the submission of land for allocation, and we touched upon this earlier today. There was a suggestion that other sites are more suitable than the ones we've talked about today, but they have not been submitted to date. Lastly, it is considered, this was brought to my attention by a town council member, that the proposed site is isolated.

03:40:33Evansfield, O2 and O3, are fairly isolated, being on the furthest boundary of Budleigh. There aren't any shops in Knoll Village, which is half a mile away, And although Budleigh is a short drive away, it's still a 1.2 mile walk, which could be considered too far for the elderly or infirm. As mentioned earlier, we do support Budleigh O2, but we agree that Budleigh O3 should not be allocated.

03:41:00Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Martin. Coming into committee. Members, Councillor Jung. I would propose this to go forward. for allocation short and sharp okay I will look for a seconder Councillor Ingham do you wish to speak no we've had the reasons put to us very clearly so I'm happy to second okay mr. Freeman any concerns if we do well I just want to make sure members are aware of the landscape impact so if we could go to HDMI 2 please Matt. So the issue with this site was always it being so much more prominent in the landscape than Buddle underscore 02. So this is looking on Street View, the junction between the B3178 and Barn Lanes. The site is this site on the corner. Budl_02 sits behind this tree belt and so is very much better screened in terms of the wider landscape and I think that's why you're getting comments about this site being sort of detached because there is a quite a significant visual barrier with the tree belt between the two sites I can see that on plan form it looks like a natural

03:42:24Extension but I just want members to be aware that in the landscape it sits quite differently and is quite prominent compared to but load to and quite discrete as a field as separate from those adjoining you can obviously on the ridgeline see some of the existing development there but just so you're aware that that is going to create quite a hard edge to the town at that junction and that road and that that was the principal concern with this site so just to make sure members are aware that OK, thank you, Mr. Freeman. Do any members wish to speak? Councillor Jess Bailey.

03:43:06Yeah, I like the idea of it being more connected with Budleigh, well, helping O2 get connectivity, but it is very prominent, isn't it?

03:43:27Yes, just in case that wasn't rhetorical. Do any other members wish to comment? I must say I agree with Councillor Jess Bailey in this instance okay nobody else wants to say anything so we'll go to a vote you have a proposal to allocate the entire site from Councillor Jeff Young seconded by Councillor Ingham all those in favour please two the proposer and seconder all those against the rest of committee so that proposal falls do I need to check if there were any abstentions there weren't any but are there any abstentions no okay I will propose from the chair then that we move on from this site all those in favour please that's going to be ten then if I had to guess those against two and abstentions none okay that's Budleigh 03 done we're going to take a short break now and for the benefit of members of the public in terms of what we're going to do when we come back from that break, unless I hear any groans of pain from committee that engender any sympathy,

03:44:58We are going to go through the two sites in Colleton, the two sites in Limston, all of the sites in Woodbury and the two sites in Chardstock before we call it a day. Yes, the other ones would then be deferred to the provisional backup date on Friday. Sorry, Councillor Loudoun. Is anybody going to take out a hit on me if we do that? there. Okay, well, there we go. That's the decision that's been taken, so we'll take a 10-minute break until quarter two. Okay, members. Colleton. HDMI 1, please. Okay, starting with

03:56:31Collie O2B, land at Hillhead. We have two members of the public to speak. First, Councillor Alison Stenning for the Parish Council. Okay, [member of the public] on behalf of Acorn Property Group.

03:56:59As stated in the committee report, officers have recommended Collie 2B for allocation alongside the adjoining Collie 2A portion of the site. As development partners for Collie 2A, Acorn Property Group are well positioned to also deliver Collie 2B. With Collie 2A already allocated, it makes sense to consider them together and allocate the remaining Collie 2B parcel to help meet housing numbers. The justification for allocating this site was put very effectively by Mr Freeman in the previous committee meeting. Colleton itself is identified as a local centre, making Collie 2B a sustainable location for development. Unlike other sites around Colleton that are heavily constrained, Collie 2B is outside the AOMB, it is not in the flood zone, not in a green wedge, and there are no other overarching policy constraints.

03:57:55In addition, DCC highways confirm that access off Old Sidmouth Road is acceptable, and as previously suggested, Collie 2A and 2B could be serviced off the same road, which further justifies why both sites should be brought forward. Subject to suitable section 106 contributions and a detailed drainage scheme, Collier 2B alongside Collier 2A is a demonstrably deliverable site. It is acknowledged that Collier 2B is in a more visible location than Collier 2A.

03:58:31However, it is considered that if designed well, any impact can be mitigated. the landscape sensitivity would be a key driver for any emerging proposals and as such a bespoke design-led approach is required as a bespoke high quality house builder acorn is well positioned to meet this requirement we have a proven track record of delivering successful schemes on heavily constrained sites and it should be and should it be allocated collie 2b alongside 2a will be no different. To conclude, COL-E2B is not in the AOMB, it's not in Green Wedge, not in a flood zone, and as discussed, immediately adjoins COL-E2A, making it a sensible addition to the existing allocation. For all the reasons outlined, and as recommended by officers, COL-E2B, subject to a final detailed scheme, is considered appropriate for development. Therefore, I encourage members to allocate Collier TV alongside Collier 2A. Thank you.

03:59:38Thank you. We'll come back then to Councillor Stenning for the Parish Council. Good evening. I've forgotten why I'd come here this morning. You should know that this field is sacred to the residents of Collierton and Collierford. It is a place of all-pervasive tranquility where people walk to find peace, and is Collierton's best-kept secret. To violate the sanctity of the area by permitting it to be developed for housing would be an act of wanton vandalism.

04:00:16I am reliably informed by Professor Fiona Matthews, a resident of Colleton, who until recently was chair of the British Mammal Society and chief advisor to the government on small mammals, that the land above Bernersfield Road is used extensively for foraging by grey long-eared bats, which are on the UK red list of endangered species. There are only approximately 1,000 of them in the UK and they are one of its rarest mammals.

04:00:48There are only six known breeding colonies in Britain and we are lucky enough to have a maternity roost in Colliford which we are duty-bound to protect. They are close to extinction so we'd need very careful mitigation indeed. Added to the grey long-eared bats, this land is also foraged by bats from beer quarry caves, so there could be absolutely no street lighting whatsoever. Conservationist and bat enthusiast Adrian Bailey from the Devon Bat Conservation and Research Group, and also from Colleton, has been radio-tracking the bats above Burnersfield Road and reporting his findings to the East Devon National Landscape, or the AOMB, So these figures are all documented.

04:01:39The field immediately adjacent to Collie 2B across Clay Lane, which is little more than a footpath, contains an attenuation pond which is home to breeding great crested newts and other protected species. It's right there on the corner. What would traffic in Collie 2A and Collie 2B do to them? Is the man against nature? are there to be no safe places left for these endangered species. As I told you before, any houses on this field will loom above Burnsfield Road and look directly into the homes and gardens of existing residents.

04:02:19Flooding of those properties will undoubtedly occur, considering the current drainage problems which already exist. Clay Lane is not suitable for vehicles. Love and Fairview Lanes, both single track, will be turned into a rat run by those seeking immediate access to the A3052 at Collieford and Seaton Tesco for their groceries. It isn't sustainable. Colleton doesn't have the jobs or infrastructure for more development. I'll ask you to finish up, please, Councillor Stenning.

04:02:52And it is unclear how it will cope with the 72 homes and six light industrial units now being constructed at the former Ceramtec site. Colleton is built on water, which the developers of the Ceramtec site are finding out. They have already flooded one of the houses at Prospect Terrace on Sidmouth Road last week. Could you finish up, please, Councillor Stenning? Sorry? Could you finish up, please? You've had your time.

04:03:19With filthy silt water and have yet to come up with a solution, all of this muddy water will end up in the accessory, a situation the district council is trying to avoid. The level of upheaval, should you permit development on college 2A and 2B, would be catastrophic for both humans and wildlife alike. I implore you to leave this quiet idyllic nook alone without raining destruction on the natural world.

04:03:52I rest my case. Thank you, Councillor Stelling. That's all the public speakers, so we come, therefore, into committee members. Councillor Parr.

04:04:02Thank you. Yes, well, building on what the Parish Council has said, and I think you heard them at the previous meeting make many other points about this site. All of which I agree mainly, and as it says in the report, this site, development of this site, would have a high to medium landscape sensitivity. In other words, it is a very important landscape area. It's the setting of the town.

04:04:40It would have an impact on the national landscape. And we've heard a lot about other sites and how development there would impact the national landscapes. well that applies here and and the landscape report which I think was a reason for you moving on from this site last time I don't know whether it's come back has it further landscape comments I can't find them I can only find what there are in the report here there is a hyperlink in the covering report to the full report right further to the landscape objections the ecology which has been mentioned a significant adverse effect is predicted there'll be insufficient primary school places and secondary school places as well and And Axminster is quite a bus ride away, 20 minutes, in fact, to the school, 25 minutes and to the station.

04:05:59Colleton's been made a local centre, but the school won't be able to provide places. And as has been said also, the sewerage system is totally inadequate. We've got serious problems with sewage on the streets at the moment. we're about to have to adopt the public loos otherwise there'll be no public loos in the centre of Colleton where is the employment if this is a local centre where is the employment we really do need to have joined up thinking as I said before you can't make somewhere a local centre and say that putting more houses there will make it sustainable it's got to be more than that and we have no indication of how these problems will be sorted out.

04:06:54Thank you. I'm obviously proposing that we move on from this one again. Okay, thank you, Councillor Parr. Do we have a seconder for that proposal? I'm not seeing one. Okay. Councillor Ingham, then. Just after clarification, Chair, So, officers are saying this site is not in the national landscape. Is that correct? Okay. So, we've been approving sites that are in national landscapes, some that are in green wedges and coastal preservation areas.

04:07:41This is not as adjacent to a site that's already proposed, allocated. That's correct. isn't it okay it's adjacent to the settlement I can't see how we can do anything other than to approve this was that a proposal counseling okay council how are you seconding regretfully I think we have no choice so yes I will second it okay thank you do any others wish to speak on this site no okay in which case you have the proposal from Councillor Ingham to allocate Collie O2B in accordance with officer's recommendation. All those in favour, please. I count eight. Those against. One. And those abstaining. Two. Okay.

04:08:45Okay. Next up then, Collie 06A, which I believe members asked to come back following, seeking some clarification, excuse me, from Devon County Council. Did we receive that clarification regarding its potential use as a school and was it helpful? Yes, so we did contact Devon County Council Education. If you look in the report, there is a response verbatim which says primary school currently sits on a very constrained site and is undersized when compared to government guidance.

04:09:18So having a site identified would be welcomed. I understand there is a community desire to retain this land for the school should there be a funding stream in the future. this is a position that Devon County Council would support given the constraints of the existing sites and the demographics in the area so that's their comment but I think through discussion we've established that there are no current plans to build and this a replacement school in Collyford sorry Colleton and so it's a community aspiration and then Devon County Council are saying you know they would welcome having a site identified for that in the future but they have no current plans to do that thank you mr Freeman Councillor Stenning you would be leaving us with absolutely nowhere in collerton to build a school and now you've allocated these other houses there will be lots and lots of children how are they going to reach a school they can attend you'll have to pay for the transport costs um there is nowhere else we lost the ram tech and this is the only place left in collerton where we can build a school

04:10:35That's all I have to say thank you Councillor Stenning will we come to members then Councillor Powell thank you well um my reading of the comments from Devon County Council was final sentence that this is a position in other words the wish of the community to retain the site this is a position that Devon County Council would support given the constraints of the existing sites and the demographics in the area quite clearly they accept what we said that the existing school is incapable of expansion they can't provide places they need to provide places this is an ideal site and that you have just agreed more houses to be built we are going to need a larger school the owners would not have put it forward for a school would they because if they can get housing on this land obviously that would be preferable to them but it is the community wish that this be retained for a possible primary school and the county is supporting that wish and saying that they are going to need another site in the area so for that reason I do not think this land should be

04:12:04I think it would be quite wrong to not respect the wishes of the community and the fact that they are planning for themselves. The plan is to have a new school, and where is the plan from this council that would make Colleton back into a local centre, which you want it to be?

04:12:40Councillor Bailey. Thank you. I don't know why it does that. Sorry. I support Councillor Parr with this. I think when you're weighing everything up we're only talking about 12 houses and actually the loss of a site that could be really, really important for the community so I think when we're weighing everything up there's a site that's central within Collarton, it's not actually going to provide that many houses once it's gone, it's gone, it'll be lost forever and I know as a county Councillor How difficult it can be um to actually um get sites so um I I would not support allocation of this for housing um and I propose that we move on okay thank you Councillor Bailey is that a seconding hand Councillor Jung okay uh I need to look for a seconder first please Councillor Parr okay Councillor Jung your question yeah I noticed that the school is on the junction of the Butts and Sidmouth Road is that correct yeah so what what is being proposed by the parish council is that that school is full and this

04:14:09Would be a better location for a school my thought is if that school then closes the old school closes is an opportunity to do some doing some residential building there and then develop the Culleton 06 site as a school but it doesn't doesn't the answer from Devon County Council doesn't fulfill me with confidence that a new school will be coming there any time soon and now that I would know if the developer is putting this site for development and we say no you've got to be in school and it's going to wait another 15 20 years for a school, he'd be quite rightly a bit unhappy.

04:15:13I must say I have some sympathy with Councillor Jung's point there. I think Devon County's comment to me read like them wanting to keep their options open, but they're not, quite frankly, being a chance in hell of it ever happening, being slightly cynical. Councillor Blakey, then Councillor Hayward. Yeah, thank you, Geraint. And actually developing that point, I think it's a case that an awful lot of communities would love to be able to mothball plots of land for future use.

04:15:44But such things really can't go on ad infinitum. So I have a suggestion. I do have sympathy with the idea of keeping this site for an enlarged school. but if we accept that position can we put a time limit on it can we say to the land owner that we will offer a five year, ten year moratorium at the end of which if Devon County Council have not come forward and got to building a school that we could then look at it as a windfall site at that time are we even allowed to do such a thing I don't honestly see how you could do that through the Local Plan it's kind of a conditional allocation I can't see that you can do that that would just lend itself to not allocating it to my mind and then you know see what happens during this plan period but I mean I come back to I mean, if you look at the report, education are saying that there is some capacity at Collarton and Seaton primary schools, but not enough is the point.

04:17:05So that's where the concern comes from. But to have such an excess of demand versus supply to open and additional school, which I think is what we're talking about. You need quite a lot of additional numbers at a time when birth rates are declining. um it just seems unlikely to me um that the need is is likely to be there in the near future and then there's do we even know if the landowner is willing to to pass the the land agreeable rates to the education authority to deliver a school here they the owner has put it forward for housing through this process um so I I think we should be considering whether or not it's acceptable for housing that's what the owners has asked us to do uh through this process I understand the community's aspiration and have great sympathy for it and recognize that they're trying to do the right thing by their community and look ahead but fundamentally um the landowner has put it forward for housing and that's what the question we're being asked to to answer is is this a suitable

04:18:12Site for housing in the Local Plan thank you mr Freeman councillors hayward then how thank you um yeah I mean I suppose if we look on the positive side a land swap it's been done many times before um and you swap a piece of land that appears to be quite prone to flooding and with the experience of tipton you should be careful what you wish for um but for a site within the center of town um you know perhaps an apartment block in there you know town center living um where the school is so but we can't force the hand on this so all we can either do is say no or say yes um you know Devon is going to have to cooperate with us as a planning authority um and who knows in some point in the future cpo powers might be improved and it will be taken out of their hands um but for the time being I I echo what Councillor Baby and Councillor Power have said I think it's let's keep our options open on this one it's only 12 properties we've

04:19:13Just agreed you know an exceptional site um to the south of town so I'm I'm happy to support um moving on from this one chair thank you Councillor Hayward Councillor How one of those hard ones in it we have no facts to stop us allocating this as homes so we go to the inspectorate you know whenever we published on Reg 19 the developer turns up and says well I've offered 12 homes here and yet you're allocating in national landscape in Budleigh Salterton in all the other locations this is in the national landscape there's no how there's no school requirement Devon County Council aren't saying that there's a need for a school and we are instantly in trouble no green wedge no nothing and and I am sat here just trying to work out how you can say no to the site that has no requirement by the education authority. They are quite clear. Lovely. If you want to gift us a school, fine, it seems. But, you know, we're not going to commit to making one. Yeah, I get what the local aspirations are. I

04:20:27Really do. But without the statutory authority, Devon County Council, saying, oh, God, we've got a desperate need for a school, we need the site reserved, we have not got a leg to stand on. And I'm trying to understand that. But that's my view. Councillor Davey. Most of the site is shown as being in a flood zone. And I read the report and say, well, the easternmost part of the site is flood zone three, this is flood zone two, and therefore that's okay. So my question is how is this different from the one we looked at in Honiton that was allegedly in a flood zone and yet we said well we can't build there because it's in a flood zone. So I'm just confused now. Do we pick and choose our flood zones or you know how significant are the numbers? Of course we do Wally. We only decide you know to build in places that have flood zones where it's going to wind up the local community could somebody shed some light on that for us please this is a

04:21:40Site that has been subject to assessment on the strategic flood risk assessment so the consultants specifically looked at this site and their conclusions was that the flood zone mapping on the screen is not as severe in reality as the as the pictures depicting so they said you can get a you can accommodate to housing this site but they've done the detailed work to justify that and that's the comparison with Honiton in that case could we do the same in Honiton please I'll look to mr. Freeman but I think the problem there is that when we're now at the stage where we don't have time to do that yes there's that issue the other issue is the specific site modeling in some cases very expensive as in tens of thousands of pounds um and we took a pragmatic approach given that the honington site is within the settlement boundary and could come forward through a planning application anyway that uh it would therefore be for the owners to bring that forward and do that work through a planning

04:22:40Application rather than for us to take up the burden of doing that just to allocate a site that can come forward under our policies in any event and that decision about which to do the level two on came to committee didn't it if I remember right uh yes it did okay good could somebody remind me where we are with the proposal we have a we have a valid proposal to move on do we okay thank you for reminding me do any uh members wish to add Councillor Bailey um I just wanted to um respond to Councillor How about the difficult position that we might find ourselves in an examination for allocating um uh this as a school and I think what we could validly say is that Devon County Council um have expressed their support for allocation of this as a school so I don't I don't I mean okay we're not saying that um Devon County Council um are imminently going to build the school but they are supportive it seems to me um and I'm a Devon County Council

04:23:48I haven't discussed this with anybody at Devon County Council but certainly from the response that they've given there seems to be support for it to be allocated as a school so I'm not sure that why that would create a difficulty and I just think in terms of being a Strategic Planning Committee it's only 12 houses yet the downside of losing the site for the school for the community would be really quite bad. I'm going to take us to a vote on the proposal that's been made just in view of the time and the fact that I don't think minds are being changed by this discussion necessarily. So the proposal from Councillor Bailey is to move on from 06A. All those in favour, please. I count three. Those against, seven. And abstentions is me. Okay, so that proposal falls. Do we have another proposal? Councillor Howe? I'll propose that as per officers' recommendation. Okay. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Bethany Collins, do you wish to speak? No. Okay. In which case, we'll go to a vote on that one then. All those in

04:25:11Favour of officers' recommendation as proposed? Seven, I think again. Against? I guess three. Yep, and abstentions, I guess, one. Very good. Okay, so that is carried then, and 06A is allocated, which means we're finished with Collie 06, and brings us to, are we in tier, no, we must be still in tier three now. Yes, Limston is tier three, yes. Okay, so we are in Limston then. [member of the public], anything to add before we go through the sites?

04:25:54No, I'll take you straight to site GHE D72, London Meeting Lane. OK, and we have first up [member of the public]. How are you, James? Good to see you. Councillors, I am pleased to see that the larger field on this site has now been rejected. The reasons for objecting to that field do not change for the smaller sites suggested by officers. This site is still a totally unsustainable form of development, and contrary to national policy as set out in the MPPF, given the impact on the road network, which is already at capacity, the impact on high-quality agricultural land, and poor access to the local services and facilities.

04:26:35As part of the Hallett family, whose ancestors have farmed and lived at Gulliford and Nutwell for almost 700 years, I can wholeheartedly confirm that both of these two fields have always been high-yielding cornfields. The smaller site being discussed may be reported as grade 3, but this is because it floods annually and affects flooding on Nutwell Road. It is still a high-yielding grade 1 crop field. Unlike most villages in Devon, there is little road access to the village as it is cut off by the accessory on one side and the A376 on the other.

04:27:08Any development on this greenfield site will worsen current flooding issues downhill on Nutwell Lane and the A376, making it impassable and cut off the village even more than presently. EDDC officers keep targeting Lindstone using the sustainability argument. This is disingenuous. A recent survey conducted within the parish confirmed most people commuted by car, both for work and to take children to various schools. The train did not go to the destinations needed and was too expensive.

04:27:34The same argument was used for bus travel. This development will rely on car transport, apart from a few children walking to local Lindstone Primary School, which is already oversubscribed. The application site is within the coastal preservation area, and this development goes against strategy 44. On the EDDC website, it is stated that restrictions against development in CPAs are stronger than those in AOBs. Why have a public consultation where the overarching responses were to protect CPAs at all costs if you then are going to ignore it?

04:28:04The field on this site, the Gulliford 14th century water meadows and the Nutwell Estrate drain into the accessory, an internationally important feeding ground for birds, indicated by its designation as a Ramsar site. And as such, we should be protecting this CPA carefully. At a time where there's clear national policy push for biodiversity net gain, this would be the opposite. The community does not have the infrastructure for this site in terms of doctor surgeries, NHS dentists, primary and secondary school places, or functioning sewage system.

04:28:30The site is close to seven Grade II listed important historical sites, some of which, like the 14th century hunting lodge, now called the Stick House, and the historic Gulliford Farm, are at risk. The site is 350 metres from the Grade II list of Belvedere and 400 metres from Hayes Raleigh, which will be affected by development. These have not been mentioned by officers. It's literally across the lane and drains into the nationally important Nutwell estate. We should be preserving and protecting these sites for future generations. I would also like to note that the LPC, Lympstone Parish Council, should have been allowed to speak on this unique allocation for one reason alone that is classified as limestone in your classification and public report for today's meeting. This site is wholly failing, totally unsuitable for the village, but also with damaging ramifications to both the sensitive coastal area and the historic buildings nearby. I urge you to discount it.

04:29:21Thank you, [member of the public]. [member of the public]. I'm pleased to see the office has rejected the larger development site, but this smaller development suggested still has the same arguments for rejection. The site is unique as it is in a neighbouring parish boundary but next to the built-up area boundary of Limston village. At the last meeting regarding this site there was a feeling of shock and disgust that the parish council Woodbury would support a site clearly unwinded by its neighbour and completely unsuitable. Woodbury parish council is no doubt how Limston parish council residents feel about the site. Destruction of spirit of place would occur to our unique beautiful and historic village if this was approved. This site has seven grade two listed buildings in the facility, two within 400 metres of this amended site.

04:30:14People visit and live in Limston because of its unique and quirky characteristic. Constant modern developments ruin this. The financial lifeblood of this district is tourism, centred around Exmouth and Limston. Overdevelopment will undermine it. Gulliford Water Meadows and associated hedgerows have been recorded since at least 1311. The hedgerows and Devon banks here are ancient and officers have mentioned that some will be destroyed if this site is built. Woodbury Village is two miles away from this site.

04:30:39If representatives of Woodbury Parish Court were backed into a corner into choosing between a site in their village and this site, then the whole process of choosing sites which fit best in a community has been undermined and gives the impression that one community is being played off against another. It then appears that Woodbury's decided to benefit itself whilst foisting the problems onto its neighbours and who can blame them.

04:30:59The site is outside the built-up boundary of Limston. It's within the coastal preservation area and the built-up boundary for Limston has been quietly altered by EDDC with no consultation. The amount of development targeted for our village feels to residents like an attack that will destroy the spirit of place of our pretty little fishing village. It should be noted that Lipstone Parish Council, speaking for its residents, have been given no say or chance to defend against this site, which they know well and know the destruction that will cause for the village, the historical sites close by and the ex-estuary. I understand that Lipstone Parish Council were formally asked to be able to speak in this unique situation, but you have refused this. It seems wrong that Limston isn't allowed to speak where Woodbury, one of whose councillors is a relevant landowner, is allowed to speak on a site two miles from their village. Is this how democracy works in this district? I implore the committee to listen carefully to the arguments, particularly those which have been put forward by

04:31:54James Moffat, to oppose this site. And even though Limston Parish Council has not been allowed to defend their own village, those speaking today hope you will listen to our arguments and support allocate this site. Thank you, [member of the public]. And just addressing the point about which parish council is allowed to speak, we've had to be, we've set out a rule and we have had to stick hard and fast to it. I have sympathy here, really genuinely I do, but there are a lot of sites across the district, we've seen a large number of them today, that are adjacent to one settlement and in a parish that does not include that settlement and we we had a large number of those this morning um on the edge of Exmouth that were in fact in limston parish um and you know it's it's it's you've you've you've had the limston parish council has had the opportunity to speak on those whereas if we were being you know taking a pragmatic approach we might have given that to Wexmouth instead. I understand

04:33:00The frustration, please believe me, I do. It's the only sensible approach that we have been able to take. I don't particularly want to get an argument, but I would argue this is a very different situation for Limston and Exmouth, because we're actually in Limston Parish, so basically, whereas this depends on Limston, this site, it's nothing to do with Woodbrink, and I think the Parish Council should at least have been allowed to say something about it.

04:33:27I appreciate the point, and, as you say, not going to get into a back and forth here. We come then to Woodbury Parish Council.

04:33:44Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon. Yes, I'm speaking on behalf of the dreaded Woodbury Parish Council. This site is located in Woodbury Parish and it is one of three potential sites which are in this close proximity. The committee has already agreed to allocate one of the adjacent sites, that's G H E D 73, which is inside Limston Parish. G H E D 74, which is the next site, we hope that this committee will concur with the officer's assessment not to allocate.

04:34:25It is imperative that this remains undeveloped. It is vital that this site is a biodiversity area. It's within the mitigation zone and its crucial nature corridor between the river X and the Pebblebed Heath. This was included and detailed within our comprehensive landscape proposal of the area circulated to officers and councillors. And that was a landscape proposal which was discussed with Limstone and Exmouth. Exmouth Town Council, Limstone Parish Council and Woodbury Parish Council want and hope that East Devon District agree that it is important to prevent coalescence and urban sprawl and to protect landscape and the identity of villages.

04:35:20This the third site as the committee has recently agreed to allocate sorry as the committee has agreed to allocate the adjacent site gh ed 73 for potential development Woodbury parish council would support the allocation of gd ed 72 as it appears to meet the same criteria under the methodology for the revised number total of 42 dwellings. Thank you. Thank you Councillor. I have next up [member of the public]. Good evening Chair Members. I'm Oliver Keats of Landra Developments who are working with the Parks family to promote the land at Meeting Lane. We therefore support the allocation of this site for housing including the proposed small allocation 42 dwellings that is outlined in your officers report. Members should have received an email yesterday the intention of which was to address the two key reasons for not continuing to allocate the wider site at this committee's meeting on the 3rd of September. Firstly landscape and visual considerations. As members are aware, the site is not within or in close proximity to the East Devon National Landscape. It's 2.4 kilometres away. The site is not the subject of any neighbourhood

04:36:58Plan, designation and policy, and nor is the site within a green wedge. The principal landscape consideration that has been used to criticise the site's credentials is that it is situated within the coastal protection area. In this regard I think it is important to note that a lead consideration in the Local Plan policy strategy 44 for this designation is sites are to quote defined on the basis of visual openness and views to and from the sea. As I'm sure many of you are aware the site has been has an urban form to the south and it has no visual connection with the sea or excess tree the site is discreet as seen from the adjoining settlement and we are of the view a landscape strategy can be crafted that mitigates its introduction moving on secondly to heritage considerations the council's heritage reasons for not allocating the site appears to be predicated entirely on proximity between the site and the listed buildings and it does not appear to have considered in any detail whether setting contributes to their significance.

04:38:13Initial appraisal work undertaken by Landra Heritage Consultants suggests that the site is not a primary part of the setting of these assets and that there is good scope for landscape enhancements that would reduce any visual impacts. It should be further noted that the Heartland associated with Nutwell Court is not a designated heritage asset. There is no reason to suggest that with appropriate mitigation, housing cannot be accommodated at this site having regard to heritage impact.

04:38:45Members will have received, with my email of the 28th of September, October, a master plan showing how the site can be developed for approximately 110 dwellings. This master plan has been led by the landscape and heritage considerations of the site, including its topography and viewpoints we very much advocate the proposed site allocation be increased to reflect this master plan thank you members for the opportunity today to put this site at meeting lane forward as a suitable housing site in limston for consideration by this committee an opportunity to find additional dwellings if you are minded to allocate this site for 110 dwellings can we have quiet from the gallery please thank you okay coming into committee then as that's all the public speakers I saw Councillor Jung's hand a minute ago okay Councillor Jung no longer wishes to speak does anybody Councillor Ingham thank you Jack I think [member of the public] spoke superbly in countering why this track of land is so special. I think our officers, obviously, for putting this forward, have been superbly hoodwinked by the

04:40:07Agent of the landowner. They've done very well. But the question is, are you going to be hoodwinked by this as well? You've heard that. The figures, you've heard a number of dwellings here. We know the intent. I did explain to you last time about the ancient pastures along that, I think [member of the public] mentioned it as well this is the main entrance to Limson because it's coming from Exeter and so it is the most visual, you know that you have a Knotwell Court adjacent to it you see it marked immediately to the west of that boundary and the road of Knotwell Road or a new road as it was that explains to you exactly how important this land is valued by the community and as was mentioned there's the drainage for this site which already floods going across Notwell Road during the winter months when there's a heavy rainfall. So we already know that there's a problem. If you build there you'll exacerbate that. So that's why I would call on the committee to move on

04:41:29With this side. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Ingham. Is that a proposal as you use the words? Yes. I'll look for a seconder. Councillor Parr, do you wish to speak? Okay. Councillor Jess Bailey, did you want to speak? Yeah. I totally understand why Limson Parish Council are frustrated I really do and I'd really like to as a committee member have heard from them because actually I know how I would feel if I was a parish Councillor Um and I hadn't been allowed to speak on this really big site um and I do it in terms of consistency I do worry about allocating I know it's a reduced site but it's at the entrance, isn't it, to Limston and I worry about changing characters of places and I'm not sure that I can support this Thank you Councillor Bailey, any further?

04:42:43Councillor Jung, thank you Councillor Collins Yes, I've obviously I attend a lot of Limston Parish Council meetings. I attended the drop-in session that they organized and the Parish Council are very opposed to this and many many residents are opposed to this because it is at the entrance and on the edge of the village and it will spoil the entrance to the village. Thank you. Councillor Fernley. Sorry, Councillor Collins. Sorry, Councillor Collins, go.

04:43:28Just a quickie. Can we have a look at the street from you coming in to see what it looks like? Okay, we'll give Mr. Freeman a minute to get that set up. I'm sorry, Councillor Collins. No, you're not. I'm just a little bit concerned about the consistency of approach has been mentioned earlier when we're talking about sites that come forward for allocation that aren't in green wedges and aren't in national landscapes.

04:43:54And as Councillor Inger mentioned earlier, why are we not allocating those? Because they're not in those designations. I appreciate it's in a coastal protection area, but I just don't see how we can say one thing about one and one thing about the others. so I just sort of wanted to raise that and also as Councillor Howe alluded to earlier if we've got a site that doesn't have those designations and we get to examination and they go well why have you not allocated this you've had the opportunity so I really appreciate the frustrations but I just don't see from sort of a planning policy perspective how we can move on from this Okay thank you Councillor Collins Are you ready Mr Freeman or shall I go to Councillor Hayward first?

04:44:37Pretty much there or there okay mr. Freeman's gonna take us through Street view and then we have Councillor Hayward and Councillor Blakey yes so it is lands this is to the north of meeting Lane this is coming in off the extra road and I thought members wanted to see the entrance into the village from next time what what the members want to see this is the entrance from meeting lane thanks thanks to thanks folks in the gallery council firmly what did you want to see okay okay actually both of them mr. Freeman can you take us down meeting lane please okay apologies I think of meeting lane is the entrance to the village but so this is coming in from meeting Lane anyway so if I just move forward slowly through here the site with the east the original part of the site is on the right hand side isn't it and as we move forward we're coming into the land on the left which was previously agreed for allocation which is gh ed 73

04:46:28So that is already allocated if I move far enough along here I will come to the junction with Nutwell Road this is where our system is way too slow and it's all pixelated do you want to come back to me ok thank you Mr Freeman we will come back to you Councillor Hayward thank you I'm going to echo what Councillor Collins has said so if we cast our mind back You know, this committee has approved 400 dwellings in a greenfield that you'll see off the A35 at Westminster.

04:47:19It's natural beauty. You know, we talked earlier that matters of drainage are not an issue for this committee. That's a matter for the planning consideration when we get to that stage. Most of East Devon looks like this. It's a beautiful place. we all recognize we live in a beautiful part of the world and most of our smaller B roads look like this but actually all you're doing here is extending that sort of section of housing between Nutwell Road and Meeting Lane and this reduced allocation just pushes it up ever so slightly and effectively the view will still be the same you've just extended it a few you know a few meters 10 meters 20 metres, whatever the scale is here, further, but still ostensibly look the same. And this is part of Limston, or actually Woodbury. And I do take the point, digressing slightly, that if I were in Limston, I'd feel quite aggrieved. But you have imposed a policy and a rule that applies to everyone equally. So it might seem out of kilter, but that's the process we've applied. But Limston

04:48:29Is simply moving slightly up you're not coalescing you are simply moving that residential boundary up and taking a bit more of that slice between Meeting Lane and Nutwell Road and once those houses are in the road will pretty much look the same the field will look the same as you approach it I personally have never driven down this road whenever I go into Limston Parish it's via the Exmouth Road and by that point I've driven past the commando base and I'm then approaching Limston that way obviously residents do go down Nutwell Road, they go down Meeting Lane but it's not a significant increase and I can't see given the decisions we've made elsewhere how we can refuse it, it's just this village playing its part, thank you So just to narrate the field you saw with the houses on the right a minute ago, slightly sloping upwards towards those houses.

04:49:31That was the site from, there we go, the site from Meeting Lane there. And then [member of the public] is taking us down Nutwell Road which is the other branch. We'll get there eventually. It's the other side of the tree line, isn't it? You can see it on the left. So that's the street view for you, Councillor Fernley. Councillor Blakey you wish to speak yes thank you chair and actually looking at the the photo I know that road very well the wall on the right is the is the wall to the Nutwell estate and clearly there is there's no other development inside of it other than the property yes this is the road that takes you into Limston but as has already been pointed out it is not resulting in any kind of coalescence with any other community locally and for me so long as and this becomes a planning issue it's not for us the numbers and types of dwellings that have built on that land, I think can be perfectly acceptable. So, for me, the recommendation

04:51:30As put and as written is something that I would be in favour of, and when you come to the vote, and should the initial vote fail, then I will be happy to propose it. Okay, thank you, Councillor Blakey. Is there anything to add from anyone? just conscious of time and both people say yes so Councillor Davey then Councillor Bailey I'll be very quick I couldn't support development of the whole site it is a very large site but this is a relatively small part of that site um and so I feel I can support that thank you Councillor Davey Councillor Bailey to me if I'm looking at that and being consistent with how we moved on from Budleigh I'm not sure I think the landscape impact of that is equivalent to the landscape impact at Budleigh which we moved on from um and the way so I don't know what our landscape um officers said but when you're comparing that with Budleigh both are bad or both will have a negative landscape impact I I think the difference is the Budleigh site is national landscape this site isn't um

04:52:49But I appreciate it's uncomfortable we wouldn't be doing this unless we needed to to meet housing requirement figures we have no control over but um I think compared to other sites it's a similar landscape impact to many other sites that have been accepted and allocated so far okay is it something to add Councillor Ingham I'd quite like to take us to a vote yeah I'd like to take us to the right one chair that's why um I think what's important on this as has been pointed out is that how different is that from a buddy mr Freeman reminded us that this is only a coastal preservation area which we created because We believe that is important, as opposed to a national landscape, which is designated in Whitehall in the 1970s.

04:53:45And I wonder who's right and who's wrong. I think that's equally as beautiful. I think part of the problems you can see there, that comes up to the horizon, doesn't it, the development that exists there. And once you come over that, I think I know what proposals will be coming in five or ten years' time. And the excuse will be, well, you built 40 there, you agreed to 40, then they built 150, and now we want another 250.

04:54:20And that area will be trashed. And it will have been started by a bad decision this evening. okay I would point out national landscapes have far more status in law than coastal preservation areas I take the point but we have no choice in that respect if we're to make a sound decision as far as a planning inspector is concerned but to give more weight to a national landscape than to a CPA with that said I is it desperate Mike I really want to take a vote okay we have a A proposal from Councillor Ingham, seconded by Councillor Parr, to move on from GHED 72.

04:55:06All those in favour, please. Four. All those against. Seven. Okay. So, any abstentions? Okay. In which case, then, that proposal fails. Councillor Blakey, did you wish to propose? Yes, please propose as written. Is that seconding, Councillor Hayward? OK, does anybody wish to speak? OK, we'll go to a vote then on the proposal to allocate the part area of GHED 72 before us today in accordance with the officer's recommendation.

04:55:49All those in favour, please. Seven. Those against. Four. And any abstentions? OK, that proposal is carried then, which brings us next on to GHD74, I believe, if we can go back to HDMI1. Wonderful, thank you very much. Landon Strawberry Hill and [member of the public], the lectern is yours once again. 102 houses for Lipson plus 100 that you allocated at 07, which are going to be dependent on Lipson.

04:56:37We've still only got a few in Budleigh. But anyway, GD74, just to say I'm worried about the flooding here. The site drains into the Harefield stream, which then feeds into the Wottenbrook via Culvert beneath Longmeadow Road. It's a particularly sensitive part of the catchment in terms of flooding, as led to properties being flooded in 2012 and 2014. It was a subject by the Devon County Council, who are the Flood Management Authority, explaining how sensitive this area is, and any development here will be disastrous.

04:57:11Thank you, [member of the public]. Councillor Mentor for the Parish Council. This site was proposed for the initial draft plan consultation where it had a 66% opposition from those who attended and submitted responses. You've heard from Councillor Diamond about the flood risk. That is intrinsic to the area. It's in the coastal protection area, which doesn't seem to have much protection anymore. It has no existing access. A watercourse runs through the centre of it and there's a floodplain there and there were serious concerns about flooding in the original considerations.

04:57:55It is an unsuitable site for development, situated where it is. It will completely destroy the spirit of the place of Limston, as it's the remaining green site as you come into the village now. And with the development of the recent dairy unit over the road at Thorn Farm, The flood risk has increased manifold, as been evidenced in the last six months or so, with runoff from that site.

04:58:23It is completely unsuitable and unsustainable for residential development or employment development.

04:58:30Thank you. Councillor Minter. I'm sorry. Thank you. As we've come into committee, I'm going to take the chair's prerogative to go first and say I agree and will therefore propose that we move on from this site. Do any members wish to speak? No? Okay. We'll go to a vote then. The proposal is to move on from GHED 74. All those in favour, please. That's unanimous.

04:59:01Okay that takes us then just up the road to Woodbury and we start off with wood 10 land at Gilbrook and first public speaker up is a statement from [member of the public] which Wendy has decided that I should read I've just been told Woodo 4 is first I have wood 10 on my list On the report, there might be no public speakers for Wood O4. How about moving Wood O4, move on, because I don't recommend it anyway.

04:59:43Does it matter? No, I'm going to do it my way. We're doing Wood 10. Okay. Statement from [member of the public]. The issue at the heart of this application is how do you make it safe for residents of the proposed 60 houses to access the village on foot? To do this, it is proposed to erect a raised footpath across the already narrow bridge, thus reducing the carriageway to only 3.4 metres wide.

05:00:15This might be OK if the road was straight, but the bridge forms part of an S bend. Local farmers do not think it would be physically possible for them to cross the bridge with their large and legal tractors and trailers without at some point having to mount the pavement, so bringing them into conflict with pedestrians. and the same would be true for large HGVs. Even highways have conceded that to say the mounting of the kerb would never happen would be remiss of us.

05:00:45Yet despite this, highways still claim this arrangement would be better than the present one. As long-time local residents living south of the bridge, we strongly disagree. Currently, the bridge is a shared surface but there are a few houses south of it so not many pedestrians have to cross it. This arrangement, of course, is not ideal, but being a shared surface, we are extra vigilant when using it.

05:01:08Once you erect a pavement, people naturally assume it is a safe space to walk along, so will be less cautious about traffic. This will be even more the case with naive and easily distracted children. Presently, there are only five school children living south of the bridge, but Devon Education estimate this development will produce at least 24 more children of school age as well as younger children. They will not be expecting to be suddenly confronted by a large vehicle mounting the pavement and entering their safe space.

05:01:36And I do not think you need a very vivid imagination to realise that this is an accident waiting to happen. If this was a proposal for a new bridge and pavement and the developers said that across it, larger vehicles would actually have to mount the pavement, highways would instantly reject it. So why is this adaptation acceptable? and if highways really think this is a safe arrangement then why did they go to the trouble of investigating the feasibility of erecting a separate pedestrian bridge alongside the road bridge and it seems this is not the only large-scale application being considered south of the bridge. I know the council is presently caught between a rock and a hard place in trying to meet its housing targets but this proposal is dangerous and pedestrian safety should never be sacrificed in order to meet these targets that was a statement from mr andy douglas next up then we have miss cheryl mcgauley thank you chairman um I um everything andy has said I agree um the difference between andy and I um I had a discussion with the developer on friday um so

05:02:56He said some things that could be really good which would change what I'm saying now but it's not within the proposal so I do not support this um the infrastructure of the road it is in a flood zone it's 100 meters of a listed building there's no safe pedestrian access from the site to the center of the village And those are some of your considerations for a safe site.

05:03:30If you put up the drawing of the field like you did for the one in Knoll or Budleigh, it's exactly the same type of road. And you did look at that slightly differently. So, I'll just summarise. At a planning meeting two weeks ago, East Devon District Council were saying a building shouldn't stay because it's in open countryside using Strategy 7 as a reason to refuse. I believe the decision on this site is that it will go through as East Devon District Council are desperate to get Regulation 18 through to meet the time constraints of Regulation 19.

05:04:21I'm just a layperson. I don't have lawyers. I don't understand the policies, but I do care about where I live and the people that live there. So if you do care, like you said at this meeting and on the meeting of the 9th of September, when considering Wood 10, please don't support it. Wait for the amended planning from the developer that they may do. have a site visit to understand what we are trying to tell you and challenge Devon County Council look at Woodbury strategically and make the sites work for the village or town actually it's nearly a town and you have already given us 130 thank you I would point out some of what you've just said would be for Planning Committee rather than us, but I appreciate there's often some blurred lines there.

05:05:26Next then, Representative from the Parish Council. Good evening, Chairman Committee. Before I make the representation for Woodbury Parish Council, I'd just like to state this is our current view. some of the councillors have had a conversation with the developer but due to time constraints we have not had the opportunity as a parish council to discuss it further. So as I said this is the current view that has been agreed by the parish council.

05:06:03Woodbury Parish Council strongly opposes the allocation of this site a sentiment shared by local residents. Based on our local knowledge, we believe that safe pedestrian and cycle access to the village centre and local amenities via Gilbrook is not feasible. Gilbrook Bridge, which is a narrow, single carriageway with no dedicated footpath, is heavily trafficked by farm and commercial vehicles. It is often used as a cut-through and a diversion route during issues on the A376, leading to increased traffic volume.

05:06:43We dispute Devon County Council highway support for pedestrian and vehicle access, citing poor visibility due to the existing road layout. Furthermore, part of the site is allocated in a flood zone 3 and has high risk of surface flooding. It is important to note that Woodbury Parish Council successfully lobbied for the allocation of two nearby sites, Wood 6, 30 dwellings, and Wood 9 of 28 dwellings, located on either side of Globe Hill.

05:07:17Although officers initially recommended against these allocations, the committee decided to proceed with them due to our support and the backing of the two ward councillors. councillors. The impact of these allocations, along with the nearby Broadway Wood 16 site, which has been allocated with 67 dwellings, will place significant strain on local infrastructure. Broadway is already experiencing issues with speeding, as highlighted in the recent traffic survey. Any allocated sites, including those under consideration by East 7 District Council, must be accompanied by a comprehensive strategic traffic plan.

05:07:57This plan should include suitable village gateways, a 20-mile speed limit, traffic calming measures, and adequate footpaths and controlled crossings to ensure safe pedestrian access to village amenities.

05:08:09Thank you. OK, we then have [member of the public] on behalf of 3West. Good evening, Members, Chairman. Thank you. I'm still, 10 hours later, David Matthews, speaking on behalf of the Landos and developers of the above. We endorse the reintroduction of this site into the Local Plan as a deliverable housing site. Woodbury is a well-serviced settlement and is consistent with the spatial strategy for Woodbury as a local centre to meet local development.

05:08:45We welcome the approach of the Local Planning Authority to deliver in line with national objectives a Local Plan that is fit for purpose. The benefits of a Local Plan are well-documented and offer benefit to both residents, the authority and indeed industry. It is important that an engaged, realistic, challenging, but it is also importantly deliverable. Housing is not a bad thing. The site has been positively promoted by us as applicants in conjunction with professional offices and is subject to a pending outline planning application for 60 homes, which was submitted following encouragement from the local planning authority.

05:09:18This application is presently pending determination with no statutory objections. The development can deliver on-site affordable housing at 35% and associated SIL and on-site public open space, local investment and other benefits. While separate processes, as applicants we have been working proactively with the Parish Council, as has been alluded to you earlier, to improve the offering the development has to local residents. Whilst no highway objection exists to this or the pending outline planning application, we are working collaboratively to deliver an enhanced, dedicated public footpath and, as referenced, improved traffic calming measures within the village over Gillbrook and facilitate wider pedestrian connections to consented sites at Broadway and Wood 10.

05:10:07This has been a clear objective of the Parish Council and we have supported this approach wholeheartedly. other issues such as drainage and heritage are resolved under the submitted application and are deemed acceptable by consortees we are confident though that a positive outcome can be achieved on the different footpath options available and has been discussed and for which will add further benefit to this allocation we welcome the council's assessment of the enclosed site and others listed here too previously discussed and welcome the council readdressing his approach to a proactive approach to housing delivery.

05:10:46As outlined, housing should not be viewed as negative and encourage the Council to review the many positive influences clearly identified that housing brings to local, social and economic environments. Noting the obvious benefit of the scheme, housing, investment, potential off-site highways improvement works, jobs, public open space and a willing landowner and developer, we endorse the recommendation to allocate a sustainable site and allow it to deliver not only for the immediate settlement that would break but the wider district housing need thank you thank you mr. Matthews into committee then I'm going to start by saying I agree with officers recommendation and I'm therefore going to propose it from the chat do any members wish to speak Councillor Yes thanks yeah it's good 12 years ago when East Devon didn't have a a five-year land supply that would be really got hammered by about 100 houses in about between a year and 18 months. Bear in mind what you were told earlier that you know they have recognised they helped this authority identify two sites there's a third one owned by Clinton Devon

05:12:04Estates that's already gone through on outline approval so there's a significant number of dwellings being built adjacent to what we already and they are in close proximity actually to the village center which makes them sustainable you heard the concerns about pedestrian access to to the village not really if you've gone over that bridge you you think that there's gonna be you know perhaps a hundred more people going on there within 48 hours 24 hours say 50 of them then that really is an increased risk and we all have problems with sewage we always have we'll have problems with flood water but just take a look at that map okay so um to the north west of that diagram we've allocated a site already you know we agreed on the third of September I think it was to the immediate north of that we've also allocated a site and we've also given outline planning permission already to want to they further to the east of that so the effect on that floodplain is going to be dramatic already so I'm really

05:13:42Asking you to think twice about allocating this site mainly on pedestrian access and that hasn't that's not a given yet you know and also that floodplain we're going to create huge problems if we allocate this site before the others have been built out and that we can learn from that so that's why um I I wouldn't be agreeing with your proposal chair thank you Councillor Ingham members Councillor How I always get annoyed with this and Councillor Bailey will know where I'm coming from when proposals are made that are contrary to the statutory body's advice which is highways highways say there's no issue none whatsoever and unqualified people are saying there are an issue now I know the planning committee have done it once or twice and gone against official advice and you know expert advice we should not be we are evidence based we need to do it on evidence we cannot possibly refuse this on highways grounds when the highways authority fully supported.

05:15:00So that's the first bit. And the second, well, yes, Woodbury asked for a couple of other sites. They wanted them against officers' advice. Unfortunately, these are the sites that were recommended by officers, and we should still be considering, regretfully, because they are the better sites to deliver. There's no landscape impact. There's nothing at all against this site to allow it to go through. nothing flooding well flood zone on the edge and as we know mitigation is always put in for all sites to make it no worse so mitigation has to be put in but that's a standard planning proviso I am absolutely getting more frustrated with no reason being put forward or reasons that are absolutely not you know in the remit we can take sorry thank you Councillor How do any other members wish to comment okay well in that case Councillor Jess bailey no I was just going to slightly disagree but Councillor How because actually I think we're not in the situation where um we're we're not in planning committee and we it's right I'm not necessarily saying I agree with Councillor Ingham

05:16:26But it's right that we bring forward our own views as local experts to inform where we choose to allocate sites there's no mandatory decision you know we're not forced to only listen to Devon County Council and you know highways authorities including Devon County Council do get things wrong from time to time so I think you know our views are important and I think if we have concerns it's right we raise them regardless of what the statutory authority may say and I'm not just not clear on this how the the pavement or the safe access across that bridge is actually going to be achieved I'm not familiar with the planning application but I think that I'm always worried as a Devon county Councillor About highway safety regardless of what the dcc highways officers say And I think even at planning stage, it's open to planning committees to disregard and can still be successful even at appeal when highway authorities don't object to planning applications.

05:17:27Thank you. Okay. If there are any other comments on this site specifically, rather than getting into a debate about highway authorities, Jeff, is it something to add? Just to add that I've had an email from the developer, and he believes that they can overcome the pedestrian access into the village. Which is, of course, a matter for planning committee rather than us today. Yeah, but the objections that are coming through is highways, and I've been told from the developer that they've got two possible, very reliable alternatives to resolve the situation that the parish council fear.

05:18:18So I was put in a difficult position today that I've been told that by the developers and the Parish Council are saying that they're not aware of that. So I just want the committee to be made aware that there are a solution that has come forward. Okay, I'm going to take us to a vote on the allocation because ultimately that's a matter for planning committee rather than for us today.

05:18:48So the proposal is to allocate Wood 10. All those in favour, please. Six. Those against? Those abstaining? Five. OK, that proposal is carried then. Next on my list, I don't know about anybody else's list, but next on my list is Wood 20. What's next on?

05:19:16Yeah okay all right well um we'll go we'll go back to the running order that's in the other papers shall we then and go back to wood 04 and I will just have to jump around and that's fine uh the only public speaker we have registered for this site is Woodbury parish council any comments to add sorry mr chairman you caught us all out of out of um out of preparation here. My name is [name removed]. I'm speaking on behalf of the Woodbury Parish Council, which opposes the allocation of this site and supports the officer's report and recommendation. The site poses a risk to heritage assets and consists of Grade 2 agricultural land. Additionally, it is situated within a high-pressure gas pipeline zone, which is inconsistent with the strategy. We have safety concerns regarding access onto Globe Hill, the B3179. If this committee decides to allocate the site, despite the officer's recommendations, our observations and our observations, it is essential that a strategic traffic plan is developed. This plan should address the vicinity of other allocated sites including suitable village gateways, a 20 mile

05:20:54An hour speed limit, traffic calming measures as well as appropriate footpaths, controlled crossings to ensure pedestrian safety in the village and access to amenities. Thank you Chairman. Thank you Councillor Perry. I'm going to, well do you want to do it Jeff? Move on. I'll second that. Do any members wish to speak? No. Okay. The proposal from Councillor Jung, seconded by Councillor Olive, is to move on from Wood 04. All those in favour, please.

05:21:28That's unanimous. Okay. [member of the public], what's next on the slide? Number 11. Okay. Number 11 then. Again, Parish Council. Good evening, Chair and Committee members. Speaking on behalf of Woodbury Parish Council, Wilbury Parish Council opposes the allocation of the site and supports the officer's report and recommendation. We have significant concerns regarding the safety of access onto the A3179, particularly due to the narrow entrance and visibility issues, especially with the presence of speeding traffic.

05:22:08If this committee considers allocating the site despite the officers' recommendations and our concerns, it is imperative to deliver a strategic traffic plan. This plan should account for the proximity of other allocated sites and includes suitable village gateways, a 20-mile-an-hour speed limit, traffic calming measures, as well as appropriate footpaths and controlled crossings to ensure safe pedestrian access to the village amenities.

05:22:36Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I will propose from the Chair, in accordance with the Officer's recommendation, that we move on. Do any members wish to speak? Okay, we'll go to a vote on that then. All those in favour of the proposal to move on? That's unanimous. Okay, which brings us then to? Would 12, do the Parish Council have anything to add to Officer recommendation? or in view of time, are you happy that we are?

05:23:10OK, in which case then we have the landowner, [member of the public]. Good evening, everybody. We're promoting Wood 12, land to the east of Hyre-Venmore Farm. The land covers 8.1 hectares and has been put forward as part of a call for sites. Parish told us it scored well, coming third at their initial public meeting, discussing all of Woodbury's sites. Ultimately, members have so far chosen not to allocate, as it is felt that the scale of development should the entire field be developed would be inconsistent with the spatial strategy when combined with other sites that are coming forward in Woodbury. Some concerns have also been raised re-landscape sensitivity given that the land rises to the south.

05:23:57Nonetheless the location of this land close to the centre of Woodbury and abutting preferred allocated sites suggest there is further merit in considering Wood 12. Our latest thinking in lighter feedback is that the northernmost part of Wood 12 could be allocated for housing. A smaller site could still make a meaningful contribution to the significant housing shortfall that has been identified and will result in a scale of development that is more proportionate and consistent with each Devon strategy. We sent you an email with our planning thoughts on this and we have produced this plan indicatively as a reduced area for allocation which we have called Wood 12A, covering about a third of Wood 12. The merits of Wood 12A are it abuts the boundaries of Wood 10 and 16, which have been identified as preferred housing sites, and allocating all three sites would enable a more strategic, comprehensive approach to be taken. This will be particularly beneficial in terms of pedestrian connectivity, which you have heard today is a very hot topic. There is an approved footpath on our land running parallel to the northern

05:25:06Boundary of the site. We're already liaising with local developers promoting allocated sites who would also benefit from this pedestrian link to Broadway, over which there will be a new pedestrian crossing as part of the Wood 16 development, substantially improving pedestrian links to the village. Wider community benefits would be allocating additional land creates opportunities to develop a more affordable housing on-site and other services, infrastructure, community facilities for the village. A doctor's surgery and allotments, for example, have been suggested and we could explore these opportunities as part of a mixed-use development. The digital land could also deliver usable open space, biodiversity gains, etc. We know that obligations of this type can often be difficult to accommodate, which results in a less joined-up financial contributions in place of on-site provision. Allocating 12A, in addition to Wood 10 and 16, would create logical opportunities for a more comprehensive growth and delivery at a pace to suit the village. Wood 12A is on lower ground than the rest of 12, and therefore has much lower landscape sensitivity. Any future planning application will be supported by

05:26:19Robust landscape and visual impact analysis. In conclusion, please reassess this revised site as it offers synergy and solutions with strong benefits that can help deliver homes in our community. Thank you very much. Thank you [member of the public]. I have seen a wave from the corner. I've got to say I'm minded to just propose that we move on from the chair. If you're dying to speak then okay or if committee think they might rebel against officer recommendation. Thanks Chairman.

05:26:57Just to say that Woodbury Parish Council opposes the allocation and supports the officers' report. If this committee chooses to allocate, even in later on, even partially, we do insist that the remaining is left as agricultural land or ideally given to a SANGs area. Obviously, Wood 16 has been allocated, Wood 10 has been allocated, and the infrastructure and the impact to the village and amenities.

05:27:25Thank you. Okay, thank you. Coming into committee then, I am going to propose that we move on from this site from the Chair. Do any members wish to speak? Councillor Ingham. Yes, Chair, I'm not going to fight your proposal or oppose it. I just want to point out to you, as has been said, this site is immediately adjacent to 10 and 17. you know and the the owners and agents happen to be here sorry one's gone nothing and we've had an outline application that's to the northeast of the diagram that's been allocated the other side of the floodplain you know to the east of the floodplain and you just saw the site 10 that we discussed and that's gone forward so I'm really puzzled and this is where I believe the public get angry with us, I'm really puzzled that officers have said no to this site which is not in a greenway, it's not in a coastal preservation area, it's not in a national landscape yet they were saying there's choice number one for Exmouth

05:28:50Which will be for commuters the new commuter belt that we've just created this morning but this one officers say no that this is what upsets people and that there's the hypocrisy of saying well this one's in the green wedge, is it? Oh no but we're thinking of creating, adding it to the green wedge but the one that is in the green wedge and is the coastal preservation area you're recommending approval it's this hypocrite hypocrisy and strategic inadequacy that people take exception to so you know carry on with your proposal but you sound I'll leave it at that questionable in your logic on what we've discussed you know from this morning to this evening. Councillor Yeung. I think the answer for not proposing wood 12 would be that enough is enough in Woodbury.

05:30:04They've proposed two, they brought two sites forward, 06 and 09. Reluctantly we've had to go with Woodbury 10. Woodbury 16 has already been approved so Woodbury 12 would be possibly too much for a village and I think that would be the justification for not going forward with this proposal. Thank you.

05:30:30Thank you Councillor Jung. Sorry I'm chuckling. My phone activated Google Assistant there and searched for counselling which I thought was interesting Councillor Howe yeah just to pick up on Councillor Jung's point I think he's dead right I mean I think Councillor Jung's point though this would have been a wonderful master plan if it was done originally you know the three sites together put together would have been a fabulous master plan for Woodbury but that's not the situation we're now in and a neighbourhood plan could have done that as well And that would have solved would be an awful lot of heartache, which is a damn shame that we are where we are.

05:31:14We are where we are. Does anybody have anything to add about this site specifically? OK, we'll go to a vote then. The proposal is to move on from wood 12. All those in favour, please. That's unanimous. OK, we come then to drumroll, please. I must say that's not the number I expected to see next on that slide but there we go we will roll with it as they say. Parish Council anything to add you're the only registered speakers for this one so no curveballs coming in. Thank you Chairman Committee. Woodbury Parish Council opposes the allocation of this site and fully supports the officers report and recommendation.

05:32:04This site serves as a valuable amenity space, featuring a dedicated dog walking area, a community orchard, as well as a well-regarded cricket pitch and club. The loss of this amenity would be significant, negatively impacting the well-being of Woodbury residents and causing adverse ecological consequences. Additionally, Town Lane is narrow and lacks pavement for most of its length making access to the primary school particularly dangerous The absence of a footpath combined with narrow sections, visibility issues and its use as a rat run poses significant risks, especially to children There is also a high risk of surface water flooding in Town Lane As previously said, if this committee does consider allocating the site against officers' recommendation and our observations, we do urge as a condition that suitable central village location be provided by the landowner as an alternative equivalent amenity space to compensate for the loss.

05:33:13Furthermore, a scheme for safe pedestrian access and traffic calming measures must be a condition of any allocation. Thank you. OK, thank you. I will propose again that we move on from this site. The idea of building houses on a cricket pitch is slightly ludicrous to me. So I'll propose in the chair that we move on. Does anybody want to argue with that?

05:33:36Councillor Hayward you're a brave man it's not an argument Jerry just I suppose it's it's a point to be made that quite often during this process I've been asked how the hell did that site end up in here and the fact is someone submitted it so for every piece of land we're considering someone in the communities we're dealing with has felt that they're better off selling their land for development than they are providing community amenities it's it's that's that's for them to make that decision but I quite agree to give up a cricket field a piece of amenity land simply for another 81 houses perhaps if I was the owner of it I'd have a different view but I support your proposal chair point well made Councillor Hayward okay we'll go to a vote on this one then the proposal is to move on from wood 37 all those in favor please that's unanimous and what number is next wood 20 we're really redefining mathematics today aren't we okay so I'm going backwards in my

05:34:46Notes very good wood 20 uh parish council good evening chairman once again I'm ken perry I'm

05:35:21Speaking on behalf of Woodbury Parish Council, we oppose the allocation of this site and agree with the officer's report highlighting that the key negative impact is the narrowness of Town Lane which lacks pavements for most of its length. Access to the primary school from this site is particularly hazardous due to the absence of footpaths, narrow widths, pinch points and visibility issues. The situation poses significant dangers to children especially since the lane is frequently used as a rat run. Additionally there is a high surface water flooding in town lane from this site. If the committee considers allocating the site despite our concerns we strongly urge approval be conditional on implementing a safety pedestrian access and traffic calming measures additionally since the landowner is the same for the adjacent site wood 37 which is also has just been allocated if our notes were in the right order so moved on from we request that the landowner considered safeguarding wood 37 in its entirety as an amenity space.

05:36:49Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Councillor Perry. [member of the public], the site you've been waiting for, I assume.

05:37:03Thanks, Chair, committee. We support the proposal by officers to allocate the site for dwellings. This is a well-enclosed infill site, well within the settlement boundary. It's able to be developed out without any harm to the cricket pitch to the north. And just for the avoidance of doubt, my clients are not proposing any development whatsoever in the cricket pitch area. So that would be protected. Hopefully you've seen the layout which we circulated to you, I think, a few days ago.

05:37:44And that was just an illustrative layout to show how the site could be developed in a sort of careful way with the appropriate green infrastructure and enclosure around it. We know the parish council's concerns about pedestrian access, but would simply observe that there is pavements a short distance away. I think in both directions, which connects via the normal pavement network to the village centre and onwards to the schools.

05:38:14Access under Broadway and also I think via Park Close. This represents a very simple, good infill site which can help you provide you with the numbers, provide some affordable housing and to do so with minimal harm to the character of the area. I would therefore ask you to continue with officers' recommendation and to allocate the site.

05:38:38Thank you, [member of the public]. I'm going to propose from the chair officers' recommendation in this instance. I sympathise with concerns about pedestrian safety I simply disagree in this instance um there we go that's all I've really got to say on that one um so members Councillor Ingham then Councillor Jung thank you chair you'll remember back in august we had the um informal consultations between officers and parish council representatives and ward members and I do recall at that time when Woodbury Parish said well we're happy with three of these sites but we're not happy with what was Wood 10 which we've allocated and they said well you know um wood 20's got to be up there what are you going to do and so they that they did the one that's near the arch and it looks like wood 10's coming forward um council young said it earlier I'm saying now back off you know they've they've really allocated a lot stop it it's not necessary we haven't got targets but if there was one we've already exceeded it so stop it this one

05:40:04Should be rejected or moved on. Thank you, Councillor Ingham. Councillor Jung, did I see your hand a minute ago? Yeah, certainly the lane, town lane, is used as a rat run. It is a direct line from there down to the school. and I would agree it is not a safe road so I would support the Parish Council's view that this shouldn't go forward OK, thank you Councillor Jung do any other members wish to speak?

05:41:02No, OK, in which case the substantive proposal in front of us is to allocate the site we'll go to a vote on that one, all those in favour please, I count five, those against I count five first time ever and for completeness abstentions one abstention I am going to look to legal at that point chair's casting vote, well there we go the allocation's made then in that view so we move on to the next site Wood 23 which I do not remember seeing in my papers yet ah there we are, the Parish Council Good evening Chair and Councillors Steve Park speaking on behalf of Woodbury Parish Council Woodbury Parish Council opposes the allocation of this site and supports the officers report and recommendation this site lacks safe pedestrian access as there are no footpaths along this stretch of the A3179 which is a 60 mile an hour zone and prone to speeding traffic. Consequently this site would pose significant dangers to pedestrians, is isolated and is located some distance from village amenities. If this committee

05:42:33Considers allocating the site against the officers recommendations and our concerns it is crucial to implement a strategic traffic plan. This plan should address the vicinity of other allocated sites and include suitable village gateways, a 20 mile an hour speed limit, traffic calming measures as well as appropriate footpaths and controlled crossings to ensure safe pedestrian access to village amenities. Thank you. Thank you. I see Councillor Jung's hat. My wife refused to cycle up to this when she's delivering leave routes for me so I have to do it it's really dangerous but that is Broadway and it's people I know it's a 30 limit but people are zooming past at 70 80 miles an hour it would be ridiculous to approve this site with access onto that onto that road so So definitely, I would propose that we move on with this item. Thank you.

05:43:47Okay, that's a proposal. Councillor Blakey, are you seconding? I am. No further comment.

05:43:52Thank you. Okay, do any other members wish to speak? No, okay, in which case the proposal from Councillor Jung, seconded by Councillor Blakey, is to move on from Wood 23. All those in favour, please. that's unanimous we come then to is it word 24 yes there we go word 24 uh first up we have um miss helen I'm sorry I'm going to mispronounce this gut shock I was close very close I feel like I'm one of the last people standing having arrived here at quarter to nine so I'll make it brief. So my concerns start with the fact that Wood 24 is outside the village built up area boundary. As we've heard throughout the whole day I'm also very worried about the sewage system. As we've just noted we've got at least 180 extra houses already allocated to Woodbury. Can it cope with anymore um the access was subjected to by the highways originally um because um wood 24 would come out onto castle lane so they've suggested that um access is through weber's meadow um however those cars still have to go up or down castle lane um average ownership of cars

05:45:27Is 1.22 cars per household so that would mean perhaps an extra 60 cars every day going up and down Castle Lane there's the school at one end which is a real pinch point already, it's a single track almost, the other end so I'm just struggling to see how that would work in reality and finally I'd like to petition on behalf of the wildlife that I have recorded on a daily basis there's black caps, green woodpeckers great spotted woodpeckers tawny owls at least four different hedgehogs all visit my house and my garden which is adjacent to the field and I fear that they're all going to be lost thank you thank you and thank you for waiting the parish council Good evening Chair and councillors again, Steve Park speaking on behalf of Woodbury Parish Council.

05:46:36Woodbury Parish Council opposes the allocation of this site and supports the officers' report and recommendation. There is a Grade 1 listed church and ex-estuary beyond to the west. Overall, high medium landscape sensitivity to development. This site level of development is too high for the spatial strategy for Woodbury. If this committee was mindful of allocating this site, there needs to be traffic calming measures, suitable village gateways, a 20-mile-an-hour speed limit and safe pedestrian access to village amenities.

05:47:11Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Parks. Members, Councillor Jung. Move on. Do I have a seconder? Everyone. Can everyone second it, Mr Hunter? I think I saw Councillor Ingham's hand first, so we'll roll with that. Does anybody wish to say anything further? No? OK. In which case the proposal is to move on from Wood 24. All those in favour, please. That's unanimous. Next up, 47. Ah, 47. OK.

05:47:57Land of Pound Lane, Woodbury, and we have the Parish Council. Chairman and committee. Wilbury Parish Council opposes the allocation of the site and supports the officers' report and recommendation. The site would negatively impact the landscape and result in the loss of a Grade 2 agricultural land which is among the best and most versatile. Additionally, the site does not offer safe and convenient access to the village amenities.

05:48:28If this committee considers allocating the site despite the officers' recommendation and our concerns we urge that the scheme for safe pedestrian access and traffic calming measures be made a condition of any allocation. Furthermore, we request that provisions for an extension of the nearly full adjacent full cemetery be included in the plans. Thank you.

05:48:49Thank you. I'm going to stir your thunder, Councillor Jung, and propose that we move on from this site. Do any members wish to add anything? I was just going to say I've got grave concerns for this one. Very good. Can we have a motion of no confidence in normal committee members? Okay. The proposal then is to move on from this site. All those in favor, please. That's unanimous.

05:49:23Okay. Which brings us then, I think, to child stock, unless the almighty PowerPoint tells me otherwise. No, child stock indeed. Okay. So we start with site Char 04, which has no registered speakers, but if Councillor Mackinder has a burning desire to say something. Right, good evening. Due to time constraints, the Charlestock Parish Council have not had time to discuss, and their representative who planned to attend today has had to cancel due to being unwell, so you're left with me.

05:50:11I was content to support the parish council in accepting the original recommendation for 30 dwellings on Char O4A. I note and agree with the reasons officers do not recommend the extension to this site. I also feel the committee should consider that the neighbourhood plan designation for Charstock is that Charstock is not a sustainable community and thus not suitable for larger-scale developments. Whilst Charstock is reported to have public transport, that is on the A358 Axminster to Charred Road and not within the village.

05:50:43From the site entrance to the nearest bus stop, is a little over 1,100 metres. I've used Google, Councillor Hayward. So within the 1,600 metre limit, however, a significant section is along an unlit single-track road with no footpath. I've tried walking that campaigning, but I doubt that many will brave that walk on a regular basis to do the things you would normally use to get the bus for.

05:51:15And so that will lead to more traffic by public transport I would therefore not be in favour of extending the allocation of this site. Thank you Thank you Councillor Mackinder Councillor Hayward or should that be Councillor Google Maps Other mapping software might be available So I supported the initial allocation of this smaller portion of this. I am a former clerk and ward member to Chargestock um and in the base on the basis of that child stock is doing its bit it's playing a part to what the uh district is having to do um but I can't I can't find myself in my heart to support the the extension of the site and within the report I think page 598 it says that the 30 allocations or the 30 dwellings approved may well have to come down to 24 because of HELAA standard density calculations um so be it then child stock is still doing its part but I I don't think there's justification for doing more given that you are in an area of uh natural landscape there is

05:52:29Very few amenities appreciate there are some but there's very few and that's a bone of contention um yeah there's no street lights there's no pavements it's it's a very limited settlement It itself argues it shouldn't have been a tier four, but that's where it finds itself. So I'm happy to support what Councillor Mackinder said and move on from this proposal, but retain 4A as the allocation.

05:52:58Thank you. Just for absolute clarity, was that proposal to move on, Councillor Hayward? OK. Seconded by Councillor Ingham, is that? Yeah. OK. Do any other members wish to speak? Councillor Bailey? Can I just ask how many have been allocated for 4A? I think that's 30, isn't it? Yes, it was, yes, 30. OK, any other members wish to speak? Councillor Ingham? Yes, Chair, I just gave a nod to Mr Freeman because I remember when we were going through the last Local Plan how Councillor Andrew Moulding was saying how charlestock was sustainable and the local community was saying no it isn't and I have to go along with what Councillor Hayward has said it's absolutely right this is not appropriate thank you John thank you Councillor Ingham okay we have a proposal to move on validly made and seconded so we'll go to a vote on that one or those in favour of moving on from Char 04b, please?

05:54:15That's unanimous, which brings us then to the last site of the day, Char 07. Councillor Mackinder, do you wish to say anything?

05:54:35Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to record that I agree with the officers' recommendations not to allocate this site. though I noticed that what I see there is it says Char 07 is up for up to nine dwellings I didn't recognise that when I read the report I thought the recommendation was to not accept this site and I certainly wouldn't think it should be accepted thank you yes apologies members the site is incorrect the recommendation is not to allocate this site as has been pointed out it's within the national landscape within the conservation area within the historic core of the village and therefore not recommended for allocation how on earth does that happen Councillor Hayward thank you I'm happy to propose uh the uh to support the office recommendation if members just would like to look at page 601 just for context there's a lower picture there which says site behind treed boundary on centre right of image opposite cemetery you'll see a dog bin bright red dog bin uh when the parish council installed that

05:55:54Dog bin we received 30 or so letters I recall as their clerk claiming we had desecrated the entire village and ruined its character it is beautiful part of the village it's on the way out towards holy city not the holy city the holy sea isn't there but furthermore in that area of greenery um I think highline cut some branches about five years ago and again just elicited huge amounts of public anger and ire and attendance at parish council meetings so happy to support council officers recommendation not to allocate thank you chair seconding moving on Councillor Ingham yes on a proviso chair that when the minutes are presented at whichever meeting now for this meeting at least two people ought to go through, one changes it and one vets it because there's so many mistakes in here and we can't crawl through the minutes at the next meeting someone has to do this properly otherwise we're going to look like idiots I can reassure you all of us here on the front table have our own record of exactly what's

05:57:11Happening the YouTube will reflect it as well the minutes are checked by probably half a dozen people including whoever they're written by an awful lot goes into making sure those are spot-on I will go through the PowerPoint and just make sure the rest of it is accurate for Friday and apologies yes OK, we have a proposal validly made and seconded to move on from Charo 7. All those in favour, please.

05:57:42That's unanimous. I'm adjourning this meeting until 10 o'clock on Friday morning.